wrote a book about john edwards and relationship with john edwards. "wall street journal," stress rises on social security. we talked about the trustees report on medicare, social security said the trustees said that reserves for the fund that pays disability benefits would be extempted by 2016, two years earlier than projected. and the disability fund were combined with the larger fund that pays retire benefits, all reserves will be exhausted by 2033. .

this is appalling. we don't have a chance to even have the respect we should have for the president. and, boy, when they say -- host: i think we got your point, roberta. diana, republican, california. caller: i would like to say in regards to the gentleman who spoke previously in your segment that you can be targeted simply by crossing the street illegally, jaywalking. i am a caucasian and my caucasian sanjay walked in santa clara and he was cited by the police. now, he was not asked for his documents but he had to go to court. it's not just that they will be

targeting. it happens to everyone. and i do i think we can exclude people simply because of their color if they are going to be targeted. guest: a person with a mustache, a person with dark hair. caller: suspicious is a very vague word. if a police officer stopped me and said he wanted to see my identification papers, the first thing i would say to him is i would like to see yours. i want to make sure you're a policeman and not someone just simply dressed in uniform.

host: we will have the former

governor of massachusetts's commence after all the polls close in those five primary states today. go to our website, c-span.org, for more programs deals on that. also on the presidential race. new poll out in arizona. here's from the morrison institute that did the poll at the university of arizona state university. host: and then on the congress front in the congressional races. speaker john boehner in an interview with fox news that is going to air today said the house is in play. the ohio lawmaker put the odds at 2-1 that the g.o.p. will be running the house in 013. and then the "new york times"

said -- host: in the primaries today, pennsylvania holding one of the five states holding a primary, and the pennsylvania map picked two democrats in the primary against each other. jason altmire and mark criths are the race to watch -- critz are the ones to lose. chantilly, virginia, go ahead, john, with your thoughts. open phones. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to say that actually immigration, there is a problem. the problem is no one wants to stand up. as an immigrant who came to this country, there's a lot of good things that immigrants can bring to this country but the problem is those breaking the laws should be punished.

as they do. if they commit a crime, they should be dealt immediately. the republicans feel they want to use the immigration -- to use them when they -- when they're building the houses, cutting the grass, all these things. here is a democrat, if you vote for me, i'll make you about immigration. this country needs to step up. the problem we have is politicians who are using both sides to gain votes. this is the problem. as a good politician is, look at the issues as they solve the problem that the country has. host: all right, paul. paul is next, he's in greenwood, arkansas. independent. caller: yes. on the social security and medicare problem would be easily fixed and all we need to do is increase the cap. and then if the politicians

want to borrow money from social security and medicare or use some of that money, well, they take it off budget, make it a separate fund. and for the immigration, find employees and there will be no benefits, no government benefits. e verification. government workers would have to everify. easily solved if both parties are here illegal you're illegal and that can be changed with an amendment to the constitution. born in the united states is not good enough to be citizens. you have to be born of legal immigrants or the legal citizens. host: all right. gracie, democratic call, richmond, virginia. caller: yes. i just don't understand, and maybe i'm not diagnose any other group gets deported is

mexicans or anyone that looks like that. medicare has never been free. i pay 140 dollars a month for medicare. and i understand why people can't get that in their heads that medicare has never been ever free. and four times more than when i was working. caller: yes, god bless c-span. this is a very simple election. obama's going to give them amnesty, period, obama will give them amnesty if he's elected. this is the most crucial election in our lives. second comment. fast and furious, when all this comes out, nixon was impeached. there was a border agent killed

and when that comes out, and it will, somebody's heads are going to roll. host: afghanistan, here's the headline in "the wall street journal" -- host: and in "the washington post" -- host: and he will be at the

university of north carolina around 1:00 eastern time talking about student a lot interest rates that are set to double in july. kalamazoo, michigan, seth, independent, go ahead. caller: hi. just want quick comment. i support the state -- "washington journal" airs live every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. we're going live to president obama at the university of north carolina where he is trying to get congress to stop interest rates on student loans from increasing. 27.4 million students with federal loans will see their interest rates double july 1 if we don't have congressional action.

[applause] >> thank you. hello, north carolina. oh, what's up, tar heels? [cheers and applause] first of all, i want to thank dominique for that unbelievable introduction. wasn't she great? [cheers and applause] you can tell she will be an outstanding teacher. and -- [laughter] i love you back. i do. i love north carolina. i love north carolina. every time i come down to this state i feel like i'm home. the thing about north carolina

is even the folks who don't vote for me are nice to me. [applause] you know, i can't say that about every place. now, i want to issue a quick spoiler alert. later today i am getting together with jimmy fallon and the dave matthews band right here on campus. we're going to tape jimmy's show for tonight. i want you to tune in. make sure it has high ratings. the dave matthews band right here. we got some wonderful people who are here who are doing a great job for you guys. first off, your governor, beth, is in the house. give her a big round of applause. [applause]

you have your congressman, david price. congressman g.k. butterfield. congressman brad miller. chanceler of u.n.c. it is great to be back on the lady tar heels home court. this is an arena with some serious hoops history. i know the men's team used to play here back in the day. i just want to remind you right off the bat, i picked u.n.c. to win it all in march madness.

[cheers and applause] and if kendall hadn't gotten hurt, you know, who knows where we might have been. i saw mcadoo at the airport. he came by and said hello. i just want you to know that i have faith in you guys. now, it's always good to begin with some easy applause lines talking about the tar heels. but the reason i came to chapel hill today is to talk about what most of you do your every single day and that's study, i assume. higher education is the single most important investment you can make in your future.

[applause] so i'm proud of all of you for doing what it takes to make that investment. for the long hours in the library, i hope. in the lab, in the classroom. this has never been more important. and whether you're here a four-year university or at a two-year college, there is nothing better than a good education. [applause] right now the unemployment rate for americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. the income of folks with a college degree are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma.

a higher education is the clearest path not middle class. -- into the middle class. now -- [applause] now, i know that those of you who are about to graduate are wondering about what's in store for your future. not even four years ago just as the global economy was about to enter into freefall, you were still trying to find your way around campus and you spent your years here at a time when the whole world has been trying to recover but has not yet fully recovered from the worst economic crisis since the great depression. the worst economic depression in most of our lifetimes and that is your teachers. our businesses have added more than four million jobs over the past two years, but we know there are still too many americans looking for work or finding a job to pay for the

bills and feed the mouths. we are too many folks in the middle class that are searching for that security that started slipping away years before the recession hit. so we still have a lot of work to do to rebuild this economy so that it lasts. so that it's solid. so that it's firm. but what i want you to know is the degree you earn from u.n.c. will be the best tool you have to achieve that basic american promise. you do well to raise a family, send your own kids to college, put a little away for retirement, that american dream is within your reach. the idea that each generation is going to know a little bit more opportunity than the last generation. that our kids -- i can tell you

now as a parent -- and i guarantee you your parents feel this about you, nothing's more important than your kids' success. you want them to do better than you do. you want them to shoot higher, strive more and succeed beyond your imagination. so keeping that promise alive is the defining issue of our time. i don't want this to be a country where a shrinking number of americans are doing really, really well but a growing number of people are just struggling to get by. that's not my idea of america. i don't want that future for you. i don't want that future for my daughters. i want this forever. to be a country where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody is playing by the

same set of rules. that's the america i know and love. that's the america within our reach. i think back to my grandfather. he had a chance to go to college because this country decided every returning veteran of world war ii should be able to afford it. should be able to go to college. my mother was able to raise two kids by herself because she was able to get grants and work her way through school. i am only standing here today. michelle is only who she is today because -- [applause] because of scholarships and student loans. that gave us a shot at a great

education. we didn't come from family with means. but we knew that if we worked hard we'd have a shot. this country has always made a commitment to put a good education within the reach of all who are willing to work for it. that's what makes us special. that's what made us the economic superpower. that's what kept us in the forefront of business and business and technology and medicine and math. [inaudible] now, everybody will give lip service to this. you'll hear a lot of folks, yeah, education's important and it's important, but it requires not just words but deeds.

and the fact is that since most of you were born, tuition and fees at america's colleges have more than doubled. and that forces students like you to take out a lot more loans, there are fewer grants, you rack up more debt. can i get an amen? >> amen! >> now the average student who borrows to pay for college now graduates with about $25,000 in student loan debt. that's the average. some are more. can i get an amen pour that? >> amen! >> some folks have more debt than that. >> amen! [laughter]

>> americans now own more on their student loans than their credit cards. and living with that kind of debt means that this generation's not getting off to the same start than previous generations because you're already loaded up with debt. that means you have to make pretty tough choices when you're starting out. you may have to put off buying a house. it might mean you can't, you know, go after that great idea for a startup that you have because you're still paying off loans. maybe you got to wait longer to start a family or save for retirement. when a big chunk of every paycheck goes towards loan debt, that's not just tough on you. that's not just tough for middle-class families. it's not just tough on your parents. it's painful for the economy. >> amen! >> because that money won't help businesses grow. think about the sooner you can start buying a house, that's

good for the housing industry. the sooner you can start up that business, that means you're hiring some folks. that grows the economy. >> amen! >> and this is something that michelle and i know something about firsthand. i just wanted everybody here to understand, this is not -- i didn't just read about this. [laughter] i didn't just get some talking points about this. i didn't just get a policy briefing on this. michelle and i, we've been in your shoes. like i said, we didn't come from wealthy families. when we graduated from college and law school we had a mountain of debt. when we married, we got poor together.

we -- we added up our assets and there were no assets and we added up our liabilities and there were a lot of liabilities. basically in the form of student loans. we paid more in student loans than we paid on our mortgage when we finally did buy a condo for the first eight years of our marriage. we were paying more in student loans than what we were paying for our mortgage. so we know what this is about and we were lucky to have a steady income. but we only finished paying off our student loans, check this out, all right. i'm the president of the united states. [laughter] [cheers and applause] we only finished paying off our

student loans off about eight years ago. that wasn't that long ago. and that wasn't easy especially because when we had our kids we were supposed to be saving up for their college education and we're still paying off our college education. so we have to make college more affordable for our young people. that's the bottom line. and like i said, look, not everybody's going to go to a four-year college or university. you may go to a community college. you may go to a technical school and get into the work force and it may turn out that after you had kids and you're 35 you go back to school because you're retraining for something new. but no matter what it is, no matter what field you're in, you're going to have to engage in life-long learning. that's the nature of the economy today, and we got to make sure that's affordable.

that's good for the country. it's good for you. at this make or break moment for the middle class, we got to make sure that you're not saddled with debt before you even get started. in life. [applause] because i believe college isn't just one of the best investments you can make in your future. it's one of the best investments america can make in our future. this is important for all of us. we can't -- not at a time when most new jobs in america will require more than a high school deplomea. -- diploma. whether it's at a four-year college or two-year program, we can't make higher education a luxury. it's an economic imperative. every american family should be able to afford it. so -- so that's why i'm here.

now, before i ask for your help, i am going to get very specific. north carolina, indulge me. i want to tell you what we already done to help make college more affordable because we've done a lot. before i took office, we had a student loan system where tens of billions of taxpayer dollars were going to banks, not students. they were processing student loan programs except the student loans were federally guaranteed so they weren't taking any big risks but they were still taking billions of dollars out of the system. so we changed it. some in washington fought tooth and nail to protect the status quo where billions of dollars were going to banks instead of students. and they wanted to protect. they wanted to keep those dollars flowing to the banks. one of them said, i'm going to quote here because it will give you a sense of the attitude

we're dealing in washington. they said it would be an outrage if we changed the symptoms of the -- money wasn't going through banks and they were making billions of dollars in profits off of it. said it was an outrage. i said the real outrage is these banks keep these subsidies while students are taking two or three jobs without getting by. that's an outrage. that's an outrage. [applause] so we kept at it. we kept at it. we won that fight. today that money is going where it should be going -- should have been going in the first place. it's going directly to students. we're bypassing the middle man. that means we can raise pell grants to a higher level. more people are eligible. more young people are able to afford college because of what we did.

over 10 years that's going to be $60 billion that's going to students that wasn't going to students before. now, then last fall, i actually kept student loan payments -- capped student payments faster. those who make their payments on time will only have to pay 10% of their monthly income towards loans once they graduate. now, this is useful -- this is for young people like dominique who decide to become teachers or maybe they want to -- social worker. they may not get paid a lot of money but they got a lot of debt so being able to cap how much per month you're paying and the percent of your income gives you a little bit more security knowing you can choose that profegs -- profession.

and we want every student to have a simple fact sheet on student loans and financial aid so you can have all the information you need to make your own choices about how to pay for college. and we set up this new consumer watchdog called the consumer financial protection bureau and -- [applause] and so they're now putting out this information. becall it know before you owe -- we call it know before you owe. know before you owe. [inaudible] sometimes we got surprised by some of this debt we were rack up. so that's what we've done. but it's not enough just to increase student aid. we can't keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition orwell' run out of money. and colleges and universities, they have to do their part, also, to keep college costs down. so -- but i told congress to

speer federal aid to those schools that keep tuition affordable, that serve their students well. and we put colleges on notice. if you can't stop tuition from just going up every single year a lot faster than inflation, then funding you get from taxpayers, at least at the federal level, will go down because we need to push colleges to do better and hold them accountable if they don't. now, public universities know well and governor perdue knows well, states also have to do their part. by making higher education a higher priority in their budget. [applause] it will make tuition affordable for north carolina families. that's a priority for her.

but last year over 40 states cut their higher education spending and these budget cuts have been among the largest factors in tuition increases in public colleges over the past decade. so we're challenging states to take responsibility. we told them, if you can find new ways to bring down the cost of college and make it easier for students to graduate then we'll help you do it. but i want everybody here, as you're thinking about voting, maybe sure you know where your state representative and state senator stansdz when it comes to -- stands when it comes to funding higher education. they have to be accountable as well as to prioritize higher education. [applause] so helping more families, helping more young people afford higher education, offering incentives for colleges and states keeping costs down, that's what we've

been doing. now congress has to do their part. they need to extend the tuition tax credit that we put in place back when i came into office. it's saving middle class families thousands of dollars. congress needs to -- congress needs to safeguard aid for low income students so that today's freshmen and sophomores know they will be able to count on it. and that's what congress has to do. congress needs to give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work study jobs over the next five years. that's what congress needs to do. and there's one specific thing. now, this is where you come in. there is one specific thing that congress needs to do right

now, to prevent the interest rates on student loans, federal student loans from shooting up and shaking you down. so this is where you come in. i want to explain this. so everybody listen carefully. five years ago congress cut the rate on federal student loans in half. that was a good thing to do. but on july 1, that's a little over two months from now, that rate cut expires. if congress does nothing, the interest rates on those loans will double overnight. so i'm assuming a lot of people have federal student loans. the interest rates will double unless congress acts by july 1. and just to give you some sense of perspective, each year that congress doesn't act, the average student with these

loans will rack up an additional $1,000 in debt. an extra $1,000. that's basically a tax hike for more than seven million students across america. more than 160,000 students here in north carolina alone. anybody here can afford to pay an extra $1,000 right now? >> no! [laughter] >> i didn't think so. so stopping this from happening should be a no-brainer. hoping more of our young people afford college, that should be at the forefront of america's agenda. it shouldn't be an republican or democratic issue. you know, this is an american issue. you know, the stafford loans we're talking about, they're named after a republican senator.

the pell grants that have helped millions of americans earn a college education, that's named after a democratic senator. when congress cut those rates five years ago, 77 republicans in the house of representatives voted for it. along with a couple hundred democrats. including the democrats who are here. so this shouldn't be a partisan issue. and yet the republicans who run congress right now have not yet said whether or not they'll stop your rates from doubling. we're two months away. they'll only do it if we cut aid for low-income students instead. the idea will be, we'll keep interest rates low if we take away from other students who

need it. that's -- one republican congresswoman said because, you know, i know you guys will think i'm making it up. she [laughter] no, no, no. she said -- she had very little tolerance for people who tell me they graduate with debt because there's no reason for that. i'm just quoting here. the students who rack up student loan debt are just sitting on their butts having opportunity dumped in your lap. i'm reading it here. i didn't make this up.

now, can you imagine saying something like that? those of you who've had to take out student loans, you didn't do it because you're lazy. you didn't do it lightly. you don't like debt. a lot of you, your parents are helping out, but it's tough on them. they're straining. and so you do it because the cost of college keeps going up and you know there's an investment in your future. so those folks in washington were serious about making college more affordable, they wouldn't have voted for a budget that could cut financial aid for tens of millions of college students by more than $1,000. >> absolutely! >> they suddenly wouldn't let your student loan rates double overnight. so when you're asking, why aren't you making this commitment in they said, oh, we

have to bring down the deficit. this deficit is what helped run up over the past decade. didn't pay for two wars. didn't pay for two massive tax cuts. and now this is the reason why you want students to pay more? they just voted to keep giving billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies that are raking in record profits. >> boo! >> they just voted to let millionaires and billionaires keep paying lower tax rates than middle class workers and their secretaries. >> boo! >> they even voted to give an average tax cut of at least $150,000 to folks like me, the wealthiest americans, a tax cut paid for by cutting things like education, job training programs, that gives students

new opportunities to succeed. now, that's their priorities and that doesn't make any sense. do we want to keep tax cuts for the wealthiest americans who don't need them and didn't ask for them or do we want to make sure they're paying their fair share? [cheers and applause] do we want to keep subsidizing big oil or do we want to make sure we're investing in clean energy? do we want to jack up interest rates on millions of students or do we want to keep investing in things that will help us and help them in the long term, things like education and science, have a strong military and care for our veterans? we can't have it both ways. we have to make a choice about what our priorities are. you know, i said this before but i am going to keep on repeating it. in america we admire success.

we aspire to it. i want everybody to be rich. i want everybody to work and hustle and start businesses, study your tails off to get there. but america is not just about a few people doing well. america's about giving everybody a chance to do well. everybody. not just a few. everybody. that's what built this country. that's what the american dream's all about. a lot of us have parents or grandparents who said, i didn't go to college but maybe my son will go to college and i'll be so proud of him. a lot of us have parents or grandparents who said, maybe i can't start my own business but maybe someday my daughter, she's going to start her own business, she's going to work for herself. a lot of us have parents or grandparents who said, i maybe be an immigrant but i believe that this is a country where no

matter what you look like and where you come from, no matter what your name is, you can make it if you try. [cheers and applause] north carolina, that's who we are. that's our value. that's what we're about. so, no, set your sights lower. that's not an education plan. you're on your own, that's not an economic plan. we can't just cut our way to prosperity. previous generations made the investments necessary for us to succeed, to build a strong middle class, to create the foundation for america's leadership in science and technology and medicine and manufacturing and now it's our turn. we got to do the right thing of the i want you to discover the cure for cancer or the formula for fusion or the next game

changing american industry. and that means we got to -- we got to support those efforts. so if you agree with me, i need your help. i need you to tell your member of congress we're not going to set our sights lower. we're not going to settle for something less. now, all of you are lucky. you already have congressmen who are onboard. you don't need to call them. [applause] they're already doing the right thing. but i'm asking everyone else who's watching or following online, call your member of congress. email them. write on their facebook page. tweet them. we got a hash tag. here's the hash tag for you to tweet them. don'tdoublemyrate.

don'tdoublemyrate. [applause] i'm going to repeat that. the hash tag is don'tdoublemyrate. everybody tweet -- everybody say it. don'tdoublemyrate. it's pretty straightforward. so stand up, be heard, be counted. tell them now is not the time to double interest rates on your student loans. now is the time to double down on smart investments to build a strong and secure middle class. now is the time to double down on building an america that lasts. >> absolutely! >> absolutely. you and me, all of us here, everybody single one of us, we're here because somebody somewhere, some responsibility not just for themselves, but they felt responsibility for something larger. you know, started feeling

responsible for their family. so your parents sacrificed, your grandparents sacrificed to make sure you would succeed. but then they thought bigger than that. they thought about their neighborhood. they thought about their neighborhood. they thought about their country. now, they thought about the planet. and now it's our turn to be responsible. it's our turn to keep that promise alive. no matter how obstacles that may stand in our way, i promise you, north carolina, there are better days ahead. we will emerge stronger than we were before because i believe in you. i believe in your future. i believe in the investment you're making right here in north carolina. you share my faith in america's future and that's what -- you are dream, and i'm not quiting now because in america we don't

quit. we help each other get ahead. and if we work together we'll remind you why america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> president obama will also travel to the university of colorado at boulder today and the university of iowa tomorrow. about student loan rates. the house is coming in in about seven or eight minutes from now at 2:00 eastern. they're expected to recess later in the afternoon. when members will work on a

number of bills dealing with land. and joel olstein was invited by texas representative sheila jackson lee to lead the prayer. votes expected after 6:30 p.m. >> we asked students to submit a video telling what part of the constitution was most important to them and why. we'll go to lynchburg, virginia to speak to andy. good morning, andy. >> good morning. >> your part was article 5. what is article 5? >> article 5 is basically the constitution's process for changing itself. so what article 5 does, it says that whenever congress deems it necessary, congress may change the constitution in order to fit the current needs of the

society. so whenever that's thought of as necessary, either in the congress or 2/3 of the states propose an amendment and then the states are required to ratify it. 3/4 of the states are required to ratify it in order for that change to come into the constitution. >> how did you come to choose this as your topic? >> well, i think -- i think article 5 is really -- it exemplifies the american values. i think within the american dream is this idea of progress and what better way to show progress than through the change that has been made -- the changes that have been made to the constitution in the last few hundred years. through the amendment process, we've had an enormous expansion

of suffrage for women, for african-americans, for people outside of, you know, the continental united states, and i think it's important to remember that we started as a very different nation than where we are today. i think i chose the topic because it really is the most american article in our constitution. >> you mentioned the genius of the framers and including article 5 in the constitution. what did you mean by that? >> they weren't going to get it right and so they built in this process for change so that as the country evolves so can the document by which we live by. and i think for that really is aside from some of the great things they wrote down, you know, bicameral legislature,

other things like that, i think that was the real genius of the framers. >> and you interviewed some experts. how did they further your understanding on article 5? >> i think more than anything they provided a round view of a very controversial topic. they obviously had very different views on it but i think the importance of being objective in a documentary is exemplified by the very different experts that we interviewed. >> what did you take away -- what do you want people to take away from your documentary? >> i think i want people to understand what i've been saying. the framers didn't get it all right and the framers knew they wouldn't get it all right. we had a view of the framers that they were angellic beings

that knew all. and i think that's somewhat irresponsible because they really didn't and they knew it. so they built in this system for change so that america would last and for the last 200 years it has. >> thank you so much for joining us, andy, and congratulations again on your win. >> thank you so much. >> and here's a portion of andy's video, "america over time." >> i believe that it is an american value. over the last 200 years we've been through a lot of mess but we've continued to concur and we've uphold the constitution. but the power of the constitution is its ability to live within the society. warranted by the inclusion of the amendment process in article 5. yes, there has not -- if there had not an article 5 there wouldn't have been a

constitution because thomas jefferson would not have supported the constitution without article 5. >> but i know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand. the progress of the human mind. as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the time. let us provide in our constitution for a provision as stated period. >> you can watch this video in its entirety as well as all other winning entries at our website studentcam.org. and continue the conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. >> rodney king on his new book. his beating by the los angeles

police in 1991. he recalls the riots in los angeles falling the equital of four of the officers in the case. reports on his own legal problems and alcohol addiction. that will be live today at 6:30 eastern at booktv.org. the house is coming in now. a televangelist joel olsteen will lead today's prayer. he was invited by representative sheila jackson lee of texas. members are expected to recess until later in the amp when they'll work on a number of bills dealing with federal land. votes are expected after 6:30 eastern.

the speaker pro tempore: the united states house of representatives will be in order. our prayer today will be offered by our guest chaplain, reverend joel osteen, lakewood church, houston, texas. the chaplain: let us pray. father, we thank you that you shared your goodness and favor to the united states of america

and those who govern it. we ask that you bless this house of representatives and each member who serves in it. help these lawmakers to serve their -- search their hearts so they may serve with dignity and honor and that through them our nation will achieve the destiny you have set before us. give them wisdom as they make good decisions, courage that they will hold fast to your truth, and compassion that all should prosper from their laws. we receive your presence here today. father, we pray that these lawmakers will remain mindful of you, that they will honor you in everything that they do here. in jesus name we pray. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led today by the gentleman from northern mariana island, mr. sablan. mr. sablan: i pledge allegiance

to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. it gives me a great amount of privilege today to welcome two humble spirits in pastor joel osteen and co-pastor victoria osteen and recognize their entire family and their delightful children, two humble spirits and as reflected in his

prayer, joel has taught us to embrace god's grace and mercy and for those who will listen to stand in the sunlight of joy as one looks toward the hopefulness of a future. i am delighted that lakewood started in a feedstock store in the 18th congressional district. the story is told there was spiders and a lot of dust. organized by his wonderful father and his mother, two who loved each other dearly but really loved the lord. out of that wonderful union came five children and out of that wonderment as john osteen preached for 40 years as the love of his life provide add comfort at his side, they built a wonderful church called the oasis of love. but john was taken from us suddenly in 1999 and a young man by the name of joel was at

school. but knowing how much he loved his family, he came home just a few years before working with his father's ministry and gave a sermon for the first time, one week before his father died. maybe it was the father telling the son that now it is your time. as we look to the future pastor joel osteen who has published many books, continues to be a humble spirit, is known to have had or has the largest and most growing church in american history and as well continues with a humble spirit. his phrase, our god is a good god, bless those who are obedient and faithful to him is one we are reminded of. he continues to ensure that those who are in need have a sense of inspiration and hope and he continues to preach this word around the world.

he asks for all of us and he asks for america and the world to become all that god created you to be and continues to emphasize that we are better than we think. as he was the product of john and dodi, he is now along with his wife and along with his mother continuing to shine the light. we are delighted to have him today because we need a light in america and as he reaches those who are seeking light, we ask pastor joel osteen in his books, in his message to continue to bless us. he is, in fact, someone who warmly says america is a great country but we are better when we work together. thank you, pastor osteen for keeping the dream alive, that of your father and mother, a church that was started in 1959, thank you as well for opening the doors of your church to everyone that would come but more importantly every

background, race, color, or creed is welcomed in those pews. now some 16,000. and that was a former basketball stadium or arena, but now people come and worship. i am delighted to host pastor joel and his co-pastor, his wife, victoria, for what they are doing not only for their church and their members but really what they are doing for harmony and the spirit of america. mr. speaker, i yield whack. -- back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests to address the house for one minute. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. without objection, his request is so ordered. mr. wilson: based on the rigorous curriculum, resention and graduation rates honors housing, study abroad programs and enrichment opportunities

for students, the university of south carolina honors college was recently named the number one honors program by the public university honors organization. this achievement will be published in a review of 50 public university honors programs later this month. the university of south carolina honors program was established in 1978 and has more than 8,000 alumni spread across the world. since its founding, u.s.c. honors college students have won over 363 national awards, including the rhodes, marshall, goldwater, and others. the 2011 incoming honors college s.a.t. class had an average s.a.t. score of 1427 and an average weighted g.p.a. of 4.61. congratulations, dr. steve lynn, dean of the honors college and the university president on their leadership and accomplishments. in conclusion, god bless our troops, we will never forget

september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from northern marianas islands seek recognition? mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. without objection, his request is so ordered. mr. sablan: mr. speaker, this year we celebrate the 25th anniversary of of we the people, citizens and the constitution. since we the people began in 1987, more than 30 million high school students and 90,000 teachers have participated in this valuable program that promotes understanding of the constitutional principles that shape and guide our nation, and instills a fairness of civic responsibility in young people. this year more than 1,000 students from every part of our country will take part in the national finals here in washington. the competition with their --

shows the students' knowledge of the constitution and bill of rights. i want to recognize 24 exceptionally talented and hardworking students from the northern mariana islands, who returned to the finals as repeat regional champions. working together and striving for excellence are the finding traits of this team. i congratulate them and their teachers and wish them all success in this year's, we the people competition. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields backs. perhaps the gentleman from pennsylvania -- gentleman is recognized for one minute. without objection, his request is so ordered. mr. pitts: this past weekend chuck coalson, former nixon administration lawyer, founder of prison fellowship, and a good friend, passed away. i first got to know coleson through his incredible ministry. i knew of his time serving in maxwell prison in alabama and after he was released i invited

him as a young state legislator in pennsylvania to come and speak to a dinner in my district. i had 535 people show up. he spoke and shared the concept that he had gotten as he served in prison of this idea of prison fellowship. he asked me and another fellow to go up to a couple of federal prisons in pennsylvania and select four prisoners to bring to washington for the first time. of this group. and i did. i went to lewisburg andp met over six weekends with the little christian fellowship in those prisons and they selected two from each prison. one was a bank robber, hydrogener -- hijacker, a labor union racketeer, and drug dealer. without guards the prison officials permitted me to drive them to washington. we dropped them off here. left them for a week. i came and picked them up, took them back. but this idea of prison fellowship started back then.

chuck, when he would speak to me many times he would call me his first prison volunteer. it was a wonderful ministry. chuck is going to be greatly missed. and chuck coleson's story is one of grace. grace given to him and he worked tirelessly to spread across the nation and across the world. he will be sorely missed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this house has a critical opportunity to reform the federal contracting process, save the taxpayers billions of dollars, and spur job creation. mr. gosar: last year i introduced the fiscal responsibility and federal contracting act to suspend the davis-bacon act for 10 years. it requires the department of labor to essentially set wage rates for workers on federal

construction projects. the metrics used to come up with these wages are deeply flawed and inflate the labor costs of federal construction projects by 22%. suspending this act as presidents of both parties have done in the past would save the taxpayers billions per year and empower federal contractors to employ more people on their projects. imagine getting five federal projects for the price of four. that's a win-win for the u.s. taxpayers and construction workers. i urge my colleagues to join me by co-sponsoring h.r. 4403. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on april 24, 2012, at 12

:45 p.m. that the senate passed with an amendment, h.r. 4348. signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the united states house of representatives in recess until

the one correction i'd like to make is paragraph 1.3.1, i mention meeting with david laws, a member of parliament, who is described as the chief

secretary to the treasury, in fact, i now realize that at the time of the meet, he no longer held that post. i apologize. >> he resigned on the 29th of may, 2010, just so we're clear, do you recall when the meeting was? >> it was in the summer or autumn of 2010. >> no need for apology, thank you very much. i've made that correction and i'm grateful for the work that's been put into the statement you've made. in terms of your personal career, mr. murdoch, if i can deal with it briefly, you were born in the united kingdom in 1972, studied at harvard university between 1992 and 1995, your early career was in asia, 2003, you were appointed c.e.o. of b.i.b., and in september of 2007 you resigned

as c.e.o. and appointed nonexecutive chairman so you rejoined news corps as chairman and c.e.o. in asia and as part of this became executive chairman of news international, isn't that correct in >> yes, that's correct. to take the story up to date new york march of last year, you were appointed deputy chief operating officer and chairman and c.e.o. international of news corps and viffletted back to new york at the beginning of this year and in april of this year, you resigned as executive chairman of b-sky-b? >> that's right. >> was that resignation related to your return to new york or some other reason? >> as i stated at the tomb and announced at the time it was for the simple reason that the

-- i wanted to avoid really becoming a lightning rod. some people were trying to conflate issues that had happened in the past at news international with relevance to my role as chairman of b-sky-b and i thought it was better to not provide a distraction for the board there and to resign my role as nonexecutive chairmanism remain executive director of british broadcasting. >> as deputy chief officer of the news corps you report to mr. chase carey, chief operating officer, and not mr. rupert murdoch, your father, the chairman and chief executive officer is that right? >> that's correct. >> that said, were there discussions or are there discussions from time to time with your father about news corporations business? >> yes, we discuss from time to time various business issues.

>> i'll come back to that. i'm going to invite you now to summarize what you say in answer to question six in your statement. page 02965 about your aims, objectives, philosophy and practice and the way in which you've undertaken your business role particularly in the united kingdom. can you summarize that for us, please, mr. murdoch? >> question six, i think, which relates to the general philosophy and practice, is, i guess, to summarize, i would say that with respect to operating a business, when i was chief executive of businesses, i tried to foster two things, really, one was a real focus on the customer of the business, a focus on

viewers, most of my career has been in television, the majority of it remains so, and customers in a broad sense really have a management culture that is both transparent internally but also really working together to focus on those issues. there's quite a lot in the witness statement as well as that question with respect to governance, with respect to the role of business, do you want me to go into all those things here in >> no thank you. i do have a specific question about 6.6, 0 to 966. -- 02966. we're about 2/3 of the way through the paragraph you said you sought to have an open management culture in which top executives would share information. >> yes. >> when you arrived here in december of 2007, did you find

that an open management -- did you find an open management culture? >> when i arrived in 2007, the business was -- the business as i saw it had a handful of priorities to be tackled. one was a question around the businesses' general growth with declining readership and a flat revenue, etc. but also i wanted to have a tight management team that met regularly and that shared regular information about the business and we instituted regular executive meetings. i think the new part of it that i started when i was there was really to include in those meetings some of the editors so that issues around the newspapers and the titles themselves, programs, promotions, marketing, etc., could be discussed in the open amongst everyone and we had monthly what we called title meetings in addition to the exective, more commercial meetings, where we met regularly.

>> did you feel in december, 2007, that you were being confronted with an open management culture or was that something which took time to instill? >> i think it always takes time and each phase that a business goes through, with different leadership in a business, there's different time, will adjust to it. i did think it was very different from british sky broadcasting which i had been running before and i i wanted it to be more collaborative. >> your discussions with mr. my low about the business, do you feel -- with mr. milo about the business, do you feel he was open with you or something different? zeat time i had no reason to believe otherwise. >> 6.10, this is change 02967, -- this is page 02967, you refer to the changes which had taken place since last summer, and include the creation of a risk register, can i invite you

to please look as well at your power box 8.5, which is our page 02970, where you state that there must be sufficient controls in place given the legal, financial, and reputational risk involved in getting it wrong. in your view, mr. murdoch, were there deficiencies in international systems for identifying and assessing legal risk, particularly in the context of potential reputational harm for the company? >> i think with respect to -- with respect to news gathering practices, for example, the subject of -- one of the subject subjects of interest here, i think it's self-evident that in hindsight, knowing what we know now, whatever controls were in place failed to create sufficient transparency around those issues and the risks around it. however, there were senior legal managers who had a lot of

experience who were working closely with the editors and with the news rooms and at the time, i didn't have a view that those were insufficient or not. >> apart from advice given from time to time by the seenor -- senior legal manager, mr. crow, there weren't other systems in place such as the ones you began to introduce in sum over last year? >> with respect to summer last year, some of the things we introduced, for example, a dedicated chief compliance officer that will fit into a global compliance framework for the business, which i think is an important and good step, with respect to having a board that does more than, for example, the statutory compliance rirptes but actually connects the corporate center if you will, the global corporate center, to management accountability on an ongoing basis on that particular legal representation on that, those things are new, added things to strengthen what we can do.

but i think -- >> the question wasn't strengthen, the question was, does the system the only work of mr. crow, there wasn't much else in place, was there? >> i think, you know, we had in effect a management board where senior executives would meet regularly, including the chief operating officer, the chief financial officer, including the editors, from time to time, and you know, there was ample opportunity to be able to discuss these issues and surface them. there were regular systems in place and i think i had a -- i think i would have had a reasonable expectation at having the senior legal managers closely associated with the newsrooms was a protection that ultimately proved not to provide. in addition, i also met regularly with our internal audit department who audited the business on a regular basis

and with respect to certain compliance issues and i encourage them to be transparent and take the resources they required. >> in your position, really, of strategic oversight, did you make the obvious connection between legal risk and potential reputational damage to the country -- to the company? >> i think corporate reputation is something that, you know, is important to the business and is important with respect to a company's license with its customers, with the communities it operates in and obviously legal risk play into that. >> did you make the other connection between legal risk and ethical risk? in other words, if there weren't systems in place to ensure that journalism took place ethically, risks might flow from that, not just legal risks. >> i was -- i think that's the right connection to make.

however, i was assured that -- from the standpoint of journalistic ethics and things like the editor's code and other codes, that extensive training had gone on and was continually going on and i was given strong assurances that those had happened, particularly in light of the voice mail interception incidents in 2006. those assurances were given to me you know, early on in my tenure at the company. >> can i ask you, did you read the news of the world on a weekly basis? >> i wouldn't say i read all of it but i read it from time to time. >> did you read "the sun," perhaps not every day but most days? >> i tried to familiarize myself with what was in it. >> did you see, with respect to "the news of the world" any risks associated with its

brand, including salacious gossip, kiss and tell stories, and delving into the private live of celebrities and others? >> i think "the news of the world" brand as an investigative newspaper with exposes and the like wasn't only concerned with celebrities and salacious gossip but also uncovering real wrongdoing, scandals. >> i'm focus option this part at the moment and the question was, did you see any risk associated with those aspects of the "news of the world" brand. >> at the time, i don't know, i can't recall discussing those risks but i do recall, again, receiving assurances around journalistic ethics, around the code of practice, you know, on a number of occasions. >> reading "the news of the world" as you did, i'm not asking you to give us a moral

reaction to it, because that would not be the right question, but didn't it pass your mind that this sort of journalism carried with it ethical risks which could turn into legal and reputational risks? >> i think the ethical risks were something, and the legal risks around that, was something that was very much in the hands of the editor and the decisions on things like public interest and the like. things that, the editor in consultation with legal advice was there. i wasn't in the business of decide, you know, what to put in the newspapers. so it was really there and that i was given assurances by them that sometimes proved to be wrong that i'm sure we'll go into with respect to -- with respect to the risks they were taking. >> did you, for example, know what the legal bill was for fighting litigation consequent upon the "news of the world's"

particular style of journalism? >> i'm sorry? >> do you know what the legal bill was? >> yes in the budgeting process there was a provision for certain legal liabilities. >> what was your reaction to the max mosty case in particular, one, the results and secondly the large legal bill? >> i think the result of the case was obviously very disappointing. the editor had asserted that the story was both true and in the public interest and it was later found by the court to be neither. that was something that's a matter of great regret and the story shouldn't have been run. >> and the sthifes legal bill? >> i don't recall the exact bill. >> i think he said his assessed bill was 420,000 pounds you cost would have been slightly more than half a million, i would venture to guess.

a million pounds, cost, 60,000 pounds damages. that's a large bill. >> it was substantial. it was cause for concern. >> did you ask anybody to consider the possibility of a -- of an appeal in that case? >> i don't recall. >> did anybody draw to your attention the observation that the charge about the chief report of "the news of the world" and his frankly black mail tactics with the women involved? >> it wasn't drawn to my attention. >> ok. >> do you want to add something? >> i was going to seek to help you a little bit, i hope, to situate myself at that time. news international was one of six companies within the region, operating companies reporting to me at the time.

and with respect to news international what i was focused on through this period were, as i said before, the overall commercial strategy of the business. we were in the process of taking just the start of taking cost out of the business and restructuring a number of departments and corporate structures within it. as well as developing the longer term strategy for the company with respect to its digital products and the like. not having -- so i'm hoping to be helpful in situating myself there, the day-to-day management of legal affairs and court cases, the management, the direct mkt of the company was dealing with. >> could i ask on that, this question you clearly appreciated that the news of the world suffered a great loss and that, where it had reputational implications was

for you to consider. did you consider instituting making a request toe say what went wrong with this? what decisions did we make that we shouldn't have? what went wrong with this litigation that cost us so much money? >> yes. i did ask the question. and i recall being told that the problem, the editor was really defiant on this point. that the problem had been that the one -- that one of the witnesses on news international's side hadn't testified in the end and the like and it was all a bit garbled up but i wasn't told, for example, about what mr. jay was asking about, the specific ruling and the like. >> but you didn't feel it was necessary to get into any more detail when your senior management team clearly, at least according to a judge, got it spectacularly wrong.

>> the question of -- the question again of where the sort of locus of the public interest decision is, is one that is very difficult and really the editors, you know, the editors of any newspaper generally, you know, generally have that within their piece, on a day-to-day basis, they decide what go into the paper. certainly getting it wrong spectacularly, as that was, is something made clear to mr. milo and was a strong indication it shouldn't happen again. >> at this stage, the news of the world was an extremely profitable business, wasn't it? >> reasonably. >> were there elements of the ends justifying the means to this extent? did the paper which is what you believe the readers wanted, was the market and the sole touchstone was profit.

>> what was the question? >> is there an element here of the ends justifying the means? >> no. i've written extensively, communicated extensively throughout my career not just the importance of enterprise the way enterprise is purr suzed. it's part and parcel of the connection we have with our customers and the community we're. in i think it's porn to note that in the end, the profitability of "the news of the world" did not save it. >> did you analyze why "the news of the world" was a profitable paper? >> from a commercial perspective and product perspective, it had a connection with its readers, it was popular with them and was popular with advertisers as well to reach them. >> self-evidently, there was

something about it that readers wanted, three million or four million people bought "the news of the world," there must have been something more about it which you identified as being its appealed to people. >> i think any newspaper or television program that appeals, it's the way you tell stories, in the case of "the news of the world," you could be talking about a new magazine, like "fabulous," which was introduced, an expensive new investment in a glossy sunday magazine that came with the paper. it could be sports coverage a heavy investment was made in that as well. and it could be the exposes that you mentioned earlier but every reader has his or her own reasons. >> moving on to a different topic, the refleck of editors, page 02969, and you point out,

the only editorial staff member appointed during your time was dom make -- dominick moen who became editor in june of 2009. why did you support mr. moen's appointment? >> i knew him a bit around the business, he had been ms. brks' deputy, he was well respected. he was her strong recommendation to take the post and in consultation with my father and ms. brooks i supported that appointment. >> did you know what his political views were? >> i didn't, actually. to be honest with you, i don't. >> did you -- do you suspect what they are? >> i think the selection of an editor, mr. jay is not simply around political views of an editor, it's the ability of the

editor perhaps to lead the newsroom, it's the ability of the editor to make judgments about what to put in the paper every day. it's the ability of the editor to be thoughtful about his or her readers to react to what goes in the paper. it's not simply a political exercise. >> is any part of the decision making in respect to mr. moen's appointment based on this, that you felt that he understood what you and your father wanted, in particular in relation to political lines to take and selection time? >> -- at election time? >> it was not really on my concerns. he would be reporting to mrs. brooks who was -- who had taken over as chief executive and he was her recommendation and well respected. i thought it was a good idea. >> you this knew what mrs. brooks' position was on matters 1ut67 as the ewe row, didn't you?

>> yes. >> and you could trust her to recommend someone who might be in the same place, couldn't you? >> i didn't -- the specificity around different policies and things like that, that wasn't something i engaged in great substance on. >> ok. moving on, mr. d murdoch, to the moan -- mr. murdoch, to the issue of phone hacking, you've given evidence now twice to the select committees, you established one fact to start off with, it is right that before the select committees, your position was that you neither saw nor knew about the neville email. is that correct? >> yes. >> did you say before the select committees? >> did you say before the select committees? >> i meant when you gave your evidence to the select committees. the evidence was given on 19th

of july last year and i think on the 10th of november last year. >> are you asking me when i had knowledge after that email? >> my question may be -- referring back to the meeting which took place on the 10th of june, 2008, your position before the select committees on the 19th of july and 10th of november of last year was that you were not shown the neville email at that meeting on the 10th? >> yes. and that remain misposition and i stand by that. >> ok you tell us by way of background that you received a -- received assurances that this is 11.4 of your statement,

this is when you arrived in december, 2007, the assurances were following the new editor, procedures being put in place, etc., from whom did assurances come? >> i recall being given assurances by mr. mylar and mr. cloak, who was director of human resources at the time about the training and procedures. >> did mr. mylar volunteer the fact or did you ask him? >> i think it was probably in the context wherever -- where over the first few months, as i was coming to grips with a set of responsibilities around europe and asia and the u.k., i would immediate mete regularly with some of the senior executives and they would update me on some of the things they were doing and mr. cloak updated me on that, i recall and mr. mylar give me

assurances that things were, as a new editor coming in, that was what he was doing. he had come in the year before. >> did he expect -- express to you any doubts as to the possible extent of activity in 2005 and 2006? >> no. to the contrary, the assurances that i were given were the same assurances given to select committee later, for example, that you know the paper had been investigated thoroughly, that no new evidence was found, that the police had posed their case and made public announcements to that effect. it was consistent with that. >> and was it your general understanding that mr. molkar who was an -- was an independent contractor, as it

were, in relation to most of the case which is before the criminal court was working for mr. goodman? >> my understanding at the time, i didn't have much of an understanding at the time of the previous 2006, i i hadn't been in the company, it was more a general awareness that a reporter had illegally intercepted voice mails, had gone to jail along with a private investigator involved an it was a general understanding of an event in the past. >> now, the first step in the chronology is a phone call. >> before we get to that, mr. jay, could ski one question about that? i can understand that you might take the view that you'd been given some assurances, but here you were, coming into a

company, knew it was a company which was associated with your family very, very closely, obviously, and it was something that the reputational position of it was very important to you. did you ever ask this question, all right, i accept that you put training into place and everybody's up to speed now, but how did this happen? how did a very senior reporter who obviously you relied upon and thought highly of get ourselves into this position, why didn't we pick it up? why didn't our internal governance pick up that something was going wrong? i'm not talking about an investigation of the specific facts, i'm asking whether you probed the adequacy of the

internal governance you had in place for a company you had an interest in. >> i couldn't say the specific language of the question and the conversations that were had but it was clear to me and the question became that the -- in the newsroom in the past, it had not been tight enough and they -- that's why a new editor was appointed and the ud gnu editor, who i thought really had no skin in the game in the past, was there and had spent time to improve those sosms governance in the newsroom. but the newsroom governance again was an issue for the editor and those assurances were clear that the -- that they strengthened the governance to catch these things in the future. it was my understanding that the implication of that is previously, in 2006, clearly they hadn't been because their

position was that they didn't know about it. >> you understand the reason for my question, it's not merely what you put into place afterwards, it's why all this had got to that position, because it's all -- that things had gone wrong under him. >> that was before i was there. i asked the new editor who was there as well to say what have you done to make sure this can't happen again? and strengthening the education, strengthening the training, strengthen, really, to make sure the joufrpblists understood the code as well as our own codes of business conduct, pushing that through

more aggressively, was his answer. >> but you didn't pick up what went wrong in our systems earlier? >> what i tried to say was, it was the absence of those things, being done effectively. was my understanding. >> thank you. >> on the 27th of may, 2008, if you've got the dumont, mr. murdoch, that was submitted to the select committee, page j- 267, it can be put up on the screen, 100062420.

so mr. mylar, mr. -- if mr. pike's notes are correct, had a conversation with you on the 27th of may, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> according to these notice. as you know in testimony to the select committee, neither mr. mylar or i had a direct recollection of this but i don't have any reason to disbelieve it occurred. >> you can see the first little dash. you made the obvious and sensible, he's going to give us advice, let's wait and see what he says. >> i think they had instructed leading counsel to provide an opinion. i presume from this, again, i

don't have a direct recollection of the conversation, that there was a brief conversation and he left the conversation with me thinking there was no option other than to wait for that view. >> there would be no point in proceeding further without the view. >> that seems to be true. >> you see the next dash, one after goodman, c.g. is cleveland goodman, allegations, process, then three individuals are named. we won't go into that. -- into that in any detail. wasn't it the case, mr. murdoch, that the second bullet point you see here, introduced by the dash, was also information which mr. mylar give you -- gave you on the 27th of may? >> i don't think so, actually. i don't think there is -- first of all, there's no record of any meet in my diaries or

anything like that, this would have been a snatched conversation, i think. when it occurred. and i don't recall any conversation around that so i think after the first line and the second line, i think the bit below is really the conversation that mylar is having with pike and this is recording that conversation. is my reading of this. >> mr. murdoch you position is you don't remember any part of this conversation, do you? >> but i think if it had gone into all these things, i would have remembered it. and it would have been a longer -- it would have been a meeting. >> it's certainly the evidence we received that a lot of this was the discussion between mr. pike and mr. mylar, it's a question of when you draw the line between your conversation with him and then his conversation with mr. pike. the point i'm gently suggesting to you is that you draw drau the line under the second bullet point. one is after goodman, c.j.

allegations. do you see the point? >> i do but as you said, i draw the line above that. >> you appreciate the significance of the second bullet point, do you? >> referring i assume to the clive goodman dismisal proceeding? yes, i understand. >> the point, put bluntly is that mr. goodman was alleging that others at news international were involved. you can see that? >> yes, and i was not aware of that at the time. so when you ask me where to draw the line, that's where i draw it. i think the trend, the typed transcript of this makes it look like with bullet points and indentations, but the handwritten note, the indent

cases and -- indentations and bullet points are much less precise. >> i'm not sure about that. if you go to j.c.p.-5 -- >> i was just looking at it. >> you can examine this as long as one likes, but it does appear that it's been faithfully tran scribed, at least, i'd suggest to you, mr. murdoch. >> my view of this, mr. jay, is that the conversation that i don't remember on the 27th of may would have been to wait for the view with respect to the amount of damages and the likelihood of winning the case. the rest of this is a conversation around all the other issues around it and the last line, again, i think, indicates, it says james would say, i would say if he knew all these things, but he didn't and we can examine it as long as you lie, i'm trying to be

helpful. >> ok. well the very last line, james would say, get rid of them, cut out cancer, you have inserted that, but from the perspective of mr. mylar, presumably he was on the view that clive goodman's allegations were unsubstan shated, isn't that the position? >> zpwron -- unsubstan shated, isn't that the position? >> i don't know what his views were at the time. >> do you think the allegations had substance? >> if i had known about them, that's what i would have said. >> mr. mylar's evidence to us, to paraphrase, he thought there were bombs under the news room floor. do you recall that evidence? >> i recall him giving that

evidence to you, yes. >> mr. clive's evidence, what was that? >> their assurances to me, which was that the newspaper has been investigated thoroughly, outside people had come in to investigate it, no evidence was found, and that the police asserted that in their evidence, the evidence that they had, there was no additional evidence. >> one interpretation of this is that mr. mylar was communicating to you the fact that mr. goodman was at the very least making allegations in relation to the positive vflt -- possible involvement of others at news international. he was transmitting that idea to you, do you understand that? >> i understand what you're saying but i -- that isn't -- that isn't what occurred or

what i recall. >> you recall none of this? >> i don't recall this conversation with mr. mylar. >> the next stage is the email chain. i don't believe you've been asked about that yet by the select committee. the chain of the seventh floor, june, 2008, m.o.d. 100053178. >> let me just interpose a question here. can you think of a reason why mr. mylar or mr. crone should keep this information from you or this concern from you? was your relationship with them such that they may think, well, we needn't bother him with that? or we better keep it from him because he'll ask taos go to cut out the cans her i've tried

to understand what's going on here. >> i think, sir, that is my understanding of it. because this is something that i've struggled with as well, which is why wouldn't they just come and tell me, i was a new person coming in, this was an opportunity to actually get through this and they didn't. it must be, and when i look at that exhibit, you know, those last lines, i think that i don't want to conjecture, i've been close enough, but i think that that must be it. i would say cut out the cancer and there was some desire to not do that. >> i follow that, mr. murdoch, but i think the point i'd like to make about the emails, in fact, if you look at the emails, the point that he was making about mr. taylor alleging that it was rife throughout the organization, is a point that mr. mylar was very

concerned that you pick up. which would be consistent with mr. mylar being concerned or having been concerned to make that same point to you on the 27th of may. did you at least see that? >> i think mr. mylar sent me this note to -- forward me this correspondence. i don't believe i read it. i didn't read it at the time. i responded to it in minutes. and it was a saturday, i had just come back from a flight to hong kong and i was with my young children at the time. and i invited him to give me a call that evening after they went to bed. i don't have a recollection of any phone call that occurred but the five minutes that he wanted with mr. cellular phone and myself on -- mr. crone and myself on tuesday, the 109, was set . i didn't -- and i didn't go through this whole email chain.

that's it. even looking at it, to me it looks like, you know, -- >> i ask you not to comment on it but to answer the question. the point is straightforward. if you look at the email, 6th of june, timed 17:18 in the afternoon, 53179, three bullet points, i'm only concerned about the third. he wants a to demonstrate that what happened to him is or was rife throughout the organization he wants to correct that this was not happening when it was. are you with me? >> yes, i'm following. >> the other point being made was that mr. taylor is in effect coming close to black mailing us. but that's a separate issue.

it is true that the email on the 7th of june doesn't address the issue but mr. mylar's email to you, timed at 14:31 and 41 seconds on saturday, june 7, does call your attention specifically to julian pike's email, doesn't it? >> regarding taylor's vindictiveness, as he describes it? >> yes. >> he's asking you to read it, isn't he? >> i think he's asking me to read the email chain, presumably, in a view to understanding the vindictiveness, his words, of mr. taylor with respect to increasing -- >> he's calling out this one issue. he wants you to understand the whole picture, part of the picture, rightly or wrongly was mr. davis saying, i want to get these guys, i want to prove

that this failure was or is is rife throughout the organization. he was drawing your attention to that very fact so at the very least you could ingest it, take it onboard. do you accept that? >> that there were allegations there and there? i think my experience of dealing with mr. mylar on this issue and mr. crone was that i -- there wasn't a pro-activ desire to bring me up to speed on those thin, there had been the meeting would have occurred in april or may or whenever it was when they first saw the evidence coming through in the taylor case. >> they might have been slow in putting this together. he was not seeking as it was, he was concerned that you look at them and understand what's being said in the email, that's right, isn't it? >> again, i don't know what his mind was at this time. i do know that when i did speak

to him about it was solely with respect to increasing their authority to negotiate the settlement with mr. taylor. >> had the meeting on the 10th of june, was there an agenda? >> no, other than up date me on this litigation proceeding. >> is it normal, mr. murdoch, not to have an agenda for any meeting, even one of this sort? >> many meetings don't have a written or agreed agenda other than a general heading. >> at the meeting, do you think that mr. -- had been -- >> i don't recall a discussion around that >> is it possible that the email, was being regarded as the agenda for the meeting? >> if it was it wasn't

followed. the conversation on the 10th was a brief conversation that i described at length. >> did they arrive with a final? >> i don't remember if he had a file or not. >> did they refer to potential reputational damage to the company? >> there was a discussion -- i wouldn't say discussion. it was referred that it would be in the best interest to not have this matter from the past a few years ago be dug up and dragged through the court. but it was more as -- more of in the spirit of here's what happened a few years ago, it's all in the past now, and we don't have to go through that again. >> if it was only a question

repeating, was it being yesterday's news, the goodman story, then there was no additional reputational damage to the company or risk of it, the point was, it was you -- the negotiation would create the possibility -- indeed the probability of fresh reputational damage to the company that was involved other than "news international," do you follow that? >> i follow your question but that was not what i was told time. what i was told in that meeting was very clear, was that lengthy voicemail interception of mr. taylor to the news of the world and this was a new fact, that this was a case that was going to be lost absolutely without question, i was given strong legal advice that it should be settled. in addition, i was told there was a leading counsel's opinion that had established the amount

that was at risk and it was established in that meeting that because the case would be lost and in order to not have to litigate a case that would be lost and drag up all these things, a painful episode in the past and what not, that, you know, the strategy would be to settle. i got strong advice on that subject. and i followed that advice. >> would it be clear to you that the terms of settlement could be confidential? >> i don't recall the specifics of accountality but my understanding is that it would be a confidential settlement, as many of them are. >> did you not make the connection that a confidential settlement at whatever sum would remove the risk of reputational damage to the company? >> my thought was that both sides sought confidentiality. >> and that's the evidental

strength of the new evidence, weren't you told that the new evidence related to others -- >> pardon me, sorry. >> were you told that the evidencal strength of the evidence strength of the form of email namely working with others? >> no. there was no known as -- the email was important for few reasons, as i said in the past. one reason was it was a direct link between the news of the world and mr. mulcar's relationship with respect to gordon taylor. it was linked to wider journalists and perhaps there was a threat to say there was more going on there and for that -- and that part of it, that part of its importance was not imparted to me. that safmente

>> was the email produced on the day? >> no. >> so you don't have any recollection of mr. crone showing you the first page of the email which was the gist of the evidence he gave us, was that right? >> no, i don't have any recollection of that. and i think -- well, i don't mean to go into his testimony. sorry. >> did either mr. myler or mr. crone have leading counsel's opinion? >> they did. >> did they mention leading counsel's opinion in context of the reputational damage to your company if the case fault and in particular because the new evidence demonstrated that the case went beyond mr. goodman? >> no, they didn't. >> you've seen paragraph 6 which makes the very point, haven't you? >> yes. i didn't see it at the time nor

was it produced to me. >> when mr. myler or mr. crone calm or anxious during this short meeting? >> >> i would say more on the anxious side. they were able to leave the room with the notion to settle the case at a higher number. >> the truth is, mr. murdoch, they were very keen that you settled. they were very keenly transmit the message to you that if you didn't there was serious reputational risk to the company -- >> i wouldn't put it in that order, no. >> i would say the reputational damage was inextricably linked of the rehash of old news but

with something new. >> that is not what they communicated to me. >> were you surprised that an offer of 650,000 pounds plus costs had already been made without your authority? >> i don't know when i discovered that offer, but they had told me -- they did say they made attempts to settle this case already and indeed we know they made repeated attempts before that meeting. >> you knew the offered had been made yet mr. taylor rejected that, you knew that, didn't you? >> yes. >> and you must have known in what amount the offer had been made? >> i don't remember the number that they told me. >> well, we know were mr. crone and mr. myler it was greater than 350,000 pounds. didn't you think that was an extraordinary amount of money for this sort of allegation even if proved? >> well, i really didn't have

any way to situate that amount of money with respect to the allegation. i hadn't -- i wasn't a lawyer. i hadn't been involved in these sorts of cases and indeed the queen's counsel of opinion had put the potential liability, including costs and a very large sum as well. >> his figure, in paragraph 17, was sum at any level from 25,000 to 250,000 or possibly even more although i think it's extremely unlikely. my best guess is that it will be either 100,000 or about 250,000, depending on the personal reaction of the judge. now, that must have been communicated to you, mr. murdoch. >> the opinion was not shown to me. i remember -- >> i said that must have been communicated. >> as i said, i recall that description of the opinion

being that the number could be upwards of -- i think 425,000. half a million to a million pounds with costs in it. >> no, no. the figure -- its figures -- >> they described to me with costs. >> don't worry about the costs because the 350,000 which had already been offered is not the cost. it's 350,000 plus mr. taylor's legal costs. so they were saying any level or possibly even more although i think it's extremely unlikely. my question to you is that must have been communicated to you. >> not the gist of the likelihood of that. >> wasn't that the point of leading counsel's view to know what value he -- >> i was told that meeting counsel's view was that it was -- i think they gave it to me with costs. i remember that it would be in

that range of the >> frankly ridiculous to have said, given your global figure, they would have said, look, he's saying, 250 k plus costs. they must have told you that, mr. murdoch. >> that's not what i recall. >> why is the sum of 350,000 being offered without your authority? >> the management of this litigation, of this legal affair was something that i think was reasonable for me to leave it to the editor and the senior legal manager that had a lot of experience to do this. >> what's the point of having limited authority -- >> and they came to me to get -- because it was getting a number they had to talk to me about it. it wasn't at my -- it wasn't at

the top of my mind exactly what their legal authorities were. there was a budget of a million and change or more. i can't remember. for legal settlements of the news of the world and it was within that. and i was briefed on, as i described, and left it to them to negotiate. >> weren't you concerned that the sum of 350,000 pounds was being offered? it's probably slightly lower figure without there being counsel's opinion. i think it's fair to say that 350,000 was made on the 5th of june. so i think the evidence was that the 350,000 postdate counsel's opinion earlier sums being offered without counsel's opinion, did that not concern you? >> i don't remember when i -- when i knew exactly about the previous numbers of settlement attempts, but i do know that,

you know, it seems to be when it came to my attention i thought they should wait for counsel's opinion. >> did anybody tell you at the meeting words to this effect -- this guy's trying to blake mail us? >> i don't recall those words. >> or anything like them, is that your evidence, mr. murdoch? >> i don't remember those words or words like that. it was a short meeting. what i can say -- >> because it's worth much less. he knows that we know that the reputational harm to the company would be so great that the overvalue has to be made by settlement to get rid of it had >> that's not the gist of what was communicated to me. >> emerged from the next file note j.p.p. 13, 10th of june.

j.p.p. 13 is here -- 62426. this is really -- mr. crone reporting back to mr. pike. mr. pike is running this litigation. mr. crone is reporting back on the meeting you had. do you follow me, mr. murdoch? >> yeah. >> it says, meeting with jay. jay said he wanted to think through the options. that's the gist. that you hadn't come to any settled decision to confuse litigation when the meeting ended, is that correct? >> i looked at this and was trying to think what that could mean and i do -- and i do think there was something that had to wait before it could -- there was something about going back to mr. the attorneys to discuss

-- because he was a co-defendant, to make the legal ends and outs of it, i don't know at the time. it may have been, well, let's think about it for a day, or see if he come back and -- >> well, the meaning of this was that you wanted to pawn the -- what you have been told, would you not agree? >> yes. i do -- sit on it for a day and think about it. there was a reason for the gap there which was there -- they had to go and have the discussion with the attorneys, i believe. >> have a look at the next line. i am not going to censor it. c.m. moving towards to tell toorl to fuck off. at the end of drip drip, paying them off plus then -- either that says failed or fold, the

first line, that's pretty career that mr. myler is angry because he knows that mr. taylor -- it's his perception. but mr. taylor is black mailing his company, it's fair, isn't it in >> it's hard for me to testify, mr. jay, to what mr. myler to think in a conversation related by tom crone to julian pike. >> this crone reporting back to pike and crone is reporting back, mr. myler's view at the meeting, isn't he? >> i don't know. >> what else could it be, mr. murdoch? >> mr. myler was not wanting to settle. had strong advice not to settle the case. >> this is a strong indication that mr. myler was getting extremely hacked off by all of

this because he had felt that he and the company were -- the wrong end of litigation with the mounting blackmail, frankly, because you were having to pay far too much money to get rid of it. and that message was communicated to you, wasn't it? >> as i said to you, mr. jay, the -- part of that message around paying over the odds and so forth was not communicated to me. >> the reason why you ended up paying possibly 10 or now 20 over the as you was because if you didn't get rid of it and you fought it the reputational risk to the company was there because there would be allegations that these allegations went beyond mr. goodman and mr. mulcaire. >> i am saying i don't

remember. >> there is a calculation that mr. myler was disgust with the meeting. also there was a risk there because even if you did pay off taylor the silence, which is anything going quiet, might not happen. in other words, they might have litigation and therefore your strategy would end up in tears in any event. that must have been discussed at the meeting, mr. murdoch. >> if all of those things were discussed, mr. jay, if the purpose of the meeting was to briefly and bring me up to speed on all of these allegations on the whole story from 2006, from years before i was there, then, a, it would have been a much longer meeting and it would have had an outcome that was different. >> maybe not, mr. murdoch, because if this notice is correct, you wanted to think through the options. so there's no need for a longer

meeting. what there was need for was for you to ponder what to do next. >> i think -- i think frankly the purpose of the meeting and the agenda of the meeting was to go through all of those things, the goodman allegations, the history of voicemail interception allegation, the prosecutions from 2006 and 2007. it would have led to -- it would have been a longer meeting. in fact, they wouldn't have been trying to settle it. ahead of it they would have told me as soon as they had the evidence. >> do you accept two possibilities here either you were told about the evidence which linked others -- other news of the world to mulcaire and in fact this was a cover-up

or you weren't told and you didn't read your emails properly and there was failure within the company, do you accept those were the only two possibilities? >> i don't think that. i was very, very -- i think i've been very, very clear on this point what i was told at the time, the eagerness that these people had to settle the case, as you mentioned, and i was told sufficient information to authorize them to go and negotiate higher level and i was not told sufficient information to go and turn over a whole bunch of stones i was told that had already been turned over. i was given repeated assurances as i've said that these practices -- that these -- that the newsroom had been investigated, that there was no evidence. i was given the same assurances as they gave outside.

i've been very consistent about it. i don't ink that short of knowing that they weren't giving me the full picture i would have been able to know that at the time. >> now we're going to july of 2009. just before you do that, let me ask this question. >> this goes to the issue of culture which i think we need to think about. had you been told, there's a lot of mud going to be thrown and it's going to be very unpleasant and that there are reputational risks which we

think you ought to be aware of but on the other hand the amount of money being sought is ludicrous? obviously to some extent hypothetical but what i have been interested to learn about the attitude -- is and should not be -- is -- buying off reputational risk was more money than otherwise would have been justified. my attitude would have been to find out the facts around what the mud slinging was. and my answer would have been to say let's understand those allegations. let's -- show me -- show me that those are wrong. and so on. i think if you do fast forward to 2009, you know, the company -- did see some of those allegations come. asserted investigations had

been done and so on, and i think -- to the point of -- the point of a government failure or not that mr. jay was asking, you know, i think i would have gotten the same answers which is that it had been investigated. it's all been done. the police have said there's nothing there and so on. by the time i arrived, the whole issue of 2006 and 2007 was packed away, if you will, and the company's defense that there was a rogue reporter, that it had been investigated and the police closed the case had been firmly in place for a while. >> i was asking for your reaction as responsible for running -- the overall running of the company to overpay litigation to protect the company from reputational risk.

>> i don't think he would want to do that. i think you would want to settle out -- make out of court settlements to avoid costly litigation and the risk of losing litigation. with respect to confidentiality and there's a variety of reasons to be interested in confidentiality. it is not that unusual. i wouldn't do that. what i would be concerned with with respect to the reputational risk, what its nature really was. and, you know, were -- and to try to understand the real facts of what was going on around the place. and that's what i'd be concerned with today. >> on the 8th of july, printed on the 9th of july, i think it drew your attention at the time, wasn't it not, mr. murdoch? >> i was away. i was in the united states at the time.

>> and had been paid hush money, didn't you make the connection in your mind between at least of that allegation and your involvement in the events of the 10th of june, 2008? >> yes, i did. >> what did you think? >> i asked the question, is this true? what's going on? and the answer came back. >> and the answer was? >> that it wasn't true. that there was no other evidence. that this is -- it's been investigated to death and this is a smear. i think you saw the statement made by both the company at the time as well as by the police at the time. the new chief executive had just been appointed for "news international" and the news on the ground was in london and i was not there. >> you said mr. myler didn't reiterate to you in july, 2009,

what the reasons were for the settlement on the 10th of june, 2008, namely we have to pay this man so much money because of the risk to the company? >> no, they came back and said these allegations aren't true. >> what was your reaction of the select committee report for 2010 which was to the effect, it's incons.u.v.able that mr. goodman acted -- inconceivable that mr. guardman acted alone? >> at the time, managing the select committee and the communications and all the things around "news international" was not my direct responsibility at the time. there was a full-time chief gleck tif in place. but my -- executive in place. but my reaction was, was the company then communicated? this was politically motivated and something -- in the select committee evidence i was clear

about, i regret, we should have taken that select committee report more seriously. >> were you aware of the settlement in march of 2010? >> i was aware that in -- in small detail. >> it was a large amount. it was a million pounds, wasn't it in >> well, there was a -- my understanding and i was told there was a litigation pending with mr. clifford, but that it was decided that -- really there was a commercial relationship with mr. clifford that he and the chief executive wanted to establish. it was a re-establishment of some relationship in the past and that it seem -- better to focus on that and not have this litigation and this arguing and court going on and that's the limit of my understanding of it. >> in january of 2011, you became aware that the one rogue reporter defense was no longer

tenable, isn't it? >> yes, there was disclosure. >> what discussion, if any, with you and "news international," in particular, mr. myler? >> there was "leading up to that litigation happening -- there was discussion leading up to that litigation happening. if anything emerges, the company will act decisively and work quickly on it and that's exactly what the company did. i don't think i was in present discussions with mr. myler at the time but i can go back and check that. >> it may go a bit wider to what you said, mr. murdoch. we have a select committee who you say -- to make a very serious point, "the guardian" article of july, 2009, your immediate reaction was to rushish that, at least in your

mind. here evidence was coming out which show that all these articles and select committees might be right after all, didn't that cause you any concern? >> it did cause concern. the coming out of the evidence was of great concern. that's why the company moved and i insisted that the company move quickly to reopen an internal investigation into the issues around it. to act against the employees that were implicated and immediately suspend them which was done -- before the new year. and moved to bring in new counsel to get to the bottom of what was going on. >> as soon as we had that evidence we acted very quickly and i wish we had that evidence earlier. >> in paragraph 15. of your statement to an aggressive defense. do you feel there was a

cultural problem? either within your papers or the process as a whole? >> i think -- i wouldn't say that it's simply -- "news international" newspapers but not to excuse it. i did spend in the time i was sort of involved in these newspapers that the culture between these papers is very tribal and the competition is seen as very much as zero sum game. and that may lead to a culture of being too aggressive, knocking back allegations and not being thoughtful and forensic about allegations. and that's why i think about really one of the big lessons learned here is that no matter where something comes from, even if it's a commercial rival or someone who has a political

gripe or whatever it is being understanding that those circumstances don't make an allegation untrue is very important. >> do you feel in hindsight that the "news of the world" in particular was characterized maybe by cavalier or swashbuckling attitude to wits because that was something inherent in its brand? >> i don't think i would say that, that's its inherent in its brand but i think knowing what we know now about the culture after "news of the world" in 2006, for example, and at least we know about the alleged, you know, widespread nature of these poor practices, that it must have been cavalier about risk. i think that's a matter of huge regret. . we have systems in place right now to make sure it doesn't happen in the future.

>> the best way to deal with that is go to a meeting. >> at some point we need to break. we'll just have 10 minutes. >> ok. thank you, sir. >> one last question. on the 10th of june, did you take notes of that meeting? >> i don't think so. i don't have any notes. >> meetings with politicians. j.r. 9, first of all. 02952. this time we're within the p. r.p. folder. do you have it there, mr. murdoch? >> yes. >> the meeting with -- rather a conference call with then prime

minister blair on october 10, 2005, and it was your instigation, wasn't it? >> that's my recollection. >> you say possibly. proposals causing rights so i don't recall precisely. there are rumors going around that the rights in relation to the premiere league would be right, correct? >> there was a number -- at the time there was a number -- i wouldn't say rumors going around. there were a number of interested parties who wanted to see the european commission's intervention and primary soccer selling, the premiere league itself, to be changed again. >> yes. >> i recall the -- not exactly. i think it was about -- i think

it was normal or appropriate or legitimate business advocacy. ftal and british broadcasting and others thought further intervention of the otherwise vibrant rights for sports rights wasn't necessary. >> when described in a number of ways, you can use the term, business advocacy. you could say lobbying, right? >> yes. >> it could also be described as a private conversation with the prime minister making it clear the commercial concerns of your company and that he should understand them, is that right? >> i think -- i think yes. it would have been entirely consistent with public statements that i would have made or on behalf the company would have made and nothing in

communicating additionally would have been inconsistent with the company's view of further intervention in the market. >> when mr. blair -- if the european commission did intervene then the british government should avail? >> no. i think it was just -- it should have been conversations like this i would have said make the prime minister aware. it's a major british franchise football playing and that, you know, it would have been unclear whether he was aware of some of that -- what some of the proposals that were flying around were like. and that's all. >> you wouldn't have either the

bad test or lack of sophistication to make a direct request of the prime minister in order to do that. you would probably ignore it. but you are subtlely communicating to him, are you not? your concerns on behalf of it and making it -- making it shows he can understand them, would you agree? >> yes. the purpose would be to hopefully for senior policymakers, the prime minister in this case, to understand that, you know, that some of these policies might have adverse consequences for british football. english football in this case. >> they certainly have adverse consequences for their company, didn't they? >> potentially. it's important to note that the european commissions work on this was the way the fapl sells. it wasn't the way we or others bid. it was the structure of the

auction itself that was the concern. >> ok. we look at jrm-9 again, and your meetings with gordon brown, they appear to be of social nature, is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. pretty much. and i remember -- the middle one, the 15th of december, 2008, i don't remember but he would have -- he would have told me lots of things about the economy, the like. >> when was it in 2009 that news corps began to hatch the idea to acquire the remaining shares in viscaibe? >> i remember there was a meeting in the summertime in los angeles in august.

it started to come together thinking would it be possible to do that. >> ok. come back to that. then mr. cameron probably best to deal with this chronologically. look at jrm-10. these are meetings with leaders of the opposition. we can see a number of meetings -- this is page 02863. in 2006, 2007, 2008, who's mr. adlington? >> i don't remember. i think a banker, assembling business leaders to listen to the leader of the opposition towards his attitude toward enterprise, if i recall. >> at the early stage, did you have any doubts about mr.

cameron's suitability to be prime minister? >> i don't think i would have thought of it in that way, really. i met him occasionally. mainly at social events, dinners, other person's house. and he would have -- and he would have -- as leader of the opposition, and speaking to anyone around, you know, the media would have been -- or business leaders would have been advocating the rightness of his ideas, i should imagine. >> what's the purpose of these meetings? at least two-fold. first, understand where mr. cameron was coming from in terms of macroeconomic policy. was that part of the purpose of these meetings? >> i think the general direction. i think politicians like to communicate their vision of policies and what they like to do both economically, for

business, for society. they generally try to convince anyone who will listen when they're right and not wrong. >> supporting mr. cameron, it would need to be satisfied that he was on the right page in relationship to macroeconomic policy? >> i think any newspaper would be considering what policies were being put forward and making their own judgments. >> wasn't there also this discussion, mr. murdoch, you beginning to know where mr. cameron stood on issues which would directly affect your company and your companies? >> not really. i mean, i wouldn't really have raised specific things with him about that. other than consistent -- you know, my position on industry policy and things like that, i've been pretty consistent and pretty public. >> what about the views of regulation, whether it's tv

regulation, press regulation, competition plurality, wouldn't you want to know his views about that? >> i think generally -- it's more generally an approach to enterprise, an approach to not so much macroeconomics but approach to business and how businesses work and how they create jobs and the like. >> what would nt -- wouldn't you want to know his views about those matters? >> the purpose of these meetings wasn't necessarily to find out. the discussion was on a broad range of subjects, from foreign policy to other things. >> i'm sure you ranged over a number of topics that it would be a large advantage of your company and some would say your duty to find out where mr. cameron stood as leader of the opposition stands on these? >> i'm not sure it was a commercial advantage to the company. the political leaders espouse generally what they do publicly. >> it occurs -- >> and they have a platform and they -- >> of course it occurs in the

public domain and mr. cameron did set out his position on these matters in a public forum. wouldn't you also wish to find out privately what he might have, moreover in a private context he might tell you more? >> if you're -- mr. jay, what you're getting at is some sort of a judgment about a political leader with respect to specific legislation or specific policies around our business, that's really not -- that's not the way i do business. i would have been interested and flattered to be invited to a dinner that the leader of the opposition was at and i would have been curious as a person in the world to listen to what he had to say about a variety of politician. >> you'd say towards the back end in 2009, didn't you think it was a matter of intellectual curiosity occur to you that it would be interesting to know where mr. cameron stood on meares of regulation -- matters of regulation which might have an impact on the bid of that?

>> not really. in regulatory risk, that's around what a process would look like, would there be competition issues? it wasn't a narrow political calculation around that because the legal risk would have been established and we would have made a judgment on that basis. i think not with respect to -- not with respect to any transaction -- clear transaction, specific regulation or anything like that. >> but certainly you would look at the general political direction a country is going in. if it's turkey or india or whatever to see, is this a place where our enterprise can be pursued. >> it could be mongolia, it doesn't matter. mr. murdoch, in relation to the united kingdom, particularly an election is coming up, how is

this going to play out, this bid, if on the one hand you have cameron and on the other hand you have brown, surely that calculation must have been spelled out. >> the idea to bid for the shows we didn't already own, that wasn't part of it. there was a view later on when it was we might attempt to do this not becoming a political issue in the middle of an election but with respect to the likely or possible outcomes of the elections were. >> mr. murdoch, the merits examined on two levels. there's the legal analysis where you may be advised -- i'm going to ask you to comment on it. then there is the -- whatever the case is, we have to get it through because the opposition we might face. on the political stage, that

sort of discussion must have taken place, mustn't it? >> it takes place with respect to what sort of regulatory scrutiny and a transaction is going to come under. and you make an assessment around that. and certainly while on the regulatory side, on competition issues and plurality issues, we were confident of the case. politics or commercial interests might influence opposition or arguments made against. but we rested on the soundness of the legal case. >> new evidence to the inquiry that after you thought that a labour government re-elected in 2010 would be more favorable, more well-disposed to the bid than a new conservative government. >> i don't think the bid -- which government's approach to the bid was something

necessarily on the -- we had between new york and london and public affairs executive working tightly on this and regulatory perspective. there was -- it was a sound -- it was a sound transaction and we would have been able to get it through. it would go to the competition or not. it was more duration. not really likelihood of completion that we were concerned about. >> in the 10th of september, 2009, you had drinks with mr. cameron at a place called the george. and the topic of the discussion was the sons endorsements of the conservative party. do you see that? >> yes. >> the son would be endorsing the conservative party.

it would make -- >> it would make clear to mr. cameron by me to me and my father that autumn the son would be endorsing the conservative party or moving away from its traditional or recent support of -- >> yeah. and it might not have been welcomed news to mr. cameron? >> i don't see it that way. >> did you discuss the timing of the son's endorsement? >> we discussed it at the end of the plan the editors had it would have been at the end of the conference season. the editors wanted to see what things came out of the conversations, particularly the labour conference whether or not they would say. >> was there discussion it would endorse you at the best possible moment -- the worst

possible moment for mr. brown the very day of his speech at the labour party conversation? was there discussion on that basis? >> i don't remember that but for clarity i think it was the day after would be -- was -- was the article that was really more focused on labour's record rather than endorsement of the conservatives. it was the day after the speech. it was really about labour's record. >> either at that meeting or with paul you didn't have issues with mr. cameron? >> at that meeting i certainly didn't. >> what about the previous meeting? >> i don't believe so. >> later meetings with mr. cameron.

we can see this on page 02864 that -- the references to politics. do you think regulation might have been discussed? >> which -- these are on the 7th of november and the 23rd of december? >> no. they're before the election. it's on the second page of 02864. >> i think more -- i think actually more politics, just leading up to an election was a more -- more the topic i don't believe we discussed any specific regulation and certainly if anything came up, it would have been, you know, entirely consistent with the public -- you know, the public advocacy that i or the company had undertaken at the point. >> ok. once he becomes prime minister, which as we recall in may of

2010, you recorded two meetings with mr. cameron. back on jrm-9. there's a lunch at checkers with your family. on the 7th of november, 2010. one may accept general social common sayings. you don't recall any conversation of the bskibeb bid? >> no, not at all. >> in december of 2010, there was some discussion, according to a witness statement on paragraph 3.19, can we just be clear about this occasion, was it at the home of mr. and mrs. brooks? >> yes, it was. it was the 23rd of december, at their home. >> about how many people were there? >> i can't remember the exact number, but it was in the teens, maybe a dozen, maybe 15 people. >> it was two days after the revelation that mr. gable might

not be having a bskyb with an open mind, if i can put it that way? >> he showed acute bias. >> that's fair enough, mr. murdoch. so the issue in place of the bid was very much on your mind in december 23, 2010, wasn't it in >> it was. it was a big question mark of what would happen going forward. there was no discussion with mr. cameron other than as i detailed in my witness statement which is simply he reiterated what he had said publicly was that the behavior had been unacceptable and i, you know, i imagine i expressed a hope that things would be -- in a way that was appropriate and judicial. our only concern during this period was that the correct and appropriate legal test was applied to this transaction.

and i would have said it to anyone who would have listened. there was a tiny side conversation at dinner where people were there. >> it was just a few moments, is that right? >> i included here for completeness. >> fair enough. then other ministers, meeting with mr. law after he resigned as chief secretary of the treasury, after the 29th of may, 2010, presumably, after the bid was announced, is that right? >> yes, yes. >> what would be the purpose of this discussion, to see if the liberal democrats, possibly the coalition, could be on -- brought onsignified >> not brought onside. i had been attempting to meet

with the guy in charge of the port foal yote. the cork of the enterprise act that the politician himself, the secretary of state, holds the responsibility to make the decision. it's not a question of regulator or independent body or anything like that it's the secretary of state himself who can do that. i had -- i had been requesting a meeting with mr. cable. i was told i wasn't able to have a meeting with mr. cable and his advisors with our team as well to talk about the transactions. so i reached more people. i think reached out to mr. cable's advisors who suggested we talked to various senior level democrats. >> can i ask you a general questioning about the timing of the bid? we know from what's in the public domain that "news corps" bskib acquiring the publicly owned shares of bskyb in june of 2010?

>> that's correct. >> that's one month after the election. conversation began the previous year. was it part of the strategy to at least wait until the outcome of the election? >> i think it was to wait until the election was completed regardless of the outcome. such that a transaction of this size, some 12 billion dollars didn't become a political football. that was the primary goal. the primary driver for the timing was really the, a, affordability of it being able to do we had taken sometime to really husband our resources carefully. it was contemplated it would have been an all-cash offer. that took time to save up, if you will. after a -- over a number of years. there was a gap because in 2009, recall, the financial crisis, with the uncertainty around the environment, you know, large scale, merges and acquisitions activity was a hard thing to get your head around. yeah -- furthermore, in 2009 --

forgive me, mr. jay, i think it's important. every summer the bskyb board meet together to talk long-term strategy and the like, we want to do ahead of or around that time when the board was scheduled to have a few days together so it can be done completely and properly with the board. >> you needed to save up over a number of years, is that right? >> the company did. >> suggest that the bskyb bid was -- had reached an embryo over a number of years, hadn't it? >> well, you -- you know, nine. in late 2009 when we had proper discussions about it was where we were. but it was -- in 2007 the company acquired dow jones for 5.5 billion dollars in cash. and to contemplate a transaction of this size in the immediate aftermath of that and given what happened in 2008 and

2009 with respect to the global financial crisis would have been difficult. so in 2009 and 2010 we realized this was something we could actually do. >> there is a difference of aspiration and reality. in terms of aspiration, bskyb had been on the radar for news corps for a number of years, hadn't it? >> the company founded british sky broadcasting some 20 years ago. >> what i mean by that the acquisition of being publicly owned shares in bskyb, that had been on the radar for a number of years? >> it had long been an aspiration. >> when i referred to the outcome of the election and your desire to wait for that, part of your calculation, wasn't it, or the preference at least was for conservative victory? >> i think -- i think -- i don't think it's controversial to say that, you know, generally speaking from a -- with respect to the approach of

enterprise, the free market and so on, that the conservatives, you know, tried to make a case that they were the better, they were the better option for that. >> having committed the son to the conservative party on the 30th of december, 2009, had there been a later victory at least with regard to the bskyb bid, would it? >> i think it was never a calculation, the bskyb bid and what you're saying, we never made -- i never made that sort of kind of a craft calculation about what the newspapers did. it just wouldn't occur to me. >> well, you describe that as a crass calculation. i suggest you would have made the sophisticated calculation for preference with particular desire in the general election with regard to what might work best for the fate of the bskyb bid, you'd at least do that, wouldn't you?

>> what is best for the british economy which leads you to the view that you were happier or less happy to invest. >> and that was my -- >> i don't know if my personal politics matter to you but that would have been my view, yes. >> we know from your witness statement, paragraph 3.23.1 that you had telephone calls to or with mr. jeremy, the secretary of state for culture media, olympics and sport, on the 10th of november and the 15th of november, 2010. page 02962. you don't recall whether the conversations related to bskyb, is that correct? >> that's correct. there would have been a number of meet diagnosis that the minister would have sought --

and that was where it was. he didn't have any authority or any renege with respect to the transaction at the time but if i would have said anything about it would have only been to seek assurances that the appropriate legal test was applied and this wouldn't have become a political issue. >> this was shortly after the european intervention, wasn't it? >> i can't remember the exact date of the european intervention notice but i do remember, i can't remember, i can come back to you on that. actually, no i have that schedule.

the european intervention notice -- >> fourth of november. >> yes, 4th of november, a little while after that. >> not long after that, was it? >> a week later. might have come up with mr. hunt. >> mr. hunt was a huge ally of news international, wasn't he? >> i wouldn't describe it that way, no. i mean, i don't think so. >> according to what was then on his personal website, he was, you've seen that, haven't you? >> yes, i saw it in the evidence you put here. the first time i'd seen it. >> the cheerleader for rupert murdoch's contribution to television.

>> i don't think you have to be an allife the business to conclude that. it's a fact. >> it's a bit of opinion wrapped up in that fact. >> the cheerleading part, we, but the contribution has been significant. >> i think the point i'm making, i hope very gently is that mr. hunt was on side, it is true he did not have jurisdiction over the bid because that was -- for the b.i.s., but the purpose, i would suggest to you is that he could oil the wheels a bit. >> i think it would have been, i don't remember those particular calls, but i think it might have been of the process, the hearing, it might have been to talk about everything from next generation

, one call was about a meeting that he can selled and i think he apologized for having the cancel the meeting because his lawyers told him not to, but i don't know if it's one of those calls. >> can i ask you to look at tab 53 in the bundle we prepared for you, our page 01962 about a week before the election. it says in my version of the bundle, it's 53. it may be 52 in your bundle. it's the meetings with -- >> i see them on the electronic system. >> it is, i hope, the first

meeting on the 12th of october, you discussed amongst other things the former lost con, right? >> there's a whole agenda here, a numb of things that have been discussed. >> at the next meeting, new communications act, media regulations. do you recall anything about that? >> i think it was the opposition's view, they were upset, they were going to have to think about in the first term, a new communications act and i think the labor government talked about updating the communications act as well. this is a normal agenda around, you know, mr. hunt describing what his agenda was, largely, around things like the local tv net work, anti-piracy, copyright, next generation

access, etc. and i think he was on the, very publicly on the record as saying, he wanted to look at the system of regulation under dcms as well. >> and the last item of his agenda here is funding and governance, that also was discussed. did you, on a previous -- did you, previously to this, with that policy to top slice the bbc fee? >> i've never thought that was a good idea, if i were asked and i might have been at this that meeting, i would have told him my views on that, which is not it's -- which is it's not is a very good idea and it's better to keep the contribution measurable. which is the same position the bbc had as well. >> in october of 2010, there

was a license fee settlement with with the bbc. i think theup shot was, the license fee was frozen far number of years. was that something which you discussed? >> i don't remember if i did. if i did, i would have you have -- i would have said they should have gone through proper process. the schedule for the license fee the following year with the industry and stake holders. i was very upset when they announced that settlement. >> that was vis-a-vis b-sky-b wasn't it? >> i think the whole industry would have welcomed a process of wider consultation around something as important as that. >> do you have in relation to

oscom, any contact with ministers of officials with relation to the changes in our, in october 2010, of the outcome and budget -- to reduce the budget by 28%? >> i don't think so. >> was that an outcome which news corps would have favored? >> yeah, i've often said, i've been consistent about this, that the scale of intervention by media regulation. that gets put back to us anyway, it wouldn't really make a difference. >> it's been said of you that you are a close friend of mr. osborn, is that right?

>> we were -- we have been friendly. i wouldn't say i was a close friend of his. >> what one newspaper asked was, you've got children of the same age, you get on well, this is a piece in "the guardian." >> which tab is it? >> tab 63 in my version. >> i'm friendly with mr. osborn, the chancellor. >> have you been to the chancellor of the exchequer, sometimes as described as grace and favor home? >> i have once. with my family. >> did you have discussions with him at any stage about the b-sky-b bid? >> i think i had one discussion where it might have come up,

which was around the -- which was during the process which would have been taking a long time which i was very clear and public about. nothing i would have said to mr. osborn wauf been inconsistent with our public advocacy on the subject. >> is it possible to differentiate in any way between what you describe as what you describe as your public view and what takes place in private? the purpose of the former is obvious and appropriate. the purpose of the latter may be said to seek to gain some unfair or covert advantage in relation to your opponents. >> no. look, i don't think i don't think that -- that would not be the way i would do it. i'm for the, you know, i look at this and and -- at this and

say, look, i like to be principled, what the regulation is like, i like to lay it out publicly. >> i'll say the same -- i'll say the same thing, it's legitimate to advocacy, positions for policymakers, that's important and i think all business leaders would take the same approach. >> the press clearly have an enormousing me phone and tan -- and can promote the views they think are correct. the evidence of the september meeting, which you've spoken of, was clearly very important. but do you think you obtain greater access for yourself as a businessman because you have the weight of press interests behind you?

>> i think it's true to say that politicians and people around the political class if you will, they are eager to get their points across, they like to talk to the press, we've seen the schedule of the prime minister's meetings with the journalists and editors there. from the standpoint of a businessperson, i don't think i personally experienced that because actually i haven't -- i haven't actually spent that much time with politicians personally. and certainly most of my interaction with these politicians has been around british sky broadcasting where the politics of news and things like that don't fit in. the vast majority of my career has been -- is making television here. >> i understand that. but do you think it might have

been an advantage when you've been discussing b-sky-b making television and the contribution that b-sky-b has made, this actually news international have other interests which have been capable of at least potentially making a difference? >> i don't think there's any evidence of an advantage with respect to the way we've operated our business and the way the business has been regulated and governed and to the contrary, i just don't think that's there. i think that's a question perhaps for the politicians about how they saw it. certainly for me, i would really, you know, i just wouldn't link it to, i wouldn't do that. i think the press and newspapers have to make the decisions on behalf of their readers and in the context of the country and what they think is right and you know, i need to be able to win the argument if you will, for british sky broadcasting and others, or i

did at the time, on the merits of the business and the legal case, that's all i would ever seek to do. >> in your discussions with politicians before the general election, particularly the last one, was it not obvious to you that they were very interested in whether you would be supporting their party in due course? >> i don't think i was ever asked directly about that. >> that wasn't the question. the question was, whether it was obvious to you that they would be very interested in knowing whether your newspapers would support their party in due course? >> yeah, i think all politicians would be interested to know that and would seek the support of newspapers anded the media. that's very much part of their -- the way they see their jobs as communicators. to be able to avail themselveses of thatting me

phone, you will, for their -- of that mega phone, if you will . that's reasonably evident. >> there's an ever-changing balance of power here in regard to an election, it must occur to you, a sophisticated individual, that the balance of power is more with you than with them because they are so interested in knowing whether your newspapers are going to support them. would you agree with that? >> i hope that's not the case. because, you know, i hope they don't think that's the case because we live in an environment of just such extraordinary choice in media sources. we look at customers multisourcing, variety of news from all over the place. i don't think there's that, the very old-fashioned view if you will of big media proprietors and being able to dominate the landscape, i don't think that exists anymore.

i think in westminster it sometimes feels like people believe that, but i don't think it's the case. >> mr. murdoch i'm not concerned with reality, one could never prove -- i'm not so sure you mean that. >> you may not be, but i certainly am. >> one can never -- one can never prove that the newspaper, even one as important as "the sun" supports a party that that has a causative effect on an election. i think you just confirmed through your last answer, politicians believe that, don't they? >> whether or not they believe it doesn't change the fact that levinson was suggesting, and i don't think i've ever had a conversation with a politician where he or she didn't try to convince me of the rectitude of their views and is that -- i

think that's true of pretty much anyone they talk to, but particularly people with any direct or indirect relationship with the press. >> are you agreing or disagreeing that there's at least a perception in the minds of politicians that reputations of newspapers such as "the sun" is important? >> i think that's a question but it's a question for them. >> in terms of your analysis of the timing of something like the b-sky-b bid weighing out the pros and cons, it would be part of the assessment as to the power you can exercise over politicians in a critical time in the run-up to election. >> that would not be part of our assessment that we would

exercise our power over politicians that you believe is there, that is not the case. >> after the election, the tables are turned somewhat, the power is more with the politicians. morely if you need their help in relation to commercial projects such as the acquisition of the remaining chairs of b-sky-b. >> i wouldn't concede that the table was there to turn, mr. jay. i think the power is with the law of the land and the policymakers around it. you have to consider whether it's adviseable or not and whether you have to assess the regulatory environment and play a straight bat as you can, or as straight as you can. >> i'm sure a straight bat is best. but i'm sure that the way the things are dealt with is not just a legal issue, it's also a

political issue, isn't it? >> i think there's always a risk that a transaction or business transaction can be politicized and that concerns around the environment, that's the case. >> it's more than a risk. if you look at the history in relation to news international where it's 1981, with "the times," 1989 with "today," 1990 with the merger of the two companies. there's always been a political debate. alongside the legal or substantive debate hasn't there? >> i think unfortunately there has been a political debate and my concern involved in business in this country has been to try to keep the debate on the legal side and actually to look at facts and merits and i'm pretty square on this and be consistent with respect to, you know, how we legislate, how we

regulate industries and how ultimately we can create an environment for better investment and more jobs in these industries. that's been my concern. >> you'll be aware, mr. murdoch, that we wish to keep the debate solely to the legal issues, but it would be inevitable that the debate would spill over into the political domain, wouldn't you? >> as i said, can i ask you to clarify, mr. jay, i don't really understand, there are many debates, so there's debates around whether or not a transaction may or may not act against the public interest which we dealt with last year. there are debates around how right os are sold, there are debates around politics. >> politicians can have a view. we definitely, when we started to invest he wasly in english

cricket at b-sky-b, there was a political angle and i thought my job at that time, as it is now, was to say, no, from a legal perspective it's entirely appropriate for english cricket to be broadcast on sky from the standpoint of fans and so on and so forth. i always try to bring it back to what is legally sound, what are the right arguments for industry and to try to make the political debate, you know, one that's less relevant. it sometimes isn't based in what's right or legal or where the right jures kix is >> other politician the first minister of scotland you had lumpling with him in january, 2011, there's a letter which followed on the 25th with mr.

sigh mob. do you recall that? >> do i have that let for the my bubbedsnl >> maybe tab 92. tab 92. our tab 93. you may not have it, then. >> the let for the january, yes. >> have you got those to hand? >> yes. >> how many people did b-sky-b employ in scotland? >> some thousands, quorum the number off the top of my head but i can get you the exact number but 5,000 or 6,000, if not more. stpwh we have seen reference somewhere to as many as 18,000. >> 18,000 is the total british sky broadcasting direct

employment base. there's more that are indirect. >> in relation to after the 2007 when scotland did not support his party, news international and his party became closer, didn't they? >> in 2007, that was before i was there, i'm afraid. i don't -- >> that's part of the history. but -- >> yop what the relationship was like. i only met him much more recently than that. >> if i can deal with one

discreet issue, tab 67 of bundle we put together for you, it's the event which allegedly took place at the independent. do you recall it? >> yes, i recall the story. >> and they say, you went around to the independence -- to "the independent's requests offices and swore at them over an article that said rupert murdoch won't decide the lech you will. is that true? >> that's not correct, mr. jay. i can -- would you mind, may i just give you my version of events? >> succinctly, tell us what happened. >> i had a meeting there, in the same building at associated newspapers which is in the article. we went downstairs, i was upset and concerned because the "the

independent" had not had an article about this but put up a lot of giant billboards around england which i'd seen pictures of that said, rupert murdoch won't decide this election, i thought they were personalizing an ayen da against my father and my family which i found inappropriate. i'm a direct person, if i think if you have an opportunity to tell someone to their face it's better than whispering or saying something to someone else, particularly as i knew mr. helmer, and i was concerned about it. i went into the front door of "the independent" they didn't really have a desk or reception area, or a lock, frankly. so you're automatically in the middle of the news room, which i wasn't intending to do, i fund mr. helmer and said, may we speak to you for a minute? we went into his private office and shut the door, i told him of my concerns.

whether or not i used colorful language, i wouldn't dispute but there was no storm, none of this happened out in the open in the newsroom but i was upset because he had been availing himself of the hospitality of my family for years and i thought this was beyond the pale and not a decent bayway to go about his business. >> before we look at the detail of b-sky-b bid, can i ask you about the issue of specialist advisors. was mr. osborn a specialist advisor? -- was mr. osborn's specialist advisor known to you? >> i don't have any recollection. i don't know. >> your news corps head of corporate communications, someone called mr. matthew anderson, would it be fair to describe him as a lobbyist?

>> no, mr. anderson is a communications and marketing executive who deals with public affairs, as you say, lobby, the public affairs people interface with government, would report to mr. anderson alongside brand marketing and press people as well. >> as a meevens improving the prospects of the b-ski-b bid, did you instruct mr. anderson to have contact with any specialist advisors or mr. hunt or mr. osborn? >> i think there was a regular, generally speak, at the public affairs level, at that time he dealt with a direct contact, and people of that nature that's where, that was the p.o. box for the company there. >> in terms of how news core,

news international operates we'll hear that your father had some meetings with politician well, know you have some meetings with politicians. in 2008, the general election in may of 2010, would it be fair to say that mrs. brooks, as it were, bore the brunt or majority of meetings with politicians because of her relationship with politicians? >> i've seen the schedule, i think of the prime minister's meetings in that period, i can't remember exactly, but she would have been closer to those issues than i was. >> is it part of the general way of working, as it were, that mrs. brooks might report back to you as to the outcome of any discussions or the fact of discussions with politicians and then you would report back

to your father? >> from time to time she would report to me about a discussion that was relevant and she would also communicate directly with my father with some frequency. >> when you had discussions internally in september, 2009, within the sun in paragraph six of your statement, both discussion involved the political editor of the "the sun" and mrs. brooks and your father may have been involved as well. did the discussions involve any assessments of the next election? >> the discussions in late 2009 or whenever it was, there was a question of what "the sun's" position would be through that summer if you recall, there was quite a lot of back and forth

and "the sun" was writing extensively about the views, that was of some general interest and leading up to the decision around not supporting the labour party after having supported them in two elections previously before i was there. i was involved in some of those discussions really the likelihood of who would win, those meetings would have been kept, someone said the poll says this, or this and that, that's sort of things. >> that many particular was why the political editor was there. you could be advised as to the likely outcome of the next elections as far as anybody could assess such an imponderable but also to hear the relevant journalists' view on the individuals involved, the quality of their policies,

how he thought the readership and the readers were feeling. to have input. >> and the decision is multifactorial, one factor, amongst many, is -- >> you can see more of today's testimony on the investigation into phone hacking by british newspapers later on here on c-span and at c-span.org. also come -- the house is coming in now to debate a handful of bills dealing with federal land. votes are scheduled for 6:30 eastern.

for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1038 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1038, a bill to authorize the conveyance of two small parcels of land within the boundaries of the coconino national forest containing private improvements that were development based upon the reliance of the landowners in an erroneous survey conducted in may, 1960. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extemp rain yuss -- include other kind of remarks and materials to the --

extraneous materials to the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: for some obvious reasons, i'd yield to the gentleman from arizona, the sponsor of this bill that solves some real problems for introduction of this particular bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: i rise in support of h.r. 1038, a resolution that resolves a land dispute. this legislation is a commonsense solution to an incomprehensible federal land situation. in 1961 the federal government conducted a survey in which several acres of the national forest service land were misidentified as private property. it was not until 2007 when the federal government contracted another private survey that the mistakes were realized and the residents of the mountaineer neighborhood were informed of these errors. until the 2007 survey, many of these residents have maintained

these par sells and developed them as their -- parcels and developed them as their own for years and in some cases decades. so what does this mean? on some of these par sells, the revised bound -- parcels, the revised boundary goes literally right through people's homes. can you imagine if the forest service said, oops, we own half of your living room? they prevented a number of sellers from selling their home. we tried to work with the agency administratively and it did not work. so i put forward this resolution to solve it immediately. h.r. 1038 authorizes the forest service to convey all rights, titles and interests in approximately 2.67 acres of the coconino national forest to the homeowners. it will provide much-needed

relief to my constituents in the subdivision in coconino county. in exchange for the land, the homeowners pay a fee. the $20,000 required in the bill which was agreed to by all parties, including representatives from the local national forest in which this -- and this is based on precedence. the northern arizona land exchange legislation. this legislation pertained to a small piece of property within the same county. frankly, i do not believe these constituents should have to pay niss to retain property -- pay anything to retain property rights. however, i have agreed to this compromise. a compromise agreed upon by all parties. because my constituents need the situation fixed now. the forest service does not want to own these people's living rooms and the property owners certainly don't want to share their homes or yards with the forest service. this bill is a no-brainer. everyone supports it, including the administration. before i conclude, i want to

thank the residents of the neighborhood and the coconino county. they worked with my office to put together a video to call members of the community and to advocate on behalf of this bill. without this teamwork we would not have garnered unanimous support at the committee level and would not be voting on this bill today. i want to thank chairman hastings and bishop and their staffs for pushing this bill forward. while this bill fixes a small amount of land, it is vital to the livelihood of my constituents that are affected. it is not often that congress gets the opportunity to fake up a noncontroversial legislation like h.r. 1038. i encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation and relieve my constituents of this financially burdensome situation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to readvice and extend -- revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized.

ms. tsongas: mr. speaker, this bill corrects a survey error made in the 1960's. the landowners will be required to pay $20,000 for these two parcels. we have no objections to congressman gosar's legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: did you just yield back? ms. tsongas: i reserve the balance but i can yield. mr. bishop: we have no other speakers. i'll ask if there are other speakers on your side? ms. tsongas: we have no other speakers. mr. bishop: we are ready to close if you are ready to yield back. ms. tsongas: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: this is a problem. it's sad to come to the congress to solve this problem but it is being solved and i appreciate the gentleman from arizona for his hard work and trying to help his constituents out. i would encourage our members to support this amendment, and i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house

suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1038, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection -- mr. bishop: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: on that i ask for -- mr. speaker. first off, i ask for a vote -- i ask for the yeas and nays and i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: at this time i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2157. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 306, h.r. 2157, a bill to facilitate a land exchange involving certain national forest system lands in the inyo national forest, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i again ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: this is another good bill that solves a problem that should have been solved at another level and to introduce it i yield to the sponsor, the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. mckeon: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 2157. i want to thank chairman hastings and ranking member markey as well as subcommittee chairman bishop and ranking member grijalva for giving my legislation a fair hearing and moving the bill through the committee. mr. speaker, the mammoth mountain ski area is located in the northern half of my district in the eastern sierra mountains. mammoth provides between 10% and 30% of the total employment in the county and its a premiere recreation destination for tourists all throughout california and the united states. each winter, madam mouth season average of 1.3 million visitors. these visitors pump vital money into the local economy by populating hotels, motels, restaurants and stores throughout the region. tourism is the lifeblood of the eastern sierra. mammoth has operated on a

special use permit from the u.s. forest service since 1953. the base area of the mountain is aging rapidly and is in need of renovation and redevelopment in order to provide a safer, more enjoyable experience for visitors to mammoth mountain. however, these renovations are difficult to achieve under the terms of the special use permit. since 1998, mammoth mountain has been working with the forest service to complete a land exchange between their main base parcel and other desired forest service acquisitions. these acquisitions include high resource value lands in the inyo, el dorado, stanislas and plumoth national forest. it would allow the bane base to go under significant and needed renovations. my legislation has meant to supplement and codify this agreement. it is needed for two reasons. number one, the two parcels that the forest service wants

is outside inyo national forest boundaries. both parcels are currently leased by the inyo national forest of los angeles water and power. number two, there's more value in the mammoth mountain parcel than all the land parcels exchanged in total. so mammoth needs legislation for permission to pay a cash equalization to the federal government that will be used for future forest acquisition. the agreement is widely supported by the local community because residents, business owners, local governments understand the great value of having mammoth mountain in their community. besides jobs and recreation, mammoth supports a significant portion of the tax base, providing needed revenue throughout the region. we received numerous letters of support from community members, including those from duane

hasert, member of the board of supervisors, the lake county, the eastern sierra land trust and the mammoth lakes town council. mr. speaker, thank you for giving my bill time on the floor. mammoth mountain has been a good steward of the environment, a solid partner in economic vitality for the region and an honest party in negotiations with the forest service. this land exchange will be mutually beneficial for all parties involved, and i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2157. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from massachusetts. ms. tsongas: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. tsongas: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. tsongas: h.r. 2157 provides for a land exchange between the united states forest service and the mammoth mountain ski area. we applaud congressman mckeon

for this legislation and support the passage of this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: we're ready to close when you are. ms. tsongas: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: another great bill. i urge its adoption. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2157. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. bishop: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: on this one i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i ask to suspend

the rules and move that we pass h.r. 2050. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 304. h.r. 2050, a bill to authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located on national forest system land in the frank-church river of no return wilderness and the selway-bitter root area and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, and the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: again, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. again, we have a bill that does a great job in solving a problem that should have been solved a long time ago. especially if the senate would ever listen to us. and introintroduce his bill i yield as much time as he may

consume, the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2050, the idaho wilderness water resources protection act. this noncontroversial legislation is a technical fix intended to enable the forest service to authorize and permit existing historical water diversions within idaho wilderness. last congress one of my constituents came to me for help with a problem. the middle fork lodge has a water diversion within the frank-church river of no return wilderness area that existed before the wilderness area was ever established and is protected under statute. the diversion is beginning to leak and is in desperate need of repairs so that it did not threaten the water. they were not able to make the necessary repairs. the forest service lacked authority throughout frank-church river area of

which there are 22 known water developments and the selway-bitteroot area. these diversions are used to support irrigation and minor hydropower generation for use on nonfederal lands. while the critical situation at the middle fork lodge -- brought this to my attention it is obvious that it's larger than one diversion. at some time, all 25 dwergs will need maintenance or repair work to ensure their integrity. this authorizes the -- to authorize special use permits for all dwergs. we need to get ahead of this problem and ensure that the forest service has the means necessary to take care of these lands. the -- this sets out specific cry tier for for issuing special use permits. it will ep sure that existing

water diversions can be maintained and repaired when necessary and preserves beneficial use for those who hold water rights under state law. i deeply appreciate the cooperation of the forest service in directing this service. not only have they communicated with me but they drafted this legislation to ep sure that it only impacts specific targeted historic diversions, those with valid water wrights -- rights that cannot be located outside of the area. i know of no opposition to this bill. it is intended as a simple, reasonable solution to aproblem that i think we can all agree should be solved as quickly as possible. i'm encouraged that the committee held hearings on this and i hope we can move it through the legislative process without delay so maintenance can be completed before the damage is beyond repair. i tank the gentleman and i thank the gentleman from utah for yielding this time to me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized.

>> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman veck niced. ms. tsongas: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. tsongas thk this provides common sense absence within the frank-church no return area and are necessary to protect individual water rights in the state. we applaud chairman simpson for his legislation and support passage of tpwhism i reserve the mans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: i have no other speakers. ms. tsongas: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: this is an issue that's been recognized and a solution that mr. simpson has presented. i urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2050?

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the -- mr. bishop: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to prior announcement, proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. bishop: i move to suspend the rules and pass h r. 2947. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2947 a bill to provide for the release of the reversionary interest held by the united states in certain land conveyed by the united states in 1950 for the establishment of an airport in cook county, minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop and the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i ask unanimous

consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the pill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: once again, we have a bill that -- a problem that should be easily corrected and a bill that does that. with that, mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from minnesota to explain his particular piece of legislation as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cravaack: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 2947 this straightforward, common sense bill will remedy an unintentional consequence of restrictive language of the original deed set in cook county, minnesota. in the 1950's, the secretary of agriculture granted a deed to the state of minnesota to build an airport in cook county. the deed only aloud the land to be used for airport purposes. that made sense at the time but it precludes the county from building a connector road on a sliver of the land. the connector project enjoys broad support throughout the

community. h.r. 2947 does not seek appropriation or federal funds nor does it authorize the project. it merely proposes to remove a clause placed in the deed when the land was granned. it allows the cook county, minnesota, to manage their own land. it enjoys bipartisan support of minnesota senators and representatives. i reached out to the united states forest service who have no objections and support this legislation moving forward. i look forward to quickly remedying this problem so cook county can imcree ate jobs and improve the lives of its residences and -- residents and businesses. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the jerusalem from massachusetts is recognized. -- the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: bob the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. tsongas: i yield myself such time as i may consume. h.r. 2947 releases a

reversionary interest held by the united states to a parcel of land in cook county, minnesota. the release of this interest will allow cook county to use this land for a local highway. we have no objections to this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: another great solution to a problem that should have been solved at another level. i urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2947? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 491. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill.

the clerk: union calendar 302, h.r. 491, to modify the boundies of cibola national forest in the state of new mexico to transfer certain bureau of land management land for inclusion in the national forest and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop and the yom from massachusetts, ms. tsongas, each will control 20 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman veck niced. mr. bishop: this would allow transfer of the land of the crest of montezuma to the bureau of land management. it can be better managed by the national forest.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas is recognized. ms. tsongas: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. tsongas: i rise in support of this legislation and applaud congressman hinrich for his hard work. it is -- congressman heinrich for his hard work. i yield my time to congressman heinrich of new mexico, this bill's son sor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. heinrich: i thank my friend from massachusetts for the time today and her leadership on these issues. the cibola national forest provides a stunning back drop to the city of quebec and much of central new mexico. stretching north to south through the mountain, national forest demonstrates the value of preserving wild places near urban areas. h r. 491 would expand the boundaries of the forest to streamline management and improve recreational access for

local residents. it would transfer a 978-acre parcel known as the crest of montezuma from the bureau of land not the forest service. it's an isolated parcel adjacent to the cibola national forest. it would extend the boundary around tree parcels of land to allow future purchase of these parcels subject to available funds. the owners of these parcels are willing sellers and eager to see their land permanently protect nerd public good. h r. 491 has strong local support from local residents, including the -- a 300-member citizen group that represents residents near the crest of mopt zuma. local sportsmen support the bill because of the importance of these lands as wildlife habitat. over the last three years, i received many letters from constituents asking me to make sure that the crest of montezuma is managed in a way

that preserves its role as a wildlife corridor and opens it up for recreation for local residents. i'm pleased to sponsor this bill to & these critical lands to the cib; ola national forest and ask my colleagues for their support. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman veck niced. mr. bishop: i have no other speakers. do you have further speakers? ms. tsongas: we do not, i yield back. mr. bishop: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 491, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman utah seek recognition? mr. bishop: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2240 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar 314, h r. 2240, a bill to authorize

the exchange of land or interest in land between lowell national historical park and the city of lowell in the commonwealth of massachusetts and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop and the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the ye89 from utah. mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five lennell slative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: this will authorize a land exchange between the lowell national historical park, the city of lowell, the commonwealth of massachusetts or the university of massachusetts building authority. this will allow transfer of the visitors' center parking lot in exchange for an equal number of parking spaces in a new garage to be built by the city. the area where the current lot

is located is needed for development and stake holders are decided this is more beneficial. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. tsongas: i yield myself such time as may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. speaker. it is with great pleasure i rise today in support of h.r. 2240, the lowell national historical park land exchange act. this legislation will facilitate the exchange of land or interest in land between the city of lowell and the lowell national historical park. in 1978, legislation was passed establishing this park. it was championed by my late husband as well as two republican members of congress who previously represented this district. we should take bipartisan pride in its great success. this national park was given a

unique mandate to not only preserve and interpret the resources representing lowell's central role in our 19th century industrial revolution but also to serve as a catalyst in revitalizing the city's physical, economic and cultural environment. all outgrowths of the city's industrial heritage. working together with the city of lowell, the commonwealth of massachusetts and many other public and private partner, lowell national historical park has played a vital role in rehabilitating over 400 structures and has since 1978 helped spur an estimated $1 billion in private investment in the city. in all -- and all of this has been done while the park has dwooped compelling array of programs, exhibits, guided tours and other intrerptive programs. h.r. 2240 would allow the park and its partners to continue working to advance the park's mission to preserve the city's mission to preserve the city's historic