is a bigger are smaller threat and that adolf hitler post to civilization many decades ago. clad change is the worst threat -- i believe climate change is the worst that. it became argali right side up again. in my view, wehts the- have to go to this economics again to-side up problemsagain.

. problem. -- >> the personal expansion in the united states. taht is a great way of framing it. i write a book a nd one of the things i said is it is a good frame for this. i want -- that is an important

issue. let me take you to a place near my home. the stream was tiny and when the last glacier melted, the c hange was so abrupt it tossed big bolders. i think it is -- the evidence of how these systems hae shifted is we should his bid possession of a big change. >> we have some students in the back.

it is in ice so my sense is that we're concerned about in the future we can imagine is the warming and melting followed by increased water levels. later, the ice ages were not driven by human behavior. we have to think about how human actions interact with the natural world. into the future we could enter one of those times and that water freeze and the levels

would come back down should that occur. >> did not know if you have seen the movie the day after tomorrow but that scenario of a rapid shift isn't to a matter days. that is unrealistic. that notion of climate change, you're getting colder, that might happen possibly. the science is not settled. that is possible that could happen because of -- the gulf stream warms ireland arinder. if you shift the ocean current, it could get colder in the part of the world. that is not a global. that is a part of the world. the science is not settled as far as whether that would happen and not.

>> a question in the balcony. >> one of the big blocks we have doing something about climate change in this country is all the climate deniers who are out there and many people do not believe co2 causes climate change or there is no climate change. one of the most effective ways to get around that is by pointing out what larry pointed out earlier. that is the ocean acidification problem. that is caused by co2. even if co2 did nothing to change the climate, ocean acidification would still be a problem and something that would require limitations on the amount of co2 we're putting in

the hemisphere. those of you who are more involved, are people making that point to our elected leaders in congress? quex had a conversation with senator john kerry from massachusetts and senator kerrey is preparing to hold hearings on that subject. i suspect it will happen during the next month or month and a half. his effort is being made because he believes what you said is true. as people understand why we're doing, they may connected a deeper level. we're hitting our oceans up and we're raising the sea level so we're damage in all these coastal ecosystems. we are trashing our oceans and that is going to have enormous consequence on food supply and on a number of other important things like oxygen.

it is important is hearing be held in a think senator -- and i purpose istor kerry's what you're talking about. >> >> we were talking about rio plus 20. the first big major science driven talk about global sustainability. it is in stockholm and their predictions for what would happen 40 years from 1972, if nothing was done to help the environment or the current state of the world. what is now? well removing -- where are we

moving in the conference next week? >> their predictions for years ago, it is worse now than they predicted. i have been focused on rio plus 20. that is where we began. it is time to take action and time for sacrifice. i know people think that perhaps we should not ask the american people to sacrifice for a much for just about a thing these days. we have to sacrifice our old ideas. >> i would like to add to, if i may. i was involved in the first birthday in 1970 and -- earth

day in 1970 and i was around for the stock come conversations. the thing that is missing now that was not available in 1970, we created such a stir in pittsburgh where we carried the coffins down the street wearing gas masks to point out the threat of air pollution. congress passed the clean air act, 100-0. can you imagine that happening today? the american public is asleep. we need to wake up. we need to drive -- this is a democratic system after all and thomas jefferson was right. we get the government we deserve. we have the government we deserve and we have to step forward in challenge these people and look beyond citizens united and the money that is flowing into elections. and put back the important role of citizens in this electoral

process. i think until we do that we will not make progress. [applause] >> @ to add one quick point. that original earth day according to what i have heard, one in 10 americans were out at an earth day event. can you imagine those numbers today and i kind of activism? it is not happening right now. >> how do we turn that conversation around? there is occupy wall street but it is about jobs and big money. and not about how that relates to the environment. the day is out there. what is missing to put the puzzle together for our

citizens? >> how do we -- what is the call to arms, how do we engage in our citizens? >> in my mind there are a couple of things that need to happen. there is the baby boom generation. we were there on the first earth day. we have gone from being activists to being couch potatoes and it is time to get back into that fight. i would put the focus on those who are passing on the torch. those who are -- i do not want to leave this planet until i see climate policy. i could die peacefully and i saw that happen. everyone of us should feel the same way about this matter. i would put the focus first on the adults who were now having grandchildren and part of that original thursday.

we -- i do not know of a single parent who would knowingly trashed their kids' future and that is what we're doing. everyone of us are doing that. i think it's some college campuses need to get fired up. this is your future. the opportunity is here for green jobs. we can see an explosion of jobs. the people who are saying where are these green jobs, the same people that blocked the passage of a climate bill which would have created these green jobs by putting a price on carbon. let's get back to that conversation. that will require young people whose future hangs in the balance to stand up and give voice to this important matter. this is a democracy, it is hours and hours to keep and hours to make happen. -- ours to keep and ours to make

happen. >> they asked us to suggest topics and i suggested a topical, went as a movement become a russell -- a revolution and there will be a panel on that? this was a great question. because we did lose one in 10, we lost earth day somehow. we had an important social movement going and look where we are today. i have got occupy wall street on my mind. it is the second phase of occupy, the strategic thinking has been going on through the winter. we will be more connected to these more systemic issues. that is my hope. there has been a lot of meetings in that in the general assembly's and working groups. how do we make sure that this new movement and perhaps what comes out of it in terms of this issue becomes a social revolution and i hope we can

talk on that panel. >> we have time for one more question. we're going with this student in the back. your generation is the one at stake. >> do you think it is possible to change our current status of global warming under separate government? will we have to have some sort of unity in place? >> did everyone here this question? but make sure i got it right. can you change the global climate change paradigm country by country or is it going to

take some kind of united multinational efforts? was that the question? that is a great question. >> i will take a stab. there have been attempts, there are attempts at these efforts. that is what these conventions are about. they stall. in my view, the principal reason they stall is in this fairly fundamental item. the problem has been caused by the developed world. there is a scientific reason for that. when you put co2 in the atmosphere, at last of their for several hundred years, that is the average lifetime. the stuff that is up there now that is causing climate change will cause a in the near term has been put there by developed

nations. the developing nations are doing their fair share of pumping it out but it is a fairly small contribution to the overall concentration. we in the developed world and we in the united states have a responsibility and an opportunity to lead that group ford if we were to step forward. it is our responsibility to step forward for two reasons. we are responsible for much of the stuff up there and also because we're capable of leading by example. we have to get on with it. we're not leading by example today. i do not think it requires radical changes in the structure of global governance. it takes a nation such as ours to step forward and laid which we have not been willing to do. but i think we can. if we did, the world might come

along with us. we have the ability to influence that as citizens of this country. my answer to your either-or question is yes. we need international efforts. we need u.s. leadership. i used to be more optimistic about the prospects of our kyoto-like tree but -- treaty. there's possibilities there but i do not think we can wait for the world to get together and cooperate. i think that, getting back to the issue of a complex system, the world is complex. with that many countries out there, that many cultures, that many agendas, everybody has to -- they can pursue their own agenda and find solutions and there will be different solutions. we need multiple solutions.

yes for international cooperation and effective leadership. and as for it is in everyone's self-interest. >> the last word. >> i would like to add a word that has not been spoken much here and that is the notion of leadership. this is a matter of a leadership vacuum. my childhood mentor was a man who was one of the first troops to liberate the in tournament camps. he came back from that experience and he talked about the need for us to be stubborn leaders. he believed stubbornness was not a vice as some would suggest but a virtue. he said, you just need to be careful what you are stubborn about because you just might make it happen. i think that is the kind of leadership we need in america.

america needs to be a leader in the world trade by as living individually and working together, i agree with everything that has been shared here by asking that a bigger view and being contemplated about what we're doing. beyond that, we need to get to the point where we are trying leaders of for the future and those leaders, wherever they emerge from, will help this nation go to a better place. this nation has the duty to take the world to a better place. that has been our history and it needs to be part of our future. thank you. [applause] >> with that, let's thank our panel once again for a very provocative morning. [applause] thanks, everyone for showing up. let's take this as a call to arms.

>> newt gingrich announced today he was suspending his presidential run, having won primaries in two states so far including his home state of georgia. he was joined by his wife and other family members at the hilton hotel in arlington, virginia. you can watch his announcement tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. tomorrow, more white house coverage. if mitt romney will be campaigning in portsmouth, virginia. joined by the state's governor as a possible vice presidential pick. democrat to win the state since lbj. this weekend, the libertarian party will select their presidential nominee at their

2012 national convention in las vegas. let coverage of the convention from the red rockers are big fans friday night -- red rocks begins friday night. on saturday, live coverage at noon eastern with a presidential selection process. a vote on the party because the nominee. -- party's nominee. >> between 1971 and 1973, president richard nixon secretly recorded nearly 4000 hours of phone calls and meetings. >> always agree on little things and you hold on the big one. i have done this so often with conversations, i will concede that and make them feel better. but do not give them the big one. >> hear more of the nixon tapes including discussions with future presidents and intelligence agency heads. saturdays at 6:00 p.m. eastern.

hear conversations with gerald ford, ronald reagan, and george h. w. bush. on xm channel 119 and on c- span.org. sunday, on "q&a". >> i do not believe this is just a biography of lyndon johnson. this is what kind of political power. seeing what a president can do in a moment of great crisis, how he gathers and what does he do to get legislation moving, that is the way of examining power at a time of crisis. i want to do this in -- if takes 300 pages -- i want to do this in a book, it takes 300 pages. >> robert carol on "the years of

lyndon johnson." look for our second hour of conversation with robert caro sunday, may 20. >> the justice department charged 107 doctors, nurses, and other health care providers in seven states with the health care fraud. they billed medicare more than $452 million in claims from delight -- fraudulently. >> the assistant criminal attorney and the directory -- deputy director of the fbi. and the devotee and as treasurer for -- deputy director for

integrity. as of today, as part of a coordinated nationwide take down, the medicare fraud strike force, a joint initiative comprised of federal, state, and local investigators and law enforcement officials from across the country, we have charged 107 defendants in seven different cities for their alleged for to the patient in medicare fraud schemes involving $452 million in false billing. this is the highest amount involved in a single tick down in the strike force's of five- year history. included doctors, nurses, social workers, health care company owners and others accused in a series of offenses including health care fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, money- laundering, and violations of the anti-kickback statutes.

this was done with a tireless efforts of 500 investigations -- investigators and agents nationwide. and multiple medicare fraud control units. working in close cooperation, these professionals launched an advanced -- and advanced numerous investigations, executed 20 search warrants, and have arrested or taken into custody 91 of the charge defendants. -- charged defendants. their actions underscore the justice department's determination to bring to justice those who would violate our laws and defrauding the medicare program for their personal gain. this is at the heart of the commitment to protect the american people from all forms of health care fraud. this can drive up health-care costs and threaten the strength and integrity of our health-care

system. three years ago this month, this commitment inspire the departments of justice and health and human services to launch a joint initiative known as the health care fraud prevention and enforcement action team. to leverage the strength of federal, state, and local partnerships in taking the fight against health care fraud to a new level. a driving force behind the success has been a criminal strike forces that have charged 1330 defendants with more than $1 billion in false filings. investments are yielding extraordinary returns. over the last three fiscal years, every dollar we have spent fighting against health care fraud, we have returned $7 to the u.s. treasury, the medicare trust fund, and others. despite these results, much more remains to be done. fortunately, our determination to build on the progress we have

made to strengthen the partnerships we have established across all levels of government and law enforcement have never been stronger. as today's announcement proves, our approach has never been more effective. thank you for your outstanding and your ongoing contributions. it is my trowbridge to turn things over to kathleen sebelius. >> thank you and i want to start by recognizing the the wonderful leadership of attorney general eric holder and our entire collaborative team at the justice department in this effort. with me on stage as the general has said are partners from the fbi, the justice department as well as our inspector general's office and our office of integrity at cms. we are here as representatives

of thousands of people throughout this country who are focused and determined to stamp out fraud in medicare programs. today's historic takedown is just the latest milestone in the obama administration's coordinated campaign to stamp out fraud in our health-care system. when president obama took office, we asked the attorney general to make fraud prevention the cabinet level priority. since then, we have more than quadrupled the number of anti- fraud task force teams operating around the country. charging hundreds of individuals with seeking to defraud medicare and medicaid of billions of taxpayer dollars. those efforts got another boost when two years ago, the president signed the affordable care at, one of the strongest anti-health care fraud act in american history. the law provided new resources

to help law enforcement catch criminals and established tougher sentences for those who got caught. it established new authority to prevent fraud in the first place by spotting bad actors and phony claims before they were able to do major damage. opens a windowwn into this critical approach. the government was often two or three steps behind perpetrators in the past, quickly paying out nearly every properly submitted claim and then later, trying to track down the bad guys after we got a tip, the so-called pay and chase. we were often showing up after the criminals had skipped town, taking all their fraudulent billings with them. but now, we're analyzing patterns and trends and claim status instead of just going claim by claim. in one of the schemes brought down today, medicare investigators spotted a high volume of claims from a mental

health service provider that did not make medical sense. they referred the matter quickly to special agents from our office of inspector general who drill deeper into the data and found evidence of fraud. though it was the data analysis that launched the case, it was also data analysis that accelerated the investigation, allowing our special agents to conduct targeted reviews and interviews and we're taking the successful model and repeating it in cases across the country. this coordinated approach is also why the centers for medicare and medicaid services will stop paying 52 provider organizations connected to today's arrests until we have investigated all them fully. we have this authority thanks to the affordable care act and it will insure that no one who has been part of an illegal scheme can keep cashing in. for long time we have been talking about the need to

strengthen medicare for the future. last week, our trustees' report showed the affordable care act including some of these key anti-fraud positions have already extended the life of the medicare trust fund by eight years to 2024. we want to continue building on these efforts to insure every taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. to protect medicare and medicaid for generations to come. i would like to turn the podium over to assistant attorney general lanny brewer. >> thank you. we are announcing charges against 107 defendants in seven starts for cities across the country. from los angeles to chicago to miami, these defendants allegedly submitted over $450 million in fraudulent claims to

the medicare program. this represents the largest medicare fraud take down in department history. it is measured by the amount of alleged fraudulent billings. it is charged in the indictments face fraud schemes were committed up and down the chain of health care providers. from doctors, nurses, and licensed clinical social workers to office managers and pension recruiters. court papers detail the lengths to which these defendants allegedly went to the of -- to defraud the medicare program. seven defendants are charged with writing two centers that cemented $225 million of fraudulent claims to medicare. the largest scheme ever alleged. these defendants allegedly recruited elderly, drug-

addicted, and mentally ill patients from nursing homes and homeless shelters in order to submit false claims on their behalf. they also allegedly falsified patient notes and attendance records and forged signatures of medical professionals, all to make it appear as those these patients were receiving medical services when they were not. they never received the services. the defendants did not stop there. according to court papers, defendants went so far as to still incriminating documents from the u.s. attorney's office in banners while -- baton rouge. in houston, we have charged owners and operators of four private ambulance companies with billing medicare for millions of

dollars worth of phony or necessary ambulance rides. in miami, detroit, and other cities, we have charged dozens of other defendants with equally fraudulent schemes. today's operation marks the fourth in a series of historic medicare fraud take down over the past two years. these indictments remind us that medicare is an attractive target for criminals. it should also remind those criminals they risked prosecution and prison time every time they submit a false claim. if you do not believe it, ask lawrence duran, who was sentenced last year to 50 years in prison. or his two owners -- code-owners who were sentenced to 35 years.

-- co-owners who were sentenced for 35 years. we are achieving results. i am honored to leave a division as a partners with u.s. attorney's office, the fbi, eight stages, and our other many state and local law enforcement colleagues to fight medicare fraud and to the medicare fraud audsterscountable -- fr campbell. eane's my colleague, shea joyce. >> health-care fraud impacts all americans. it drives up the cost of health care. it makes it more challenging for our seniors and those were seriously ill to obtain the care they need. this to commit health care fraud operate in big cities and small towns like. the schemes vary in size and

sophistication but they all share the twisted believe that medicare funds are free for the taking. health-care fraud is a lucrative business. that is why more and more criminal enterprises are getting into the act. they shift from thes one jurisdiction to the next to find new victims. they're savvy to the system. this makes health-care fraud difficult to identify. it shows the importance of working with our partners in the fight against health care fraud to which can obtain these results. the fbi is investigating 2600 cases of health-care fraud. more than 500 agents and analysts are using intelligence to identify emerging schemes and techniques. as part of the health care fraud prevention enforcement action

team, the fbi is committed to preventing and prosecuting health care fraud. strike forcet in a indicate these efforts are producing results. in 2011, with our health care enforcement partners, we obtained more than 300 disruptions in criminal enterprises. we charge more than 1600 individuals and obtained 700 convictions. we returned over $4 billion to the u.s. treasury. -- $4 million to the u.s. treasury. not only the national but the state and local. our work is not done. the health-care system is as critical piece of infrastructure. we must do everything in our power to protect the integrity of the medicare system and our broad health care system. i would like to turn things over to our deputy inspector from

hhs. >> thank you. and good afternoon. we are too familiar with the threat that medicare fraud poses to the taxpayer but it exposes some of our most vulnerable citizens, identity theft, and even patient harm. the office of inspector general deployed more than 200 special agents across the country to execute arrest and search warrants. we worked with just as prosecutors and other federal and local partners to ensure the success and safety of these operations. today's indictments and arrests hold accountable more than 100 individuals. they also send a message to would-be criminals that there is a price to pay for stealing from medicare. the strike force model has made

us faster and more effective. we is claims data to analyze says -- suspected fraud more efficiently. the team based approach ensure steps are carried out quickly in coordination with prosecutors. digital front 6 enables us to analyze medical, financial, and other digital records to ferret out fraud. instead of working from the bottom up, we target the fraud at it soars. we refer providers to cms for pimmit suspension. -- payments suspension. the indictments announced today demonstrate we are fighting back, leveraging data, technology, and investigative expertise to achieve record- setting results in broad

enforcement. we recovered more than $7 for every dollar spent fighting health-care fraud. oig and our partners have announced record-setting results before. because of this partnership, i know it will not be the last time. thank you. i would like to introduce our next speaker. >> thank you, deputy inspector. one of my close inspectors -- partners in fighting health-care fraud. today the centers have proposed payment suspensions and other actions against 52 providers to ensure that for the program dollars do not go out the door. these providers including home health agencies pain management clinic and ambulance services and will stop receiving payment until the investigations are resolved and claims to terminations have been made.

these actions are being taken under one of the powerful anti- fraud provisions in the affordable care act, authorizing suspension of payments pending investigation of a credible allegation of fraud. they also -- today represents an unprecedented degree of cooperation which has made it possible to tie our civil administrative actions together with the criminal ones. today's takes down -- takedown is the beginning and we will see results which will demonstrate we're able to prevent fraud from ever escalating to the massive global we have seen and brought down today. i am pleased to turn things back over to the secretary and the attorney general. >> you said someone had stolen documents? >> willits that in connection -- we allege that in connection

with a related action, some of the defendants were in the attorney general's office and destroyed documents. >> was anyone watching at the time? >> i cannot go into details. >> do you have an indication of how much you'll be able to recover? >> how much we're going to be able to recover? we do not know that. we will be calculating that as we proceed with the analysis of the administration -- administrative actions we're taking. >> how much have [inaudible] the funds that were mentioned are the ones who have -- that have gone out the door. the action we've taken will stop claims already in place and any new ones coming in.

there have not been paid yet. >> from the 52 providers from the ones who bill us. quexwhen we -- >> that is the amount sought from the defendants. you should not assume that 400 tricky million dollars was paid up. they -- $450 million was paid. this was sought by the defendants. >> what are the emerging scam areas, trends? >> the secretary mentioned there was a couple of the new things with the ambulance fraud in this specific case. we're continuing with our partners, hhs to look at identify the new techniques. one of the critical things we do

uniquely in this with our partners is through data analysis where we end up targeting the specific cities. it is not just out there in a desperate way. it is a focused intelligence to read approach, identifying these critical cities where it is promulgated. >> back to the earlier question. the 52 providers are the billing operators. their payment has been suspended. some of the individuals who are part of the 106 who were arrested today are in the umbrella organizations of those providers. we stopped payment on a provider and we will be conducting four investigations. i wanted to clarify, they're part of the same operators. >> a question about the trial of

roger clemens. the prosecution said his testimony may be only a 50-50. the judge is considering whether the jury should consider that testimony in deliberations. what would you say to people who would say this is not the best use of prosecutorial references when the key witness may be [inaudible] >> i have not heard the references you have made. one has to be these cases in their totality. i do not know the context for which that statement might have been made. the charges are serious. it is about testifying falsely before congress. on that basis, it was justified use of our resources to bring the case. >> it has been two years since the gulf oil spill, the first criminal charges were born

recently. talk about when you expect a civil settlement or trowel to go for before you step down -- a trial to go forward before you step down? >> when will that be? i want to say that as we have indicated, fairly consistently from the time of, it is our intention to hold responsible all parties who were responsible for that spill and to make sure the american people, taxpayers do not spend a dime for the restoration of the region. that matter is ongoing in -- as i indicated. that was an initial charge. we expect there will be others. we're working on the civil side as well as the criminal side. that would not want to put a time from with regard to when charges were brought the matter is ongoing. >> [inaudible]

and the aclu with materials targeted to its program. whopper what is the status of that, and do you expect [inaudible] >> the judge was understanding when we indicated we did need additional time. our -- this is an administration that wants to be as transparent as we can with regard to how we employ force in these matters. at the same time, we have to balance that against the need to protect the methods we use to protect the american people. we will use that time to make -- strike that proper balance and share information that we can. >> remarks the other day, so much the program was discussed by him -- [inaudible] in a declassified format, these

actions? >> one of the things we're discussing, there are a variety of things that we want to make available. but again, we need to make sure that in making things available for review to explain in a documentary way, what is the government goes through making these determinations. we have to protect the ability we have to keep the american people safe. we will be going through that process over the next couple of weeks or so. >> [unintelligible] senate finance committee announced it would be accepting feedback. [inaudible] one of the staffers announced there would be contractors, various types of them having been overly aggressive. i wanted to see if your office

was aware of these complaints and is looking into them? >> i am not sure it is directly related to fraud. we have been made aware of a couple of instances where i and more the bill collection area, there have been aggressive contractors working on behalf of hospitals who have allegedly engaged in tactics of confronting patients in a hospital setting and making it clear that they were bill collectors and not part of the hospital system. we're in the process of looking into those allegations. i think that is what you may -- >> darrius integrity contractors -- of various integrity contractors [unintelligible] >>." always looking to make

sure that all of our enforcement entities including our contractors are doing things appropriately. i do not know which specific allegations you're referring to. if there are specific concerns, we want to know about them and we will certainly look into them. we're always aware that whenever we want to hold someone accountable, either for possible fraud or four having retained overpayments -- for having retained overpayments, i do not know the exact allegation your talking about. quex the ninth circuit declined to allow [inaudible] personally liable. is there a check that lawyers provide? >> is there a check? >> [inaudible]

>> i have not had a chance to review that opinion. i will have to look at the opinion and what the basis for the court. the determination was. we have good people who work very hard and look at the law, come up with determinations based on the fact of when the law is presented to them. to the extent opinions are issued that are inconsistent with the fact, the law, our traditions as we have demonstrated in this administration, we will repudiate them. that is what we have done with regard to some of the opinions in connection with the matter the ninth circuit was dealing with. >> thank you. >> newt gingrich announced today

that he is suspending his presidential run, having won primaries in only two states so far. including his home state of georgia. you can watch his announcement tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. more will -- more road to the white house coverage. live coverage beginning at 1:15 p.m. eastern. this weekend, the libertarian party will select their presidential nominee at their 2012 national convention in las vegas. our live coverage begins friday 9:00 p.m. eastern. on saturday, live coverage continues at noon eastern with the presidential selection process, more candidate speeches, and a vote on the party's nominee.

spend a weekend in oklahoma city with "book tv." including the must read political books and rare books from galileo and copernicus. oklahoma history of american history tv on c-span3. tour the oklahoma city bombing moral. a look at african-american life in 1920's oklahoma and native american artifacts from the local less -- oklahoma history center. this weekend from oklahoma city on c-span2 and 3. >> britain's culture and media

committee released its report on tuesday on the british phone hacking investigation. the report found some senior executives at the "news of the world" and his international misled parliament. they did not find evidence to suggest rupert murdoch or his son james misled the committee. members were divided over language that said corporate murdoch's unfit to run a major international company. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> you have by now had time to read the committee. the report. we will make brief statements before we move to questions. i should say that the report concentrates not entirely but in large part on the issue of whether this committee was

misled in the evidence it received press of play during its 2009 inquiry. although we go on to draw wider conclusions. it is important to say that the committee has not made any comment about the knowledge or the evidence of any individuals who have been arrested. we have deliberately refrained from doing so because we are conscious of a risk that any comments [unintelligible] might bring a possible criminal trial. the committee did conclude unanimously that les hinton misled the committee in 2009 in not telling the truth about the payments made to clyde goodman

and his role in authorizing the them and payments of legal fees. the committee was misled also in some far as he did not divulge the full extent of his knowledge of allegations of phone hacking extended beyond goodman. we also concluded that tom [unintelligible] and sought committe i to mislead the committee about surveillance. we [unintelligible] about their knowledge of evidence that other employees had been involved in phone hacking and other wrongdoing. the committee went on to conclude but only by a majority vote while there was no definitive evidence to prove whether or not james murdoch was

aware of the e-mail or other evidence that indicated phone hacking was more widespread, the committee was nevertheless astonished that he did not seek to see the evidence on which the decision to pay settlements to save the case was based. the committee went on to conclude by a majority vote that corporately, these -- had misledhe world" an the committee. and they had failed to disclose documents which would have revealed the truth. as a result of these various attempts to mislead the committee, the report published

in 2010 was not based on a fully accurate picture. as a result of this, the committee has decided we will table a motion in the house of commons, asking the house to endorse our conclusions about misleading evidence and we will send a report to the liaison committee which is looking into questions relating to the paths of effectiveness of selected committees. one or two of my colleagues wish to add. >> to put it politely, we have been led up to a garden path by news international but more importantly, so were the readers of its newspapers, the general public, and the victims of phone hacking. two years ago, we found the organization guilty of collective amnesia and said it was inconceivable that one reporter was involved and we're

right. on the same evidence we received, the press complaints commission exonerated the -- "the news of the world." for credibility say, we had to look at -- misled us. we do not want to prejudice any future trials following the arrests. we also thought it was not right for the few people in this circumstances should carry the whole of the corporate -- [inaudible] i would remind people of one thing in relation to those findings. report murdoch who founded -- rupert murdoch founded the organization.

also the human cost of phone hacking, it was not just a technical trick or a victimless crime. the cost was laid bare in some of the statements filed by a newsgroup is papers and we cite one of those statements, those of shalit church and her family. >> thank you. the report talks about our astonishment at the failure of the company to investigate fully and uncover incidents of phone hacking from the period of the court and taylor settlement through 2010 and 2011. there were plenty of flights flashing on the dashboard to suggest a greater investigation was needed. i am looking at the pivotal role

of james murdoch in the gordon taylor case, we have been minded to follow precisely the evidence we were given, which does not contradict anything he said to the committee and therefore it is not possible to say he misled parliament. we can be critical of the actions at that time. of the failure to disclose information about phone hacking. the failure to investigate it fully. i would also touch on the role that we have been critical of. there was a statement of ankara last week. there was what senior invest -- executives knew and there was what lawyers and managers and editors knew, which would have been greater. you have someone who did have the opportunity to sit down and interrogate him personally about his employment plan.

he is not aware of allegations and i think this key quote that was given that james murdoch used in his defense, they are no longer here. it was intriguing as to why the reference was left in there. i think he had a pivotal role and that is why it is important we focus on that in our report. >> it has been 10 years, one month, and nine days. five days ago, rupert murdoch admitted there was a cover-up and is corporate we find news corp. carried out an extensive cover-up of its rampant lawbreaking. it is -- its most senior executives repeatedly misled parliament and the two men at the top who were in charge of the company must now answer for that. in the view of the majority of

committee members, report murdoch is not fit to run an international company like bskyb. i am disappointed that they felt they could not support sections 216 through 229 of the report. many of the hacking victims have still not been informed of what was done to them. report murdoch has not said his last apology to the families of murdered children. let us also remember that the scandal cost many hundreds of journalists, anacin journalists their jobs. they find it hard to find work. i know this because i have provided references for number of them. parliament was misled.

that we now know. there was issues we could not get to the bottom of because of time constraints, decisions of the committee not to proceed, or because they fall out our [unintelligible] a member of the scottish parliament lost his liberty on a majority verdict of a jury that was not in full possession of the facts. he received a three-year prison sentence. i believe the judgment is on sound. if corporate rock really is sorry, he will order an urgent review of the information his company provided to the jury in the sheridan case. now that we know that the former first minister in scotland was the target of hacking, on writing to examine we set up an inquiry by the scottish parliament in to haul and why msp's were targeted. we asked the murdochs about phone hacking. we have reason to believe that a crown agency is in possession of seized hard drives that may show a list of victims who were

the target of computer hackers. there might be -- the authorities think is right not to inform people who have had their privacy invaded by private investigators who have links to international newspapers. i am writing to the chair of the home affairs select committee today to raise my concerns and asked his committee to do what they can to establish the facts. we were not able to establish which [unintelligible] try to collect information in order to smear or influence. last week, it was in news international, not "news of the world" that ordered us to dig into the lives of mps. many executives were in the loop.

the committee did not act on these but they are so serious to warrant an inquiry of the committee of standards and privileges for potential contempt of parliament. they had not had time to discuss it in committee. it was my view we should embark on an investigation into the relationship between ministers, special advisers, and lobbyists working for bskyb. the pm should allow the levenson inquiry to view the texts and [unintelligible] the truth is that whenever we have said in our report and how you choose to reported tomorrow, the public have made up their minds. powerful people were involved in the cover-up and they still have not accepted responsibility. after all this, the story is not yet over.

it was reported at the weekend that rebekah brooks was prepared to release her personal texts and e-mails to david cameron to the levenson inquiry. i think she should. as the prime minister said yesterday, the contacts between rupert murdoch and senior ministers from both sides of the house. if you want to see how news corps in the u.k. operates, the current mp and chancellors, including tony blair and gordon brown and former chancellor is one -- might want to reveal their taiex and e-mails to company executives. these people crowded our country. they brought shane -- shame on our police force. they lied and cheated, blackmailed and boley. we should be ashamed to think how we cower before them for so long. to stop requires more than to agonistic retribution.

those really responsible are held to account. the rich and powerful are as low in the face of the law is the most humble and week. in the words of bob dylan, the ladder of law has no top and bottom. everyone in the world knows who is responsible for the wrongdoing at news corp., rupert murdoch. more than any individual alive, he is to blame. the deeds are his. he pay the piper and he called the tune. it is his company, his culture, his people, his business, his failures, his lies, his crimes, the price of profits and his power. >> thank you. it is fair to say -- that was not the unanimous of view of the committee.

>> coming back to the report, every -- the chairman was right to focus on the part of the report where we unanimously agreed. that was on the people who misled the committee and the way in which they did mislead the committee. i very much hope that people will not get sidelined by the other bits, bits of what we have just heard of. which were not the overwhelming view of the committee. but were passed by the majority. when people look for the report there might want to look at some of the amendments that were tabled and the boats that took place. and when people do that, they will see the report was passed by 6-4, particularly at the

conclusion of corporate order. many people will conclude unfortunately, it maybe the unanimous recommendation. some people may conclude that some people oppose the conclusions were written before the evidence was heard or gone over. i do not -- i think that is very sad. people see that there was a majority of tb 0 on the committee for these things. people may want to notice that two of those people who voted for those things were not on the committee to listen to any of the evidence at the time. and voted for the recommendations. i urge people to get back to the nitty gritty of this report, what this report were supposed to do is a serious business.

aboutmaking decisions which affect people's lives, their reputations, and i think rather than focus in on certain people getting carried away, i would urge you to look at the things where we have made unanimous conclusions which are serious for the people concerned. those people showed be held to account and that is why we want to put forward a motion to parliament to ask them to endorse our conclusions so people realize how serious it was that those people at news international misled the committee. no one is saying that people like james murdoch and rupert murdoch had not made mistakes. they have admitted themselves amid mistakes. i do not really have much trouble in the sense that they tried to get me kicked off the inquiry in 2009. we have to be fair about these

things and base our decisions based on evidence and not what we would like the evidence to be. i urge you to look at where we have made unanimous conclusions of the committee rather than getting carried away by some people who i'm afraid got carried away themselves and it seems what the conclusions were before they started out on the inquiry. >> i want to start by saying i have been -- i have the highest respect for my friend and colleague. he is a man of complete and total integrity, and i have absolutely no doubt the amendments he put forward to the report and a speech he has read out today represents his sincere views from the heart. i have the highest respect for them. it is not considered -- completely correct to say as tom just said that some members have problems [unintelligible] or whatever was. members of the press can look

at the division's in the back and i encourage them to do so. conservative members did not vote as a block and disagree with each other -- disagreed with each other. it is not simply a matter of not voting for certain amendments. no conservative member was able to recommend the report itself to the house and everyone of us while we shared different views about the culpability of news corp. and the degree of culpability of james murdoch, none of us were able to support the report and we all voted against it. that would mean it would be correctly seen as a person report and we have lost a great deal of its credibility which is an enormous shame. the issue on which the conservative members felt they could support the report was

aligned in the middle of the report that report murdoch is not fit to run an international company. we felt that was outside the scope of a select committee. it was an improper attempt to influence and to tread on areas that are not the province of the select committee and our report, the ostensibly, was about whether or not the prior committee had been misled. even though clearly in many amendments tabled by my colleagues were carried by the majority vote, i would nonetheless have voted for the report and explained where i disagree. so did many of my colleagues, not many of them, all of them have that [unintelligible] it was left in. on that basis, i am afraid today, despite our different views, not one of us could agree that this report should be placed before the house and it was carried on political

lines and therefore, if -- after many months of work, i feel its credibility has been damaged. i do not doubt the integrity of members. this is the result will left with. i do think it is a real great shame. >> thank you. i need to respond to my colleague. as a new member of the committee, i have looked at the audience and made sure it went into detail. the rule of -- role of the committee in terms of what is being said. bingham member of this house for 18 years, i have been a minister for 12 years and have been worried about the influence of the news international over that time. we will see a situation and it's to be addressed. i do agree.

if we look at where we agreed in terms of the recommendations, they are beyond doubt. clearly, this is the worst situation i have seen in terms of our democracy in the time i've been a member. >> thank you. some of what the chairman reiterated earlier, i am proud parliament initiated this inquiry. i am proud we have been able to the powers of parliament to have information laid before us that has -- we have been able to use. and without that, there is certain evidence that would not be at principal in the current inquiry. i also want to add i consistently opposed bringing to our report the evidence from civil litigations and letters of inquiry and have wanted to focus pretty much exclusively on

the evidence presented directly to us as m.p.'s. evidence we were able to see all of, that we were able to ask questions about, follow up with inquiries, and that is why i consistently opposed various amendments that draw on other matters. as i said before, news international will regret dismissing the last report that was issued by the committee on this matter. it will regret forever not taking the chance to thoroughly investigate the allegations made then and the recommendations made then. i can understand that someone who has worked in a family run business, a very big family run business, about how went you are attacked by people making allegations, it can be easy to dismiss, especially at a

critical -- as is critical in businesses and you see, the implicit trust the people have in their executives and in each other. what i would say to them now certainly, i hope that all the directors at news corp. and news international will read this report from front to end and not dismiss it like the last one. i am sure there will not. i think it is sad we were not able to send the report. you have heard reasons why it was not possible to vote for the reporters as expressed by my colleague. reflecting what phillip davis said, i hope we can focus on what we did agree on and the motion will be debated in parliament. i hope early in the new session. >> a brief comment here on the

comments by a member shipley. i made my decisions based on the evidence presented to the committee, and out other reason. >> the committee's report is the result of nine months' work in an ever-changing and are meant -- and inquiry. it falls on parliament to -- for how it wishes to do with them. we're in a political chamber and i have no doubt that the comments that my conservative friends have made would have been the comments that my liberal friends would have made had i voted the other way. >> i wholeheartedly agree with

these comments. and in particular, the level of plame that is laid against report murdoch. regardless of who said what and when, rupert murdoch is the head of this corporation, and therefore, responsible for the unspeakable actions of the people be employed. there is some suspicion surrounding the situation with the prime minister and his dealings with rupert murdoch, hence the reason why supporting this. is there for biggs the question why? even at that late stage, i would ask him to come clean and look at the report. and more importantly, published

this report. as tom watson already said, --- he and his family deserve some kind of inquiry as to why that happened. >> think you very much. can i ask you, because i am not entirely clear from the division, is it your view that report are rock is or is not the proper person to run an international company? yourself and other members, as far as i can tell, you have all agreed that what james and rupert murdoch have been saying, that they did not know it was more than one reporter until december 2010 is simply astonishing?that sounds like a word a lawyer has inserted to

avoid saying incredible. >> this applies not just to the passage with which you quote, but the chairman does not vote. the term in does have about in the case of a tie, but otherwise he does not vote. i would merely observe as a conservative member of parliament. in response to your second a question, at the committee did in large part find it astonishing that james murdoch stated to us that he could not become aware of the evidence until much later. -- did not become aware until much later. how you interpret that, they

would like to explain to themselves why they supported the conclusion. i think we will all agree astonishing was a good word, which we could all could support, with one exception. >> i voted for that amendment, and we had a discussion about it. i said if i could vote for it, but not for the same reasons he wished to apply in the drafting of it. i think it is absolutely astonishing that this was not known at the company until later, and that is because in my opinion, it is the people with command did not make it adequately clear to their boss is what was going on. there was an attempt at a cover-up that was made.

i completely agree it was astonishing that people were not more open and did not lay the facts there. for that reason, i supported the amendment. my colleagues felt she did not vote for it. i think it was indisputably amazing that this was not brought to manage but when it happened. the question is, whom does that blame fall? >> if we said they are astonishing -- this is something where we have to respect in some ways what date inquiry was about, which was about whether or not parliament was misled by people about the actions people were taking. we did not take evidence looking at corporate governance. that is why it is difficult to look at the way executives perform in the operations of other companies. there is a lot of critical language about the way in which people love the business and

the decisions they took. i certainly think those that voted against protection of rupert murdoch felt this was something we had investigated and there was no evidence linking him directly to knowledge within the business. people may find that astonishing, but that is where we got to. i think it is important did draw that line. our focus was to draw the evidence out what we have found. there was an amenity, as well as crystal clear language about the way people acted. the failure to see the lights flashing on the dashboard of the company, where there is problems within the organizations. >> >> i drafted the amendment, and i am certainly not a lawyer. we followed the evidence -- all of my amendments have followed the evidence. with james murdoch, for example, giving the conflicting accounts of the history of what we were told by witnesses going

back five years, we simply could not make our minds up with any conviction about whether he misled or not. time and possibly may tell as other evidence emerges. while following the evidence, it was important to just get our heads up and look at the bigger picture, because we were told that notwithstanding everything that is happening, it including the new york times, our report and the wide publication of evidence, we were just being told effectively that it was only in late december 2010, that there was an epiphany moment allegedly wear they suddenly at the top realize that the one that road at reporter -- rogue reporter was not true. i wondered, how could this happen?

>> thank you. obviously you are trying very hard to avoid getting into the political waters, but surely you may be able to guide us a little bit. if someone said some of these conclusions are politically motivated, how would you respond to that? you have said he will ask the house to vote on the conclusions of the committee, my house might be a little confused as to what the overall recommendations are? >> in terms of how members voted and there are reasons for doing so are hard to say. they are all here at present. what i would say is the motions we are tabling in the house will concentrate on the issue of parliament being misled on specific evidence presented to the committee. that was the agreement for the committee in the latest inquiry, and in large part, indeed almost entirely that on

those specific issues this committee was unanimous. therefore, what ever additional statements that proved more controversial, which are included in the report, the main findings of the committee, which relate to misleading evidence to the committee, this committee thoroughly agree. therefore, i hope that is the area where all of those privy to the debate will concentrate. >> >> thank you very much. could i may be asked to explain why they think rupert murdoch is not fit to run a company, and another mp to explain why they think he is fit? to those that are found guilty of misleading parliament, will you take them to the parliamentary sell, or what is the punishment? >> can i have a volunteer from either side?

>> well, in terms of what the consequences are, to some extent, not for the first time come at this committee is exploring uncharted water. we have gone as far as to say we wish to have the strong to the attention of the house, and for the house to decide what consequences will follow, but there will be others with more knowledge and experience than me to advise on what potential consequences could be. >> to be clear, when we made the decision yesterday on the report we were given an amendment. as you all know, the description is something to consider when deciding whether to give a broadcast license. it is a very decisive definition. -- precise definition.

the committee is making a judgment based on the regulation in the u.k., and that was not something we investigated. you may have personal opinions about report murdoch and his company, but that was not something we were in a position we thought to make a judgment on. it was an opinion presented. that is what we agreed on in unanimity. >> the alternative you? -- view. >> the reason i support the statement that he is an unfit person to run and or the national -- international organization, you have to look at the fundamentals. in my view, they acted as if they were above and beyond the world. to suggest that there was some

sort of glass ceiling that did not reach rupert murdoch or james murdoch, is astonishing. to suggest that a huge amount of money was paid out to people with whom senior executives were employed is incredible. i think the general public will draw the conclusion that it is astonishing that people at that level did not know what was happening. as i said earlier, he was the top. the verdict would be not proven. >> [inaudible] to me, quite clearly rupert murdoch is fit to run an international company. he has been running businesses since before i was born. he has employed hundreds of thousands of people around the

world. he has made a huge difference to the media industry. we have seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that rupert murdoch was aware of any of these things that were going on at news international, news of the world. if i thought he had been aware of what was going on and deliberately covered it up and may be committed only a crime in doing so, then i would have been happy to say i do not think he is a fit person to run a company. we have seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that was the case. of course he has made mistakes. of course james murdoch has made mistakes. we all make mistakes. we all wish we had done things differently from time to time. hindsight can be a wonderful thing, but to take that to say this person does not fit to run a major international company when he has been doing that for decades seems to be not only way over the top, but also

completely ludicrous. >> the bottom line is we had no evidence on this. no member of the committee could find it in their heart to said that either james or rockford murdoch's has misled the committee. nobody. even after the report is published. nobody was going to exclude -- conclude that he or his son has misled committee. therefore the line about rupert murdoch not being at the person was stuck on the basis of no evidence presented to the committee whatsoever, and we just could not support it. as i say, even though many votes went against my point of view, i would have definitely voted for the report.

>> david grossman, a bbc news night. the questioning so far has concentrated on the division within the committee. can i ask, why was it so important to get in the line about rupert murdoch being a fit person to run a major international company when the expense has been, or the cost of getting the line in has been allowing opponents of the process to portray it as along party lines and political payback or whatever? >> there is a judgment you have to make with these reports. whether you go for a weaker report and gain uniminity or stand up for what you believe, and where i came to and the majority of members came to is we needed to raise the bar.

that was because of the last report in 2009, the truth is we were negligent in this -- made a mistake. we invited rebekah brooks to give evidence on three occasions, and on three occasions she rebuffed us. we decided not to compel them to give evidence because there was a huge amount of pressure placed on the committee. there was an election looming. there were also political pressures for us to do that. i did not want us to be accused of conducting our responsibilities. i wanted the committee to be courageous and confident about the most powerful media mogul in this country. it would have been wrong for the news of the world's tallest to lose -- news of the world journalist to lose their job just because of who it is.

i just felt it was important that as a member, individual member of the committee in collectively that we set down. -- spoke out. >> when the game was up in terms of the one that reporter, as you will see from the text, possibly two rogue journalists, what we saw from news corp. was a clear strategy. we were being invited to blame tom crone. you will see from the corporate conclusions, and not just the conclusions regarding rupert murdoch, that we simply declined the invitation. >> quoted my good friend when he made the comment in the chamber

[inaudible] i am almost certain you and the colleagues would of been asking, why are the people at the top of news international not been identified? i would just say that -- >> on the 14th of july, 2011, the committee was unanimous in the division and recorded vote to summons james and rupert murdoch. we were united in wanting to see the evidence. we disagreed on where the evidence conclusion came out. >> that is true. >> was it open to the conservative members of the committee to publish of dissenting report, a minority report, and if it was, could one explain why you chose not to

do it? >> simply on procedural issues. obviously any member of a select committee could prepare a minority report, but actually, as we have emphasized, a very large part of the report was unanimous, therefore it was probably more sensible that where there were divisions it was made clear in folks that are recorded and appear on the back of the report, but the fact is a large first part of the report was supported by everyone in something that all of my colleagues felt was the most important outcome. >> not all conservative members of the committee agreed with each other on every aspect of the report. it was not that we had a block conservative view on this. it would seem to be feasible to have a minority report, because if you look at the divisions, we voted in different ways and

different amendments. >> [inaudible] >> we voted against the report. >> if that sentence was not in the report -- >> we probably would have all voted for the report. >> could i just ask andrea sanders this, if you have voted the other way, then as the only member who voted on the committee, then it would have been split, which would have meant that the testing but what have come into play, and the report would have been rejected. if that is the case, i would ask mr. sanders, you have a lot of responsibility for your vote, and why did you decide to vote with the labor members, and did

you consult other people in the party? >> we all have a collective responsibility as a committee to seek the truth. from the evidence that was presented, from my experience with the previous committee that looked at hacking, and the evidence presented to this one, i took a decision on that. any one member at the end of the day could be the person holding the balance of power, depending on how individuals make their mind up. it just happens it was in one section of this report alarm -- along party lines. it certainly was not in other divisions. how the chair exercised his casting vote, i have no idea at all. the chairman can only cast a vote in this circumstance in which it arises. >> indeed.

what i would say is that it is a matter of some regret to me that the committee was not able to produce a unanimous report, particularly when on a large number of issues the committee was in agreement. the unanimous pollution has been diluted by the fact that the committee was unable to agree. >> gene whelan with "the wall street journal." could you clarify which aspects of the report were unanimously agreed upon? >> if you look of the voting, it becomes apparent, but in terms of the main conclusion, those relating to the individual names, specifically those that concern, crown, those conclusions were agreed unanimously.

>> thank you. i am wondering what you think the public is supposed to make of this, because we have had months where they of seem this report. this is an opportunity to give a lead and say what you think come in we have ended up with a committee report that is split down party lines. i know you've disagreed on various aspects, but you come away in the end in a report that does lack credibility. that matt -- that must be a matter of great disappointment to you and members of the committee. >> the main the focus of this committee in its most recent inquiry was to answer the question whether or not we were misled in the evidence we were given, because on that subject we intend to table a motion to parliament, and it is on that whether there is in a motion in the committee. this is a unanimous report to parliament that the committee was misled on named

individuals. >> you have probably noticed from the individual members of the committee that they are all unique in their strong views and wills. i happen to think that is a good thing, but it does mean sometimes you get split reports. i have no doubt you will be able to interpret the report and put both of use to the public so they can form their own view. it is my view they have are ready for the of review on his company, and this further shows how power corrupt institutions of the united kingdom. >> what is perceived out there is how your report this press conference. i take you back to the question. if you look at paragraph 163, the bigger picture when everyone knew and you look at

the division in the back and look at the implications of that paragraph. the committee was unanimous because it was 9-1 in favor. this was the paragraph about astonishment. >> from itv news. the conservative members face a difficult choice in the chamber as to how to vote and whether that will be perceived as supporting the murdochs? in terms of the report, where it says the affair demonstrates -- is that the view of the whole committee and what would you recommend news corp. shareholders to do? >> the question has been answered. the motion that comes before the house will be about

parliament being misled and we will be able to support that notion. that question does not arise. as for the corporate governance, i voted against it. there clearly were failures of corporate governance at news corp.. there is no doubt about that. it is not really for members of that committee to give -- to advise news corp. shareholders on what they do and do not do. it comes back to the fact that it lives -- lies and all the reporting in being reported almost unanimously. >> of of the principal motion for the house will be to decide whether they are guilty of

misleading parliament. it is the first time and has been done since the 1960's. it is tangential to it. >> i would point out the editor of the new york "daily news." we have found that he has misled a select committee of parliament. the unanimous findings of the committee remain that an individual has misled parliament. if somebody comes in front of parliament and lies to it, what happens next? we do not necessarily have procedures in place. serious conclusions have been drawn. there is it is a lot in this

report on which the committee completely agrees. >> did any adviser attempt to contact our influence the report? i know that some members of the committee have been contacted. >> in terms of the evidence which i think rupert murdoch has injured tuesday leveson inquiry, they named a number of -- members of the previous committee. i have always adopted a policy of -- in all increase, if people wish to come and talk to me and give their point of view, i will listen to them.

the question of influence, yes, to the extent that they were [unintelligible] i heard people who came to see me who just had strong views in the other direction. >> i can put my hand on my heart and say nobody has tried to influence what i say in the report. if anybody knows anything about me, they would know it would be a futile exercise to try to influence me. i am sufficiently known to be independently minded. i will not be affected by anybody's attempt to try and influence me. i can put my hand on my heart and absolutely say that. >> i can vouch for that, it would be entirely

counterproductive to try to influence phillip in terms of trying to change his opinion. they have not contacted me during this inquiry. i cannot remember anyone contacting or trying to influence me on previous inquiries. >> [unintelligible] >> this all looks like a bit of a shambles, mr. chairman. the consider that you have failed? >> no, because i think that most of my colleagues who have

spoken, the main findings of the committee in the area in which we work examining, the committee was unanimous. i hope all that will be what people concentrate on. that may be a vain hope, but i believe that people will concentrate on that. surly that will be the message that we will be relying in the house of commons. -- surely that will be the message. >> he decided not to on a point of principle. it is all right for people to disagree in principle to fashion on things that are close to their heart about which they care very much. he chose to press the amendment anyway and he was completed within his rights to do that. it is not a shambles when people have genuine disagreements in principle, he

had every right. >> be made focus on negativity in the court in any way you wish to focus on it -- you may focus on negativity. this committee has expose criminal activity in the established press and media. [unintelligible] we are hopefully showing the light on what was criminal activity and hopefully it will stop. >> the report says that rupert murdoch suffered trail at the hands of a proprietor was a misleading account of his involvement with his newspaper.

>> that is my amendment, and you have the text there. what we found was that at times when it suited them, they forgot, did not remember, or they said it was such a small part of my empire that we did not give it too much attention. then we have testimony that was recounted from rebekah brooks. you can draw your own conclusions from that. this is a fruitless plea, of course. this should not be a focus simply on rupert murdoch here. there is a corporate conclusion here about news corp. and it is international. if there was one phrase from the last report that resounded

around the world, including australia, the phrase was "collective amnesia." one it is used in amendments by me and from tom watson, but it was a question that was first asked in an evidence session and that was about willful blindness. in respect to the whole corporate conclusion, it is a failure to follow up, not just one ckg,nd i think that phrase should receive from focus as well. -- recede from focus as well. >> i don't quite understand why

the discussion about rupert murdoch was -- why did they not propose any alternative the men and said they disliked the characterization's of rupert murdoch as listed in the men and it is in the men that -- as listed in the amendment? >> we were voting to maintain the status quo of their report. i do not really understand your point. >> robert murdoch misled us in what he said to parliament .

>> no one set at any point that he misled parliament. when you look at the corporate play, that was an amendment that i supported. there was emphasis on the rigor of the tone of the investigation. that is a criticism over barack as well as other executives named in the report. what no one has proposed -- >> no one has proposed that rupert are was not a justifiable target for the report. [unintelligible] >> we would have agreed to the status quo of the report without that particular amendment.

the whole purpose of our inquiry was, did people mislead the committee back in 2009? i did not see any evidence that report brought misled the committee. we have not seen any evidence that james murdock misled the committee. we disagree with the conclusion about rupert murdoch. if we had thought that he had misled the committee, we would have all agreed to the recommendations. at the end of the conclusion, that news corp. exhibit willful blindness.

there is common within the conclusion, and that would have stood even without the additional line. >> what are the objections to the committee of the members putting out their own -- what chance did you see to make sure that no privileged information given to the committee was used, especially given the findings of the report? >> what i would say is that almost all evidence that was presented to the committee was published on the internet, almost the same day, or very shortly afterward. in terms of privileged information which was not available, there is very little that we did not make public. the only part we did not make public was when we were

specifically asked not to do so. i am not aware that any of formation was used that was given to committee that was not made public. >> first, your servers are held abroad, so i am told i cannot sue for libel. secondly, all the information the book comes republic sources, or where i thought the committee may want to see evidence, some of it was used because of the justice issue. i would like to put a question for you. can you tell me why all stains felt the need to destroy his hard drives? [unintelligible]

>> you urged news group in the report to waived legal privilege. what the thing that would be significant, it your conclusion is significant? >> i think it was a chance for the committee to persuade news corp. to withdraw privilege after the lewis report. after the evidence that rupert murdoch gave to leveson where he was specifically asked, he seemed to attack copeland in his statement with the kind of blame to the executives for the cover-up. there was a sort of mumble

comment to do with the report. i think it would be really important to clear things up. if that report in 2006 alleges that there was wrongdoing other than phone hacking, then it shows there was a conscious effort at the company its it is too late for us to take a view on that. i believe it was the unanimous view of the committee that the report should have privilege which is why would be submitted to leveson . >> all the documents came as a result of privilege being waived. it all came as a result of -- >> one of the difficulties in coming to a conclusion in this court is that people who know far more than we do, including lawyers and civil claimants --

in the gorton-taylor case, a waiver of privilege was given. some people might speculate that might have the effect of dumping them. we also ask for a waiver privilege to be given in the max clifford case, which is one where everybody can cling to tell us exactly what they knew. they refuse to do that. there are other parts of this report apart from rupert murdoch. there is a section on the police. not just mr. yates, but their predecessors, too. one of the things we uncovered in the report, there was a succession of lawyers that continue to represent news corp., that we know -- what news international is telling us and the public was untrue. it came out and our conversations and discussions that it was not always referred

to as the court, but we have not seen any one of those lawyers resigning when they knew that what we were being told and the general public was being told was not true. >> there was much disagreement in the committee about this idea. lawyers have to represent their clients' best interest under the law, that is all they have to do. on the matter of copland, i am glad my colleague brought this up. i was very pleased to support

this. he is quite right. i would like to take this opportunity to call on news corp. to release them from privilege at once so we can have transparency and be quite sure there is nothing further being concealed. it received unanimous support from everybody on the committee. >> knowing that the words fit and proper or in the report, do you want them to look at the evidence presented to the committee? i do not see where parliament

was approach to have an inquiry. a unique -- the thing that needs to happen with urgency? -- do you think that needs to happen with urgency? >> on the scott parliament park, [unintelligible] was a target of packing and we know that sheridan was a target of packing when it was a member of the scotch parliament. similar things have gone on in the westminster parliament. i would hope that the party leaders of scotland and come together and organize their own inquiry to find out what the intrusion into privacy was. >> a question for the chairman. i did wonder if you would guide us on a bit of a process, in terms of the motion brought before the house.

you say will just be on misleading the committee. are there any motions before the house -- will it come down to a vote as well that may fit on the same lines? secondly, i know you have no parliamentary guidance on what the penalty for being in contempt of parliament might be good the committee must have some view of what you like to see, perhaps an apology at the bar? >> in terms of the motion, my hope is that the committee will be agreed upon it. the reason it will focus on specifically misleading the committee, is that it is a matter of the house of commons. to respond within a specified period, you can sometimes request a debate. in this instance, we are reporting what we believed to

have been content, which is a very different matter. therefore the motion in the house seem to be the appropriate way your question on if the house decides there has been content, what happened next? i believe what longtime ago for it to be called before the house and beat in monished. to be quite honest, i do not know. i expect that will be a matter fort debate, perhaps by standards and privileges. at this stage, we are attempting to table the motion. the committee will be involved in discussions about what happened after the house of commons.

>> [unintelligible] i think we need to define consequence for misleading parliament. >> which could spend hours on that particular debate. -- we could spend hours on that particular debate. >> is it possible that your motion will accuse rupert are james murdock of contempt -- rupert or james murdoch of contempt? >> it is not our aim to determine if robert r. james murdock are guilty of contempt. we named the three individuals. >> sadly, after five years we are not finished yet. we have not been able to go further than the police

investigations. there are other things that may emerge which may warrant re- examination of the evidence. we have not yet had the most modern database, and we have not been able to make the link between what they are doing and compare it with the evidence we are given. other private detectives or doing other things at the same time, including mounting surveillance on at least one member of the committee.

all the pieces of this jigsaw have yet to be put together. at the end of the day, the human cost of this, the intrusion into people's lives, this was an organization with its newspapers they gave moral lectures to the public, that acted, as we now know, immorally and criminally itself. it held itself, therefore, above the law. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

what newt gingrich announced that he is suspending his presidential run, having won primaries and only to state including his home state of georgia. he can watch his announcement tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. tomorrow, mitt romney campaigned in virginia with the state governor, bob macdonald. live coverage is on c-span beginning at 1:15 p.m. eastern. this weekend, the libertarian party will select their nominee at the national convention in las vegas. our coverage begins friday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern with a two- hour debate. on saturday, a live coverage continues at noon with the presidential selection process. >> sunday, i do not regard this as the biography of lyndon b. johnson. i want each but to examine the

political power in america. this is the kind of political power, is seeing what the president can do in a moment of great crisis. how he gathers around. what does he do to get legislation moving? that is a way of examining power. i want to do this in full. it takes 300 pages. that is why i said let's examine this. >> robert caro on "the passage of power." this sunday at 8:00 p.m.. books for our second conversation sunday may 20. -- look for our second conversation sunday may 20. >> richard nixon recorded 4000 hours of phone calls and meetings. >> always agree on the little things.

then you hold on the big ones. often.been the soldone this so >> every saturday, may hear more of the nixon tapes including discussions with future presidents and intelligence agencies. this week, we hear conversations with general -- gerald ford and george bush. >> the center for strategic and international studies hosted a daylong conference tomorrow on cyber security. they're letting things off with an overview of cyber security cooperation between the u.s. and european union. this is about 50 minutes.

>> if i could ask everyone to take their seats. good morning. welcome. thank you for coming out. i was a little nervous this morning when i heard severe thunderstorms. i appreciate your willingness to come here. we have a very full day with new information that has not been discussed fully here in washington, if the subject of transatlantic cooperation in cyber security, whether the european union is doing. we will focus on the subject. i would like to welcome our cohost. >> thank you so much. i would like to welcome everybody on behalf of the european security roundtable. thank you for having picked up

this opportunity to organize this day with us. i am very glad that so many people responded to our call to have a security meeting. i would like to thank you. i would like to think sra who made this opportunity possible. thank you. i would like to thank the commission. going over the atlantic does take a lot of time. it is very much appreciated that he made it possible to have this opportunity today. i would like to thank the estonian and german embassy for being helpful and supportive in

getting this event together. i would like to mention the european parliament liaison office was tremendously helpful. i wanted to thank christian for linking up the site of the atlantic. it is not always an easy endeavor. >> you are intensely active. the european commission is intact. sometimes it is a bit controversial. we are looking for it to things. i am sure we will hear a lot about the need to be established european center. i look forward to what you have to tell us. thank you. >> we are going to have had

their introduced. -- heather introduce. >> for a man who needs no introduction. dr. kissinger said it is true that i do not need an introduction but i like a really good introduction. i want to get a good read to give a good introduction. we love transatlantic conversation. we cannot be delighted to have to import invoices with us this morning -- two important voices with us this morning. maelstrom looks with police conversation appeared prior to this decision, she was the swedish minister from 2006-2010.

parliament from 1999-2006 were she served on the foreign affairs committee. there is one title that i actually hold very dear. we did not know until insterday's she was a csis turn. this is terrific. we are so delighted. after she provides her remarks, we're going to welcome the jane offer her remarks. she oversees the third largest federal agency.

she has been so well per prepared -- she has been so well prepared for this. she served as the assistant secretary general for peacekeeping operations. we claimer as a think tank as well -- claim her as a think tanker as well. we cannot be more grateful for her for making time to visit with us today. after we have their remarks, jim lewis is going to moderate the session where we bring you into the conversation. he may have some stories of his own. i forewarning of the conversations will be

interesting. -- i forward knew that the conversation will be interesting. jim lewis has been a stalwart for this progress. take it away. thank you. >> you can do it from the podium, whatever you prefer. >> thank you very much for that introduction. it was a good introduction. this is the promotion for csis as well. i am honored to be here. i do not hesitate a moment when i was asked to come when i saw it was one of the organizers. that brought very fond memories of when i was here 15 years ago. i want to think the security roundtable for organizing this.

it is an excellent opportunity to talk about very important subjects dear to both europe and the u.s. there are new ways that corporations can be born. we have to win the battle of everyone trying to interrupt our lives. this is a true challenge within only overcome together. i would like to tell you about the joint operation in the field of child sexual exploitation. the name of this operation was atlantic. it was completed two months ago. thanks to the operation between the fbi in several member states, an international network of child sex offenders was dismantled. several arrests were made on both sides of the atlantic. eight small children could be saved.

it prevented further horrific expenses of these children. we are grateful for the professionalism and dedication i have seen to fight this horrible crime. yesterday i had the opportunity to be briefed about cyber crime and how you work. we saw a lot of ground for things we can learn from our u.s. friends. this has reinforced my view that we need this. these are targets for different types. our government and our assistance are protected from sophisticated attacks. they can come from other sources

from other state and hackers. to overcome this growing threat, this is not a choice. it is a necessity. the establishment is to identify strategic goals. i am leaving our work together with the secretary of homeland's security and the attorney general eric holder as secretary james lute -- jane lute. we have very good partners on the american side. this working group has been a success. we have the first exercise of 2011 that kicked off a ground breaking program.

the working group has also been instrumental in raising international awareness of the problem associated with the issues of domain names. it is still possible to register a domain under mickey mouse or this or that. 50% at the data to the domains contains complete identity information. it is not possible for law enforcement to trade investors. after considerable pressure from the e you, we have seen a commitment from the internet -- eu, we have seen a commitment from the internet on recommendations. we must continue to deliver this

upcoming meeting. this will be decisive if we are to succeed. we are concerned about child sexual exportation online. we have seen an unprecedented expansion of the market for child abuse images. this is a horrible crime. although we have successfully disrupted networks, we must do much more. alongside the cooperation with the u.s., the eu lack to do its own homework to make cyberspace safer. online organized crime ranges from selling stolen credit cards to as low as one euro to stealing identities.

mr. they feel comfortable -- we need to make sure they feel comfortable. it is a matter of the economy. the people do not dare to use the benefits, that will have disastrous consequences as well. we must insure that inflation keeps up to this. legislation is running after. we hope to agree on a legislation to update our current legislation including measures to address the rising threat. this is important but not enough. we must also equip law enforcement agencies to respond to a threat. months ago, we addressed a

setting up a cyber crime center that will be established in the nether lands. focall be a european point. it'll help prevent illegal online activities such as online fraud involving credit cards. it will also work closely with social networks. it will focus on cyber crime that causes the most harm including sexual exploitation. we hope this will be an unviable resources for states providing operational support saw in gathering intelligence from a wide range of sources. this will be used to warn states and major cyber crime threats and alert them to weaknesses on there on my defenses. the center will also work closely with the private sector. the center will not only -- it

will also become a national partner for initiatives and law enforcement agencies in the site. you will hear more about this in a second panel. as you have heard, we have a strong package of measures to address. we must align these with initiatives that we are taking in the wider field of cyber security. some states in the european union have already quite advanced strategies in place. i am well aware of the u.s. strategy as well and the efforts given. it to be important for us to raise the level so that everybody is at the same level. it is also time for the european union to set a mission on how we

can do was security. we need everyone to work together and to share that responsibility. our strategy, and it is ours because it'll be a joint product of several colleagues within the commission, we are stepping up our efforts to ensure cyber security. we're working together to deal with cyber strategy. it is a work in progress. let me give you a few elements of what we intend to cover. we intend to communicate the important message that freedom and security in cyberspace is not mutually exclusive. the virtue of an open cyberspace

has to be maintained while providing the right levels of security. we need to have a cyber security resilience and response capacity. we must become better at sharing critical and information in secure and confidential matters between private sectors in the eu member states. this is a major issue in the u.s. there are areas we can work together to enhance the sharing of information through transatlantic partnership. we know that the private sector owns and runs most of the infrastructure. they must have the incentives to improve their own security and to coordinate much more effectively with in the national authorities and with each other. the private sector can and should be much better at managing risks and exchanging

information when security breaches do occur. we know that governments are trying to mandate better security. we have to seek out new intelligent ways of working to improve the coordination and increased the joint paneling. we also need better software, more resilient technology in the future. the eu will continue. since the cyber threat is a global threat, we need global corporation. we need to find out how the you can reach out to the partners. the work in this regard is a good example. instead of focusing on institutional set up, we have built upon the budapest confusion and tightened if i complete actions to make

citizens and businesses safe. i am convinced that in the coming months, we will be able to report back on many successful joint operations between the fbi reports. we have found some good work. it isn't present. -- it is impressive. we should be proud of ourselves. we have to be honest. the bad guys have the upper hand. the only way to change the game and our favorite is for us to act quickly and act together. i am hopeful that we can win the debate. i am hopeful we can win the battle. i am looking for good suggestions, discussions, and the beginning of an even bigger

partnership. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. during the introduction you mentioned, and security was the third largest apartment with 270,000 employees -- you mentioned homeland's security was the third largest department would to under 70,000 employees. someone leaned over to me and said that is -- with over 270,000 employees. some leaned over to me and said "that is luxembourg." [laughter] i want to thank partners for giving us the opportunity to speak with our european colleagues, which is something

we are doing with increasing frequency. my colleagues and i had just concluded in negotiation with sylvia and her colleagues on a major data exchange. it is an instructive experience. not least in giving us a deep and abiding insight into the new europe. i was at a meeting where i was confused about the views. she was puzzled. whatever colleagues said she met the -- one of her colleagues said she met the former soviets. this young woman looked at me and said that is not new europe. new europe is all of us, post- lisbon. that is the new europe that we need to learn and understand. it has been an extraordinary

experience for us to get to know the commission, at the council, the parliament in great did tell and capital as they are adjusting to life post-lisbon with highly invigorated and responsible institutions. cyber security is why we are here to talk about. not only our partnership but the problems in cyber security generally. this has a key role for the united states. i find that when i talk about the role of common security, it is almost as important to talk first about not just the cyber role but as, and security more generally. we have great brand name recognition. we have something less than great brand name understanding of what it means. we do. what are we trying to do in this

department in this endeavor that we call home and security? i will talk a little bit about that in touch on our strategy. we will embrace the theme of international partnership and what we're trying to do with the europeans around the world in the area of cyber security. common security has the core mission of a helping to create a safe and resilience place. this is our motivation. that is our touchstone. we think in order to do this we must prevent terrorism, certainly. this is job one. secure our borders. not only do we need to keep out people or goods that might be dangerous, but we need to expedite legitimate trade and travel. we need to do both things.

we need to manage immigration. what is this about? it is about capable communities and responsive federal system. i spent most of my career in national security. it is common to think of home and security as a piece of common security. -- it is to think of homeland security as just a piece of homeland security. it is different. it is different than the national security in ways that matter for cyber security. national security is centralized in a strategic.

homeland's security is a decentralized and bottom driven. it is driven by municipalities of this country. this is animated in the first instance by the means of the municipalities and states and of all the american people. if national security is about all of us, homeland security is about each of thius. no single department can do all that needed doing when it comes to any aspect of common security. in the case of cyber security, no single government can do all that needs doing as well. it is an important difference to understand this. it animates how we approach all of our tasks. be called out cyber security and

the importance of a safe and secure cyberspace as a core mission, because we believe that cyberspace is the and a skeleton of modern life. it is the endoskeleton of modern society. it is impossible to imagine a resilient place for the united states and americans and for our global partners around the world. what do i mean by that that's what does it take to ensure cyber security? insuring the fidelity and reliability of our information and the security of our identities in exchanging information. the rest is commentary. how do we secure those two things? we have a strategy for cyber security. we think we need to do two basic things, protect the critical

infrastructure and build a healthy resilience cyber ecosystem. how do we protect critical infrastructure? 90% of ithe critical infrastructure rests and private-sector hands. we operate in homeland's security with the principle of nothing about you without you. we were close with the private sector with addressing the needs of cyber security for these critical infrastructures as well. we need to establish situational awareness. what is happening tax how do we reduce the risks and exposures to that exposure? how do we build and resilience

to the infrastructures so they can withstand challenges that they face the ax when it comes to building a cyber ecosystem, we focus on empowering individuals. we need smart individuals and smart machines. we need to build out individual organizations that are responsive. we need to promote services, products, and architecture is. we need to build fundamentally collaborative communities and how they can operate together. it is fair to say that when it comes to cyber security, there is a significant misperception out there. there's a significant opportunity. what is the misperception? when it comes to cyber security, the role of government is clear.

that is a misperception. it is not clear. what is the problem? the problem is the view of the role of government is polarized. there is a great debate going on among those who are paying attention. this might be characterized as follows. there are those that believe the government has no meaningful role to play in cyber security. it certainly has grown and expanded and generated the new walt that it has, representing the dynamic force that it is in a way that was largely a result of market driven forces. the government should have no role in intruding in this space in the name of cyber security. on the other hand are those that think it is a war zone and that

it is so dangerous and so urgent that government must come and forcefully to establish his scenes of cyber rig established regimes of cyber security. in our view, this is not acceptable. government do have a role to play. they must play a role here. cecilia mentioned the dialogue going on with the eu institutions and how to think through the appropriate role to play when it comes to balancing freedom and openness and access to the internet with security. how do we build that openness and that access any way that also insurers resilience? how do we understand the role of the private sector when there are so critical to the very functioning of the internet? how do we inshore global

cooperation for building cyber security? the policy identifies a number of priorities for the country and approaching international standards, innovation, and the role of the internet. we want to protect our economic livelihood. we think standards and innovative market ensure this. we want to protect our networks. we want to strengthen the hand of law enforcement and extent collaboration to enhance confidence in cyberspace. we also know that when it comes to internet governance that it is a multi stakeholder model and it is the right approach. we believe in a strongly. we believe in the power of the internet for international development.

mean at thehat does this end of the day? continue our responsibilities to safeguard the infrastructure and to build we believe isstem imperative. networks are supported by intelligent protocols and what the federal engagement is responses and appropriately positioned. none of this can be done alone. there is no more important partner than our partner in the

european union. i mentioned that my colleagues and i have just concluded in negotiation on this major exchange. at the heart of this negotiation which took 18 months, it actually took nine years. i need a chair. i am pleased to say that we successfully concluded on this agreement and hope we do not need another one for the next seven years. at the heart of this negotiation was the issue of privacy. how do we ensure cyber security? how do we ensure the privacy and protection of the exchange of information? this is at the heart of the cyber security debate as well. we have different views of privacy. and no american or european legal expert. there is a way to characterize the differences of views.

from an american point of view, privacy is about limiting government from intruding in our lives. from the european point of view, it is about controlling one's information want to put it out there. these are two very different views. they're equally legitimate. the heart of our agreement was in recognizing the legitimacy of each other's point of views in terms that each other find important. we will succeed. i mentioned there was a misperception on the role of government. in the debate, it is dominated by extreme views. the opportunity exists in partnerships such as we have with the european union to solve these problems in an inclusive way that helps creates a resilience cyberspace for us all. thank you very much. [applause]

>> of a like to thank both of our speakers. they have a somewhat packed schedule. we have a few minutes for questions. if i could ask you if you have a question to raise your hand, identify yourself, and get the microphone. john, are you kidding? do you have a question? [laughter] it is okay with me. i can identify you. >> it is best to see you both. secretary lute articulated the multistate colder model. i would be interested in the european perspective on that. you mentioned the plot to take over the internet. what is this from the european

perspective? >> that is a short question to a long answer. i know you have debate on internet governance. the truth is that this is part of the work i was alluding to. i am doing it to formulate a joint cyber strategy. these issues will be dumped upon as well. we have to make sure that all the 27 countries are on board. some have their own strategies. some are not as advanced. we must make sure that everybody is a board -- aboard. we are having this discussion that this would be ready by the end of the year. i cannot tell you much about this. we are in the process of

identifying our reviews. this is important. there is the commitment to the budapest convention. wherever we go, countries are implemented. it is very much at the heart of where we are parting from. we hope he can be clear. >> thank you. the question in the corner? >> thank you. is this working? i am an ambassador. i would like to thank you for your representative -- for your presentations. my question is to both of you.

only talk about corporations with the third countries, they are not paying attention to cyber security. in short, they do not see the advantage of cooperation in cyber security. what are the means to involve those countries into cyber security corporation? thank you perce >> perhaps i will start. -- thank you. >> perhaps i will start. i met with their colleagues when i was recently in luxembourg. there are big questions relating to cyber as well as other things. i was recently somewhere where the government is quite dazed

with the importance of cyber security. this report a wonderful saying. by the third of fourth hand, you know longer properly attribute it. i believe that to him. he said there are two types of organizations in the world, those who have been hacked and those who do not know they have. some have to confront the reality of eight cyber attack intrusion and even disaster. surely we cannot wait for that to be the case. there the process, we believe a ecosystem for everyone is aware of their responsibility. we think machines are users. can we create machines that are shipped with the cyber security capabilities already enabled so they do not have to be activated? that can provide part of the

defense. users at all levels beginning with young children, understanding their vulnerability. it is outrageous that we live in a time 25 years after the creation and growing of the internet that there is not a single activity one can undertake in cyberspace confident that your identity would not be compromised. for some, you cannot even plug in your computer. that is unacceptable. we have to do better. this begins with a frank dialogue at every level. >> thank you. what to start by congratulating on the work. we like your professionalism. there's also the work of your president.

it is very inspiring to many of us. we discussed the need of this cyber strategy. it can understand a country like estonia would be frustrated. this is what i was talking about. this is a very important challenge to make some countries who do not have this preparation and are much mall from mobile -- are much more vulnerable. did they do not have the infrastructure to deal with this. that we get them on board and that we get them into cooperation. i hope very much that the cyber center will speak this afternoon. this can be a focal point to encourage, help, and encouraged. i mentioned the u.s.. that is an obvious part. the interval of setting up one in singapore. it is not in place yet. it has a few years yet to go.

this could be a partner for us as well. this is the best tool we have. we need as many countries as possible to control the community. it is a struggle. it is difficult. we need to be very focused. the cyber criminals are further than we are. we have to make sure that we can make the internet a safe place or people are comfortable living there. it is also going back to the individuals. >> we have two up here. >> and the washington correspondent for european politics. you mentioned your plans to do a

new eu legislative proposal. i am wondering if you can tell us more about what kind of proposals you have in mind. has the u.s. signed up to that? >> on your first question, maybe it was a bit out there. it is already on the table. we proposed it two years ago. it is updating our current legislation on cyber. it has been outdated. it contains an element on -- new elements on cyber crime and criminalizing the use of now whermalware. you will hear more about that. he is an expert. this has not been decided

tomorrow. we're making good progress. >> another? >> george washington university. for the commissioner, they mentioned the intersection between cyber security in traditional types of questions. the european union does not have many confidences when it comes to military security. does that leave a vacuum there? how are people trying to fill that? there have been discussions over the last few years about a possible blanket agreements calling all the variety of issues where homeland's security and privacy intersect with each

other. what do you think the prospects of that are after the recent conclusions? >> you're absolutely right. when it comes to more military security, the european union as such does not have this. there are issues where they operate bilaterally. this is very high on the agenda. the mere fact of gathering of this center and having it on the agenda also creates platforms were people get the practices. this hopefully will create a dynamism that also can be useful in that field. we do not count on building up any european union competency. we have enough to do that as it is. it can also be useful in that

regard. there is a limited amount of people who work. they may need to disregard this as well. >> i am very bullish on the european cooperation. on an upswing, i will comment on the ongoing negotiations about the umbrella agreement. it is important that our dialogue is essential. at cannot imagine the united states proceeding in any area without being in close dialogue with our european partners. when we were in luxembourg, we had about 5 4/6 additional things that we want to put on our agenda. we will. to your specific question, there is that ongoing conversation. i am optimistic that this dialogue will not only remain, but will develop an important if that is possible to imagine.

they have lost the ability to say anything is impossible. everything is there for policy. >> i would like to say that some of the most innovative thinking between governments and multilateral institutions certainly in our own dialogue reflex some of, at least -- relfects, at least in my experience, some of the most innovative thinking and willingness to confront novel issues that i have ever seen. some issues are as hard as they get. these problems occur against a backdrop of interesting developments. the rest of the world is not standing still. i recently talked to my colleagues about the world's 5 billion. there are five things that claimed the minds of people appeared being india, it being appeared being india, it being