mr. watson, we have given all our files and all our knowledge and everything to the police. they have not given us the diaries, so we do not know what was in that. there was a page which appeared, appeared to be addressed to him. again, that's my son's -- >> mr. watson, perhaps if it would be helpful to the committee if you would like to go through any of the particular detail around why decisions were made by the management team at news international and the precise chronology, it would be more helpful perhaps if i could answer those questions as the chief executive of the regional businesses across europe. i have somewhat more proximity to it. >> i understand the detail points. >> i'm simply offering to help to clarify these matters. >> your father is responsible for corporate governance and it's revealing in itself what he doesn't know and what executives chose not to tell him. so with respect to you i will come back to you later. mr. murdoch, why was no one fired in april when news international finally admitted that "news of the world" had been engaged in criminal inter

mr. watson, please, i can address these in some detail if you allow me. >> i will come to you, mr.it's your father who is responsible for corporate governance. i would like to ask what he knew. i will come back to you. who was aware of the findings at news international? >> it went to the senior officials of news corp. certainly their top legal officer. >> so tom krone or les hinton? >> no, they were not the top legal officers. >> who were the top legal officers? >> mr. john chapman was the top legal and mr. krone was the head of legal affairs at news group newspapers. >> were you informed about the findings by your son, mr. murdoch, or by rebekah brooks? >> i forget, but i expect it was my son. i was in daily contact with them both. >> okay. when were you informed about the payments made to gordon taylor and max clifford? >> no. >> you were not informed? >> no. >> at no point you knew that taylor and clifford were made payments? >> no. >> okay. >> you never informed the chief executives of news corp that you authorized payment of half a million dollars. >> can i answer the questio

mr. watson, looks like it takes a 2/3 of the county transportation authority members and a majority vote of the ballot. >> the general fund purpose, so it would be the county board of supervisors. in your role as supervisors, you would have that opportunity. >> what is the timing on that in your estimation at this point? >> he has met all the time lines and is in good shape. the legislature recesses' thursday until august 15. when they come back, he will have four weeks to get it out of the assembly. after that point, august 15 will be the -- not august 15, september 15 -- whatever the friday is closest to the 15th -- for legislative action, and the governor would have 30 days to act on it. the latest, probably the fail- safe way to look at it is mid- october. this could be enacted. supervisor mar: ok. please continue. >> a.b. 57 is what we watch very carefully. the chairman of the transportation committee became a surprising ally to san francisco. he is very uncertain about the approach in the bill and convinced him to put the bill over to next year. i think the action on this bill, whe

mr. watson said , he ran the company i want to talk to him. i do think that there was a suggestion in bloomberg rerted thaterhaps news corporation was switching. i never bought that. >> charlie: i didn't either. i didn't believe it whether the story is true or not. >> if i may defend my colleagues i can say it's a well-sourced story and the story in response was not a denial. both responses could very well be true. >> but it was framed the board is sitting to see how he's going to do at the hearings today. we all knew he wouldn'to great. it wasn't like he was battling for his job today. james may have been but certainly rupert was not. >> i'm not sure i agree with that. i think that what ever good bod prepares for the worse and if there had been some sort of conflagration or lost his temper or seemed out of it it would have been irresponsible of the board not to talk about that. >> with no specialist knowledge here but my strg hunch is that we were seeing today probably the end of the rupert murdoch dominated news corp era. yes, i run the comp

mr. watson, please, i can address these in some detail if you will allow me. >> i will come to you, mr.doch, but it's your father who's responsible for corporate governor ans governor ans and so i'd like to know what he knew. who was aware of the findings at news international? >> it went to the senior officials of news corp. certainly the top legal officer. >> so tom crone or les hinton? >> no. they were not the top legal officers. >> who are the top legal officers? >> you can answer that. >> mr. john chapman was the top legal officer of news international and mr. crone was head of legal affairs at news group newspapers. >> were you informed about the findings by your son or by rebekah brooks? >> i forget, but i expect it was my son. i was in daily contact with them both. >> okay. when were you informed about the payments made to gordon taylor and max clifford? >> no. >> you were not informed? >> no. >> at no point you knew that taylor and clifford made payments? >> i never heard. >> you never informed the chief executives that you authorized payment of half a million pounds -- i'd lik

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. 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 respect you. mr. murdoch, your wife has a very good left hook. >> mr. murdoch, did you ask if you could make a closing statement. the committee are entirely content for you to do so. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee, i would like to read a short statement now. my son and i came here with great respect for all of you, for parliament, and for all of the people of britain, whom you represent. this is the most mumble day of my career. after all that has happened, i know that we needed to be here today. james and i would like to say how sorry we are for what has happened, especially with regard to listening to the voicemale of victims of crime. my company has 52,000 employees. i have led it for 57 years, and i have made my share of mistakes. i have lived in many countries

mr. watson also went onto say, talking about he suggests that you were present at a meeting with scotland yard when police officers conducted a murder investigation providing you with evidence that your newspaper was interfering with the pursuit of justice. he mentioned alex marancak, and a member of the metropolitan police. can you tell us more about that meet stph-g. >> i can tell you something about it, but i was asked to recall a meeting that i'd had at scotland yard in 2002, and i had -- i was asked recently i think by channel 4 if that story was referring to my information. and my recollection of that meeting was entirely different. my recollection of the meeting was on a completely different subject. and so i'm only going on what i was told by channel 4. they say it's a meeting in november that i had, that was what was put to me. i checked my diary as much as possible and there was no meeting in november. however, there was a subsequent meeting in very early january. it may be that it was that meeting. that was not my recollection of the meeting. but on the other hand because of th

mr. watson, seemed to indicate that you had a rather hands-off approach to your company, that i think the point you made was that news of the world was less than 1% of your entire worldwide business and so you wouldn't really be expected to know the ins and outs of what was going on. could you just give us an illustration of how many times, how often you would speak to the editor of your newspapers, how often you speak to the editor "the sun" for example and, how often the editors of "the news of the world"? >> sometimes i would talk to the news of the world... [inaudible] just to keep in touch and the sunday times, nearly every saturday. not to influence what he has to say, at all. i'm very careful not to premise any remark i make, or any inquiry, and, i'm not really in touch. i indicated i have been... an editor i spend most time is, the editor of the "wall street journal." but to say we are hands off is wrong. i work a ten or 12 hour day and, i handle a multitude of issues, that i have to handle, every day. news of the world, perhaps, i lost sight of. maybe because it was so small in t

mr. watson also went on to say, talking about he suggests that you were present at a meeting with scotland yard when police officers provided you with evidence that your newspaper was interfering with justice. he particularly mentions the name of another senior executive and at the meeting a man from metropolitan police, that "news of the world" were guilty of interference and attempt to credit -- discredit a police officer and his wife. can you tell us more about that meeting? >> well, i can tell you something about it but it's -- i was asked to recall a meeting that i had at scotland yard in 2002. i was asked recently, i think by channel 4, about the story you're referring to. my information -- my recollection of that meeting was entirely different. my recollection of the meeting was on a completely different subject so i'm only going on what i was told by channel 4. they say it's a meeting in november but that's what was put to me. i checked my diary as much as possible and there was no meeting in november. however, there was a subsequent meeting and in very early january, so it may be

. >> tom watson? >> mr. speaker, i must challenge the prime minister on the accuracy of one of his assertions. he said that nobody raised andy coulson's conduct with him whilst he worked for the prime minister. i did in a letter on the 4th of october last year. after new allegations that he'd listened to tapes of intercepted voicemail messages came through and i said in a letter that this cast doubt on the accuracy mr. coulson's statements and i'm waiting for a reply. >> the point i'm making -- the point i'm making is simply this, the time that andy coulson spent at number 10 downing street the work he has done for the government no one has made with. as i said, i gave am second chance, after he had resigned from the "news of the world" because of what happened under his watch. no one has raised his conduct at number 10 while he carried out that job. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister has said that contact with the media will be published since the general election. i have to say i don't think tha

mr. watson a very brief question. >> james, if i can call you james, sorry, to differentiate. when you signed off the taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the e-mail, the transcript of the hacked voicemail message? >> no. i was not aware of that at the time. >> so why on earth was it -- but 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 would be levied. >> 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 wasn't involved in that matter. as to the taylor matter, it is a confidential agreement. i don't think it's worth exploring hypotheticals. >> the facts of this case 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

mr. watson seemed to indicate you had a rather involved approach to your company that i think the point you made was that in "the news of the world" was less than 1% of your entire worldwide business as though you couldn't really be good to know the ins and outs of a going on. could you just give a demonstration of how many times -- how often you speak to the editor of your newspapers, how often you speak to the editor and the news of the world. >> very seldom. sometimes i would coach the "the news of the world," but just to keep in touch. i read "the sunday times" nearly every saturday, not to influence what he has to say at all. i'm very careful as to process the inquiry. and i'm not really attached. i know that most of the time this would be in the same building. but to say that we are hands-off is wrong. i cannot tell you the multitude of issues that i have to handle every day. >> i lost sight maybe because it was so small in the general frame of our company, but were doing a lot of other things. >> if i can help you out here, if someone had told me you would speak something at least da

mr. watson but not mr. bryant's big and presenting your committee, "the guardian" or anyone else? >> anyone who is holding material, which clearly people are, from the amounts of media coverage, and there's been some species are you surprised any of these names that are coming out, or do know these names? for example, the gordon brown issue. >> now, i am aware of them. >> mark reckless. [inaudible] holding material because of the stories coming out, is at least another theoretical possibility as stores are being sourced from within the metropolitan police? >> i'm sorry, i don't follow your. >> could it not be the opposite, whether paid or otherwise information, rather than necessary being the place that the media outlets already have it? [inaudible] >> well, we always, we will always be accused of that. i can say with absolute confidence, because i know what's been there. for instance, when there was speculation around victims of 77 bombings, we did not know that they were contained within our material. >> thank you for the answer that i wasn't accusing. >> is a natural thing for

mr. watson seemed to indicate you had a rather involved approach to your company that i think the point you made was that in "the news of the world" was less than 1% of your entire worldwide business as though you couldn't really be good to know the ins and outs of a going on. could you just give a demonstration of how many times -- how often you speak to the editor of your newspapers, how often you speak to the editor and the news of the world. >> very seldom. sometimes i would coach the "the news of the world," but just to keep in touch. i read "the sunday times" nearly every saturday, not to influence what he has to say at all. i'm very careful as to process the inquiry. and i'm not really attached. i know that most of the time this would be in the same building. but to say that we are hands-off is wrong. i cannot tell you the multitude of issues that i have to handle every day. >> i lost sight maybe because it was so small in the general frame of our company, but were doing a lot of other things. >> if i can help you out here, if someone had told me you would speak something at least da

mr. chairman, done by the eisenhower research project at brown university's watson institute for international studies, just this past week. this group's cost of war project has released new figures for a range of costs associated with u.s. military responses to september 11, including our activities in iraq, afghanistan and ac span -- pakistan. they project that the wlars cost americans between $3.2 trillion and 4 trillion in cost and 225,000 lives. it is time to end this spending, it's time to make these investments in infrastructure in our own country. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. cicilline: yes, mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, this is pretty much the same debate we just had. the difference is this particular amendment just eliminates the afghan insurgent fund or infrastructure fund altogether where the other amendment