mr. taylor and to mr. clifford? it's suggested to be 700,000 pounds and a million respectively, for invasions of privacy, when the record amount of privacy damages awarded pie a court remains 60,000 pounds ironically against the "news of the world. ". >> mr. sanders, i did question the amount but not in relation to the 60,000. as you recall, and i'm sure you do, the chronology here, the settlement made against 700,000 pounds was after the authorization of the settlement after the advice that we sought from senior distinguished outside counsel with respect to the quantum of damages that could be expected to pay, which in damages terms was quarter of a million pounds plus expenses and litigation costs was expected to be between 500,000 and a million pounds is my recollection of it. and i think that chronology is important. i think afterwards you would have obviously had maybe different information, but it wasn't afterwards, it was before. >> you have since said that when you approved the taylor settlement, it did not

mr. taylor and to mr. clifford?to be 700,000 pounds and a million respectively for invasions of privacy when the record amount of privacy damages awarded by a court remains 60,000 pounds ironically against "the news of the world"? >> mr. sanders, i did question the amount made, but not in relation to the 60,000. if you recall, and i'm sure you do, the chronology here. the settlement made with respect to the 60,000 pounds against "the news of the world" which i believe was the moseley case was after the authorization of the settlement and after the advice we sought from senior distinguished outside counsel with respect to the quantum of damages we could be expected to pay which in damage materials was quarter of million pounds plus expenses and litigation costs was between 500 it,000 is my recollection of it. i think that chronology is important. i think afterwards you would have had maybe different information, but it wasn't afterwards. it was before. >> you have since said that when you approved the taylor settleme

mr. taylor. the out-of-court settlement with mr. taylor was related to a voice mail interception that had occurred previously, and was actually one of the counts, as i understand it, of the 2007 trial, and it is important to think back to 200 to understand what we knew then, what i knew then and the information in the context and so, the underlying interception was not a disputed fact. secondly, it was the advice and further to that, i should say, the advice and, the clear view of the company, that if litigated the company would lose the case, almost certain to lose the case because the underlying fact was not in dispute. thirdly, the company sought distinguished outside counsel to understand, if the case were litigated and if it were to be lost, which was the great likelihood, what the financial quantum would be or what it would cost, cost the company and it was advised with expenses, legal expenses and damages, that that could be between $500,000 and a million pounds, or thereabouts, i don't recall the exact number of the advice i

mr. taylor in some detail? >> my father became aware, after the settlement was made, in 2009, after the confidential settlement had become public and the newspaper reported afterwards. the understanding was that the settlement out of court was a civil claim, something of that nature we did not believe that a company our size, with responsible executives in the territory of the country, would be authorized to make. my father is the glow will chief executive. >> mr. murdoch, when you found out that criminality was in debt met at open quote news of the world close "? -- "news of the world"? >> [unintelligible] justice taking place now. it has been discouraged. we were shocked, appalled, and ashamed when i heard about that case two weeks ago. >> did you read our last report in the matter when we referred to the collective amnesia out of your reporters to give evidence to our committee? >> week under executives guilty of collective amnesia. >> a parliamentary inquiry found them guilty of collective amnesia and no on

mr. taylor. with the adequate settlement with mr. taylor was related to a voice mail interception that had occurred previously and was actually one l.i.e. understand it of the 2007 trial. it's important to think back to 2002 understand what we knew then, what i knew then and what the information was in the context, so it's the underlining interception was not disputed fact. second, it was the advice, further, it was the advice and the clear view of the company that it's litigated that the company would lose that case that was almost certain to lose that case because the underlying fact was not in dispute. third, the companies saw the distinguished outside counsel to understand if the case were litigated and if it were to be last which is the likelihood was the financial quantum would be or what that would cost the company with expenses, legal and expenses and damages and a million pounds or there about four the number of the advice i think it was 250,000 plus expenses plus litigation something like that. >> last, this is in the contex

mr. taylor. with the adequate settlement with mr. taylor was related to a voice mail interception that had occurred previously and was actually one l.i.e. understand it of the 2007 trial. it's important to think back to 2002 understand what we knew then, what i knew then and what the information was in the context, so it's the underlining interception was not disputed fact. second, it was the advice, further, it was the advice and the clear view of the company that it's litigated that the company would lose that case that was almost certain to lose that case because the underlying fact was not in dispute. third, the companies saw the distinguished outside counsel to understand if the case were litigated and if it were to be last which is the likelihood was the financial quantum would be or what that would cost the company with expenses, legal and expenses and damages and a million pounds or there about four the number of the advice i think it was 250,000 plus expenses plus litigation something like that. >> last, this is in the contex

mr. taylor's lawyers had obtained. now, they are saying that they told him about this e-mail. the point about this e-mail is that it goes some way to indicate that the wrongdoing went wider. this directly contradicts the claim that the knowledge was limited. >> we have learned that the fbi plans to contact juse law following claims that his phone was tapped. if the accusation is approved, it could lead to charges in the u.s.. our washington correspondent has more. >> these allegations relate to an article about jude law which appeared in the "news of the world," in september, 2003. it is claimed that at the time, the jude law was here in the united states, specifically at the kennedy airport which would give some kind of jurisdiction for the fbi who is now investigating. potentially it could open the door to prosecutions. i understand from a source close to the investigation that the fbi would like to speak to jude law. they would like to make contact with his representatives. i've spoken to his publicist. mr. law has no intention to talk about him. this adds to the scope of t

mr. taylor, and i'm happy to address the matter of mr. or in some detail if you would like. >> first just let me know -- >> my father became aware after the settlement was made in 2009, i believe, after the confidential settlement had become public as the newspaper reported on the out of court settlement afterwards. please understand that the settlement of an -- an out of court settlement of a civil claim with that nature and of that quantum is something that normally in a company our size the responsible executives in the territory, in the country would be authorized to make and that's the way the company has functioned. and it's below the approval thresholds, if you will, that would have to go to my father as chairman and chief executive of the global company. >> there are other questions that i could ask but there are other colleagues who have questions so i'll move back to your father, if i can. at what point did you find out criminal nalt was indemic at "news of the world." >> indemic is a very wide-ranging word. i also had to be extr

mr. bryan's phone had been hacked. >> and why didn't you alert gordon taylor -- >> ghawz by then -- because by then i'd retired from the police service. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> thank you. mr. clarke, you said that you didn't have an exhaustive search of the evidence. why didn't you do an exhaustive search of a sample of the evidence, and then you would have seen the iceberg underneath that you were dealing with? >> just trying to reflect on that. um -- >> it's a simple question. >> it's a simple question, and there's no simple answer, because it's inviting me to consider why didn't i do part of a job? you either do the job properly, or you don't do it at all. >> you department do it properly. >> well, the decision at the time was perfectly reasonable, and i made the decision, and as i said recently, it was a bad decision, and people can make their judgments. >> do you think you would have done the job better had you done an exhaustive search of a sample of the evidence that you had? >> it may or may not have made any difference at all. i can't say. it's pure speculation. >> mr. evans? >> you say, mr. clarke, that

mr. taylor was one of them whose names were among the evidence which were in your possession.r. taylor had apparently taken private legal proceedings to discover these documents and other documents in possession of the international and the other had happened in the subject of compensation, that was never investigated? >> i don't know. >> or any other journalists investigated besides the ones targeted? >> i think peter, in his evidence, asked for information of the journalists, and i think in his evidence he said that was forthcoming. >> u.s said that you were presented names. who were the names? >> i can't remember. >> were the names of people who had come to light in -- or their names of people who were the names that presented, where did they come from? >> i'm just trying to explain to you i recall not in any real data i just remember john coming in and saying these are the names i thought had been not necessarily from 11,000, but it was from the names that the that collected from the searches of the premise or from other sources, and it was -- i can't remember the name of

mr. taylor. but also from the standpoint of things like alleged criminality, violations of our code of conduct, those are things that are the company's internal audit function as well as the audit committee as well as the senior executives of the committee are expected to be made aware of. as they were in the case of the criminal prosecutions in 2007. >> you know, whatever -- whatever efforts were made and whatever rules there were, you know, we've reached -- news international has reached a crisis point otherwise you wouldn't be here and "news of the world" wouldn't be closed. who really is spom? -- responsible? who should have told you? >> it's a good question, but i think it's not to say -- i'm not saying somebody should have told me. to my knowledge certain things were not known. and when new information came to light with respect to my knowledge of these events and to the understanding that when new information came to light, the company acted on it. and the company acted on it in a right an

mr. taylor indicated the whites have much higher rates of owning stocks than blacks or hispanics do. some of the losses from the recession in the stock market in white net worth have been recouped as the stock market has risen. not fully recouped but that's part of what is causing the gap. both the losses in black and hispanic. the white house holds lost net worth as well. but those who have assets other than a home are faring much better. >> ifill: right. there is a old phrase that seems to be true in this case which is the last people who were able to get in to buy a house bought them at a not fortuitous time. is is that what is also driving these numbers? >> there's a very poignant quality to that. if you think about the housing boom that began in the '90s and accelerated in the te '90s and into 2000 then it was born of a lot of things including good intentions. the belief that an expanding home ownership is good for the economy, it's good for the social fabric. indeed of those first-time home buyers as that housing boom went up, a disproportionate share were minorities. blacks, h

mr. taylor, but also from the sfintd tandpoint things like alleged criminality, violations of our own code of conduct, things like that. those are things that the company's internal audit function as well the audit committee as well as the senior executives of the committee are expected to be made aware of as they were in the case of the criminal prosecutions in 2007. >> you know, whatever efforts were made, whatever rules there were, you know, we reached -- we reached a crisis point, otherwise you wouldn't be here today and "the news of the world" wouldn't be closed. who really is responsible? who do you hold responsible for that failure? you're saying that people should have told me, but you're reallying say to us now not that they should is told you, but you let them get -- what they should have told you. what's going on? >> it's a good question, but i'm not saying somebody should have told me. to my knowledge certain things were not known, and when new information came to light, with respect to my knowledge of these events and to the understanding when new information came to light, th

mr. taylor. but also from the standpoint of things like alleged criminality, violations of our own code of conduct, things like that, those are things that are the company's internal audit function as well as the audit committee, as well as the senior executives of the committee are expected to be made aware of, as they were in the case of criminal prosecutions in 2007. >> you know, whatever efforts were made, whatever rulings there were, we reached -- news international reached a crisis otherwise you won't be here today and "news of the world" wouldn't have been closed. who do you hold responsible for that failure? you're saying that people should have told you, but you didn't know. you really said just now, not that they should have told you, but you let them get on and manage it but they should have told you, shouldn't they? what went wrong. >> that's a good question. it's not to say that we're saying and i'm not saying that somebody should have told me. to my knowledge certain things were not

mr. scott taylor, vice president of hewlett-packard, stuart pratt, presidency of consumer data industry association, ms. ioana rusu, consumers union, mr. tim schaaff, president of sony network entertainment international, and mr. thomas lenard, president and senior fellow of the technology policy institute. at's say it is 20 minutes the maximum. our purpose here will be with the time remaining to us, which is not yet determined. 20 minutes maximum for all five of you to give testimony. that is a challenge, but you are exceptionally bright and well educated people, so you should be able to meet it. we will start with you, mr. pratt. the questions will be submitted from the committee members to all of you. >> chairman rockefeller, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. my name is stuart pratt, -- >> we know that. get to the point. >> whether it is cut tourism efforts, locating a job that has been kidnapped, preventing a violent criminal from taking a job, or entering the soundness and safety of lending decisions, our software and analytical tools are criti

mr. watson a very brief on closing question. >> when you signed off the taylor payment did you see or were you made aware of the four level email, the transcript of the mail? >> no, i was not aware of that at the time. why on earth -- you paid an astronomical sum and there was no reason to. >> there was every reason to settle the case given the likelihood of losing the case and given the damages that we had received counsel would be levied. >> if taylor and cliffford are prepared to release their obligation to confidentiality will you release them from their confidentiality clause so that we can get to the few facts of those particular cases? >> k not comment on the cliffford matter at all. i wasn't involved in that matter. as to the taylor matter et is a confidential agreement. i don't think it's worth exploring hypotheticals. >> the facts of this case to help us get to the truth. if he removes himself from an obligation, if he allows his papers to be released -- >> it's a hypothetical scenario. i'm happy to correspond with the chairman about what specifically you'd like to know about the

mr. bryant had been hacked. >> why did not do anything when it emerged that gordon taylor had been given a pay off by news international? >> bayh then i have retired from the police service. >> mr. clarke, any evidence that you gave, why did not do it and exhaustive search of an example of the evidence? >> just trying to reflect on that. a simple question and no simple answer. if you like me to consider why i did not do part of the job, either you do the job properly or you do not do it at all. i consider the decision at the time was person -- perfectly reasonable. i had to weigh up the balance between privacy. >> what you've done that job better with a sample of the evidence that you had? >> i cannot say. it is pure speculation. >> you say that the law stop you because you're up against in international organization. if a lot does not allow fishing expeditions, but it would of supported you if you had obtained sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable suspicion, if you have been able to obtain access and no amount of lawyers with unable to stop you for the question is, there were 11,000 pages sitting not properly re

mr. bryant had been hacked. >> why did not do anything when it emerged that gordon taylor had been given a pay off by news internationalh then i have retired from the police service. >> mr. clarke, any evidence that you gave, why did not do it and exhaustive search of an example of the evidence? >> just trying to reflect on that. a simple question and no simple answer. if you like me to consider why i did not do part of the job, either you do the job properly or you do not do it at all. i consider the decision at the time was person -- perfectly reasonable. i had to weigh up the balance between privacy. >> what you've done that job better with a sample of the evidence that you had? >> i cannot say. it is pure speculation. >> you say that the law stop you because you're up against in international organization. if a lot does not allow fishing expeditions, but it would of supported you if you had obtained sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable suspicion, if you have been able to obtain access and no amount of lawyers with unable to stop you for the question is, there were 11,000 pages sitting not properly reviewed.

, jenny, charlotte, juda and-month-old penelope much success as you move back to taylors, south carolina. additionally, mr. speaker, according to "the wall street journal" on july 27, robert barrow correctly argues that raising tax rates on americans is not helpful in putting americans back on the path to prosperity. raising taxes does not present a feasible solution in engineering and economic recovery. the solution is to cut spending. just as has occurred in canada in 1993 and in germany under chanceler angela merkel. the reason our country finds itself in this current fiscal situation is due to washington's out-of-control spending during the last three years. a failed $787 billion stimulus package in 2009 led only to the waste of taxpayer money. along with the hole even deeper than it was intended to fix. but the current administration moved forward with the belief america can borrow and spend its way out of a recession. that has proved to be false. now, the president wants to raise taxes in a way to pay for all of the spending. this is irresponsible. higher revenues will only lead to one thing, more g

mr. murdoch or by rebekah brooks? >> i forget, but i expect it was my son. >> when were you informed about the payments made to gordon taylor and max clifford? >> nope. >> you were not informed? >> nope. >> did you or anyone else at your organization investigate this at the time? >> no. >> is that right? >> i forget the days. i never heard -- i didn't hear that. that is the first i've heard of that. i just don't remember. there's no excuse for breaking the law at any time, sorry. >> a man named vincent "the chin" used to wander around greenwich village. which, in fact, he was. his scheme did not work. vinny the chin was convicted on racketeering and conspiracy charges in the 1990s, he ultimately died in prison. is rupert murdoch pulling a vinny the chin here? is he going to drop the whole fake limp or is rupert murdoch really that out of his depth, unaware of most things going on around him, unaware even of how much he's using his hands when he talks? meanwhile, rupert murdoch's son, james, only 38 years old, so he can not even try a i can't understand anything defense. instead, just tried a donald rumsfeld impersonation. >

mr. watson a brief question. >> james, when you signed off the taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full neville e-mail, the transcript of the hacked voice male messages? >> no. i was not aware of that at the time. >> but you paid a large sum, and there was no reason to. >> there was every reason to settle the case. >> if taylor and clifford are prepared to release their obligation to confidentiality, will you release them from their confidentiality clause so that we can get to the full facts of those particular cases? >> i cannot comment on the clifford matter at all. i was not involved in that matter. as to the taylor matter, it is a confidential agreement. i do not think that it is worth exploring hypotheticals. >> if he removes himself from an obligation, if he allows his papers to be released, will you let -- >> mr. watson, it is a hypothetical situation. i'm happy to correspondent. >> why? do you want me to carry on with a few more questions so i can get to the end of this? >> i am getting galled. we have covered this at some considerable length. >> actually, chairman, we have not, but i r

mr. left. >> i think splurge is left. >> so -- >> there. >> okay. >> "a" plus for the boys. excellent job. so chantel is the splurge they got correctly, $1,436. >> wow. >>ead to toe. she's in a rebecca taylorgic beading and sequins, 295 the top, paying for the designer print and then also we gave her a j. brand denim jeans, 169. they have the designer fit that is extremely flattering. >> japanese -- >> always gets you. >> bead something now strategic. >> exactly. it's important. here we have on her twin sister danielle, the steal. it's l.c. by lauren conrad. >> it is very pretty. >> it is very pretty. >> her total is $188. this is $36 compared to 295 and these jeans, robin, are $18. those are from kmart. >> you go for the fit. if you want a similar look, very important. >> all about the fit. >> we picked up on that, the shirts are similar. this one here doesn't have the strategic beading. i know sam likes that. but it does have -- it does a very similar story. >> great. thank you both very much. >> now we have the office look. and we have -- >> the doolittle twins coming out. oh, this is going to be a little more difficult. >> oh, yes. >> here are the doolittles. >> okay, boys. >> all righ

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that taylor egleston, an intern in senator paul's offices be graduated privileges of the floor for the remainder of this day. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the gentlewoman from north dakota is recognize heed. a senator: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: i rise today to urge my colleagues to come together and tracy this debt ceiling and find a way to reduce our deficit and our debt. we're at the 12th hour and it's vitally important to the american people that we move forward. and i believe there's opportunity to do that. i think it's important that we move forward in a way that makes sure that we address the root problem. and the problem is we have a deficit and a debt that is out of control. and so as we work together to reach agreement on this very important debt ceiling iss