specifically on the importance of diplomacy and foreign assistance in addressing the channels -- challenges worldwide? :

the shoulder to shoulder commute and to work the use issues together. and it really is a piece of this that has huge not just near-term but long-term implications. in the end, it's relatively inexpensive if you get it right and you don't end up in any kind of conflict. i mean, wages compared the kind of resources we've extended in these wars, the investments that we've made on the military side, for instance, in egypt. $1.3 billion a year is not a small amount of money. when you look over 30 years from what the egyptian military was very specifically has done, it's been pretty extraordinary. were i've seen it -- i'll use

another example that i'm extremely concerned about is in iraq. the budget we need the transition is we need to make sure that the state department budget here, in order to transition its supporting, for example. so there are near-term iraq, afghanistan, pakistan issue specifically, but also long-term, which these investments become preventative in establishing strong relationships. we have over the course of the last 20 years that would argue devastated the state department budget overtime. so i have for a long time called for increasing not in order to not have it then, quite frankly, a lot of money were i've been in force these relationships. pakistan is a great example. they're waiting for us to cut them off.

the dominant question when a go to pakistan afghanistan is we have been in past. we have to be very, very cautious about making sure we have this right to make these investments in the way, which sustained the relationships. >> thank you very much. secretary gates, i commend the priority you find done these inefficiencies and saving the department of defense and even very eloquent today about talking for the need of funding and how we'll need to work together. i do know of course that china and russia have recently demonstrated their development of a fifth-generation tactical aircraft. this underscores the need for an affordable fifth-generation aircraft or her services and allies. so i returned to the joint

strike fighter that you mention your opening statement. the dod says the impact of moving 124 f. 35 aircraft from the defense program will have little impact to unit cost over the life of the program. while this may be true for the life of the program, i'm concerned about the impact unit cost of the aircraft being produced in the next five years. this poses an immediate problem to her services in international partners. would you comment on the immediate or near-term impact of this decision? we just have or are in the process of concluding or have concluded the next five joint strike fighters. and through sharp pencil is on the part of both the contractor and the u.s. government, i give special credit to dr. ash carter. this by the joint site strikers

will be cheaper and we are in a condition to bring concept of this in a way that'll keep the cost under control without growing. >> again, i appreciate that and working to the time i've been in congress, i've just seen where we slow down the purchase and then it raises the cost. the theory is later the cost is too high when often times we've done it and that is my concern. >> one of our new initiatives is a long-range penetrating bomber. and the criterion can be done when we began to discuss this as i don't want to have this in a situation where we end up with egg on their that cost $2 billion apiece and we can only buy 20 of them. and what if you lose one evilest 5% of your force.

so we are looking to build in this new bomber program each 100 of these bombers, but not make mistakes in terms of the previous programs were good, having contracted using unproven technology so one of the benefits in one of the reasons we think we can afford a new penetrating bomber is for the most part we will use existing improving technologies. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> gentlemen come attainment for exceptional service to our country and those under your command. let me say that i'm influenced to my question this morning by the recent arrest in pakistan of an american by the name of raymond davis. and beyond the resolve nature of what he was doing and who he worked for her. and i have had a long-time interest in the relationship of the rising cost of an all volunteer force as a percentage of her manpower account in the

rising costs of the contractors to the u.s. department of defense. mr. secretary, you were quoted in the july 20 issue of the "washington post" in a major story about contractors and he said they quoted you correctly. this is a terrible compression. i can't get a number on how many contractors work for the office of the secretary of defense. it has been my assumption based on much as nation and congress passed that there will be an effort made by the u.s. department of defense to in source more service at rather than outsource and miracles that were sad. according to the budget that was submitted in terms of contract support services, it appears as though rather than reducing costs by 10% a year, your budget reflects the growth of over 26.6 billion for fiscal year 2012 over 20 amount in.

and i guess my question really is in terms of contract, it's my understanding now have over 200,000 in the field, supporting our operations in iraq and afghanistan. but how do you look at this contracting ratio? and when do you believe the department will be in full compliance with the law that requires reporting of the number of full-time contractor employees in bringing those costs down as a part of the budget you submit? >> will first of all, the one thing i found out is that one of the reasons i couldn't find out how many individual contractors work for the pentagon is that the way a lot of these contracts are written is for a job to be done and the contractor will be paid x number of dollars for that job. in the contract your will be in the framework of that contract.

the money is the same. we computed the contractor in terms of what needs to be done and what we'll pay for it. so i think we are getting in making significant headway in this area. i will say in terms of services contracts and acquisition of her outcome of the one area where i have allowed an exception in terms of the freeze on civilian hierarchy is to continue to in source acquisition and contracting experts said we don't have contractors supervising contractors at the will and the acquisition process. in the overall a lot of the focus on the cuts in contract being an inner efficiencies in the fy 2012 budget is on service contract.

as providing management support and professional services. in terms of specifics, let me answer. >> we are trying to do a better job of getting a handle on contractors here in a fixed price have no information generally about how many people are involved. >> mr. hill, can you provide is some sort of timeline in terms of dod's overall expenditures on contract team from the time the volunteer force was initiated? >> i don't know about 1973. >> also with the budget, the cost of the all volunteer force compared to the draft. that has significantly increased a percentage of your manpower. it's very interesting to look at the relationship between those two. the first for security reasons, but also because it costs less. and i don't see that happening with your budget. what percentage of your budget right now dollars even the

overall contracted services to the department of defense click >> if you're simply saying what we pay our people versus everything else, probably 40% dollars spent on contractors. >> be significant. >> if you could provide data for the record, we both appreciated. i want to turn to one of their subject and that is broad support among the american people for soldiers and military, the less so for the wars in which they are currently engaged. on the domestic front, major complicating factor is returning veterans, particularly currently serves return to places such as ohio to know basis and to unemployment in limited health services. it's not a secret that suicide rates are up among our guard and reserve.

am i the bill. every member as those i call the civilian conservation back to us in the 1930s to the army corps of engineers which was brought up less than six months in this country, that would target employment to areas that are in during innermost levels of unemployment in the country including returning veterans who are lined up at my food bank in my district. do not distribute on tuesday and thursday. my question would be, i would like to have your considered judgment about finding a way to employ returning veterans coming using underutilized card and reserve, leading civilian products to replant and rebuild our country in d.c. if if you can find dollars in your contracting accounts to shift for that kind of activity. if franklin roosevelt could figure it out, certainly could figure out how to do it. by the way for ohio, which is that the cancellation of the

dual sourcing on the past 35 engine and the expeditionary fighting vehicle. but the loss of thousands of jobs in a state that is now 6 billion in debt. so even though it isn't technically your job to be concerned about this, i think there really is a relationship between what going on to nothing of what we could do looking back at the history of her department. >> i think, ma'am, you'll find the secretary and i are very much in agreement with what you say and i really do appreciate your focus in that regard. too often it's been three entities. the dod, the va and communities. we sort of move people from one door to another. we have to figure out a way to work together. my attack to those that are leaving, they go home and they want education, employment and health. they focus on those kinds of

things. i've tried to inject a national voice with respect to this and families, not just the vets, but their families. i think the initiative that president obama and the first lady initiated nationally about a month or two ago is that every single cabinet secretary signature unless given a government white focus. we've got to connect to local communities to the needs of these young men and women who are the most extraordinary group of ever seen. >> they are being delivered. >> they have huge potential for the future of america. if we can bridge them in this transition, though make a difference for the next 50 or 60 years. >> time has expired. mr. crenshaw is recognized.

>> since this is my first meaning is a member of this prestigious subcommittee, i want to maybe just say to secretary gates that i look forward to working with you and a thank you for your leadership and commitment into admiral mullen, we've met before or have worked together from time to time in a thank you for the guidance is given, not only for the navy but all military services. and i know we've had conversations from time to time about a place called naval station mayport and i didn't want you to be disappointed of me at least not mentioning not. i would just simply say in that regard to thank you in the secretary and i applaud your approval of the strong language in the quadrennial defense review in supporting the navy's decisions to make it more capable of a nuclear carrier and to give you a brief update, the first couple of projects that

come in under budget with substantial savings and i look forward to working with the cml and secretary made this to make sure the remaining projects are complete and on a timely basis so we can continue to capitalize on this environment of lower construction costs. i just wanted to say that. i wanted to ask a question about afghanistan. we talked a little bit about it before. my last trip there was about a year ago and a delegation headed by mr. dicks. one of the things i found interesting when we talked about counterinsurgency was we went with our military leaders in talked about the fact that the talladega and can often use the fact that these foreign invaders were coming in and they would recruit people for their cost. and one of the aspects we were trying to develop was the

security force to police force and national army take away one of those recruiting tools to the taliban couldn't argue these were foreign invaders. and we met with the ask any leaders and found it was not that easy to develop that kind of security forces. in fact, marjah had just taken place in the national army and those problems are being worked through. so i'd really focused on that over the last year, but i just read about two weeks ago an op-ed piece by general caldwell, where he taught about one of the untold stories has been the development, the coming forward at the asking these two joined the national army indicated a real sense of hope, where there was not much hope some 15 months

ago. and so i wanted to ask you while a couple of questions about that. number one, do you agree with that assessment that is made. number two, do you see some continued success is coming out of that building of the ask any national security? and three, in light of the fact that in this 012 budget there's $12 billion of money. in these difficult times, what is your expectation as we go forward in terms of money that will be sent to continue to build that ask any security force, recognizing there will be a day with a need to be alert to support themselves. could you comment on those three aspects? >> will both take a crack at them. first of all, the progress that has been made in both recruiting and training the afghan national security forces over the past year has really been quite extraordinary.

just as one example, the percentage of trainees who qualify with marksmanship is confident about 35% a year or so ago to about 95% now. and we see the results of that, going to your other points, we see the result of having campaign such as the one going around kandahar right now, where in fact about 60% of the forces are engaged in that enterprise to the west and to the south of kandahar are afghans. we are in the minority in the ice that force is there in the minority in that respect and they are being very fact give in showing the ability to increasingly done around. they need our mentoring for quite some time to come. they like the iraqis have real problems when it comes to logistics and maintenance and things like that.

combined arms, intelligence fusion. we'll have to give them help in that kind of training i think for quite a while. but they really are stepping up and getting more and more people out into the field as i mentioned in responding to mr. marantz question. the afghan security forces have lost over 5000 of their own members and they were willing to put their lives on the line for their country. so i think that this is a real success story over the last year. i would say there's been one of the areas that has been most successful has been our experience with developing the nss. in terms of the cost, i had a very frank conversation last week. a boat the afghan defense minister and interior minister can make quite clear to them the

united states would not and could not sustain the level of support at the level that you describe $12 billion plus for very long. maybe for two or three years, but not beyond that. and hopefully by 2014 there will be some kind of a political settlement that will allow them to scale back the size of their forces, so they won't be the much. alternatively, they need to figure a way to structure them differently, perhaps with a much smaller force any national collared for us when there's a problem. in the third channel is obviously as countries begin -- as the 49 plus countries that are engaged in a military effort with us began over the next three years to draw down military forces, to have them contribute more to sustaining the afghan security forces. it is a burden we largely carry

alone at this point. so i think we have given them the message pretty explicitly. don't count on this indefinitely. we'll have to think about what this looks like after 2014. >> just a couple quick comments. i think there are 24,000 afghans in training right now in a training structure that a year ago didn't exist. anything to your very direct question, general caldwell and the op-ed pieces a story of success. there is great criticism very early as to whether or not we could do this and they are actually leading in places now that we could've imagined. and it also strikes me that roughly a year ago we initiated marjah. they have local elections there yesterday. so the improvement there has been pretty extraordinary.

that doesn't mean we don't have significant challenges. the secretary talked about the marksmanship. we've also initiated a very comprehensive literacy program. because a literacy is a big problem. a large number of the afghan security forces are now reading at the first grade level. there's actually a significant accelerate to get readers that the third-grade level. looking at that from the american, you might say not so good. but this is afghanistan were talking about. it's been an extraordinary accomplishment that allows them the level of confidence that they just didn't have before. i think as we look at it right now, as their forces up, mind, the school of 2014 in transitioning to them is a very realistic goal. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to all of our witnesses for their service. secretary gates, admiral mullen, we can all agree that the procurement system is flawed and i'd like to share a few examples. while most of us were pleased that the kc x contract has been awarded, the process, as you know, started over 10 years ago. the new contract was just announced last week. the army future combat system started in 2000 masher. the ses is restructuring is now comprised of a request for the new ground combat vehicle, a total that i believe is close to $20 billion without any real tangible benefits to the united states army. the ddg 1000 program was announced in 2001 with the original intent was 32 ships and i think we are down now to seven

and this was announced that the program will be terminated after $9.3 billion in cost will yield three ships. the ft for the marine corps development since the mid-1990s after 3 billion the program was canceled last month. how can dod and congress hope change the trend of the multiyear multibillion dollars acquisition that in some cases end up with very little project can certainly very serious cost overruns? >> sir, i think that is an extraordinarily legitimate question and something about the congress and we have spent a lot of time i'm over the past four years. sn mentioned in my opening statement in april 2009 i proposed program changes in 33 different programs that if built

to completion would cost the taxpayers about $300 billion. and i think that there are several elements associated with correct in this problem. the first broad category is what are. and i would start with discipline with respect to reclaim and in being more realistic. when the dollars were flowing as quickly and as much as they were in the past decade, i think there was a temptation to go after the most exquisite possible, most technologically advanced possible kinds of capabilities, often using unproven technologies. and we would get into those. and i think with respect to requirements, we also were not

disciplined enough in terms of the operational use of some thing even if it were completed. and i give you an example. the reason why i recommended cutting and the congress recommended cutting most of the airport labor defense. this is a 7047 with the laser capability to go after missiles. the trouble is nobody stopped to think about the fact it was going after missiles on launch pads and had to be within 62 miles of the launch site for it to work. so if you're looking at an arena so, the idea of finding 740 event and cannot set up around but have not been shot down is pretty remote. so we went to a technology only program. we are going to be out to salvage some technology engineering test and design out of the ef 80 and so we will

have -- that would not have been for nothing. but discipline in the requirements i would say also discipline and management, and being willing to hold program managers accountable. i fired the head of the joint strike fighter program last year. there needs to be accountability when things are out of control. we have put in some procedures that among other things the first one is affordability to gauge every program on the basis of affordability and every milestone decision point, judging can we continue to afford this? and we have done that. and i would use that as an example, the affordability criteria and as we began to design and requirements accountability as we begin to design the next generation of

nuclear ballistic missile submarines. the original cost estimate to the submarine was at or about $7 billion. by changing -- by scaling back some requirements, we are able to get the cost of the summary now to just below $5 billion. it's still very expensive. but by exercising some discipline, we made some pretty significant advances. the final piece of discipline i would say is discipline not only to fire somebody who is not doing a good job, but discipline to kill a program. part of the problem frankly has been in our department, primarily the department of defense, but i would also fit fit the congress has some responsibility here as well as when a program has gone wrong or is so far off the path that it's clear it's going to take many more years to complete and many

more dollars to complete than was originally anticipated. there has to be willingness to kill the program. on those rare occasions where the department has often come up here and has to have a program killed, the congress has not let the department to that. so i think -- i guess the final thing i'd say and it goes back to his captors questioned. a part of this also is professionalizing our acquisition workforce contracting is an example had almost disappeared as an army career for men and women in uniform and that's been the revived in the last couple years. given contention in priority to professionals along with all these other things that about i think are really essential to getting control of these programs. the truth of the matter is budget stringency itself will be

an important element of acquisition disciplines and procurement discipline. too many of these programs were allowed to go forward because frankly the money was there to allow it. i do know a few want to anything. >> this just goes to what mr. kaptur said when we outsource everything because it was going to be less. so as we can source everything everything -- >> those caught acquisition reform. >> and so, as we outsource every day and, if we don't show the disciplined the secretary is talking about, it will not save us money. and i agree that the construction of the budget, if you will, will cause us to prioritize, analyze and make tough decisions that for the last decade in many cases he didn't have to make. these programs just cannot grow

out of control. they've got to be terminated very early. one of the things i learned as it's very difficult to start a program in washington. once he started it's much more difficult to kill it although the steps have been taken in the last couple of years in my experience have been extraordinary compared to what i watched historically. >> with the gentleman yield for five seconds? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to thank you, secretary and admirable in. i think history will report you were to extraordinary americans, probably the finest were among the finest with agriculture respective positions. i thank you for your personal and professional courage in so many areas as well as your thoughtfulness in so many areas in your caring about forces and their families, which does not

need your overly touchy-feely because i also believe you have created the most robust and lethal military on the face of the earth in american history. let me go quickly to two questions if i can get the name. last week the director of national intelligence mr. testified a brand of the scientific technical industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons. is it the policy of the united states still to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons capable nation? it so or if not please advice me. if it's our policy to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, i asked this two years ago and got a yes answer from each of you gentlemen. is the u.s. military is given the military by the commander-in-chief capable of

executing necessary other range becoming nuclear weapons capable? >> iran is unacceptable to the united states. if the president should order, we have capability to take action. >> admiral mullen, do you feel the same way? >> i do. >> denote the policy prevents iran from becoming nuclear weapons capable, gentlemen? >> a way i have framed and maybe the ad was the battery memory, but the brief i always heard it is both in the bush and obama the administration says that iran's acquiring a nuclear capability is unacceptable. >> and i would agree with that. >> admiral mullen, i believe he said the secretary shares these views. i think the admiral said he paramilitary partnership strong

was essential and that was along the lines of my chairwoman of the foreign operations and state committee, ms. granger's comments about the 1% of our budget goes to state department diplomacy, which each gentleman's comments have been of great importance to you and your work and in saving lives, especially where offenders as well as cleaning our missions. admiral, you mentioned egypt to pakistan and afghanistan as members of the military partnerships. can you comment about our military partnership with israel? and a reach as they at all in the value to the u.s.'s national security about our military and intelligence partnership with the state of israel. >> is of extraordinary value. i've invested a lot of my time with the idf as well and the

partnership which is long standing is critical and will continue to be in the future. i mean, i'm not directly involved in the intelligence aspect of that, but certainly we enjoy a deep relationship that i think is absolutely critical to the near-term and long-term stability in the middle east and windows -- >> u.s. national security. >> yes, sir. >> and i would just add, i think in terms of concrete stubs to improve the security relationship between the two countries, moore has been done in the last two years than any comparable period in my entire

career. further -- it's nighttime upcoming up, chairman? [inaudible] i just wanted to follow up on so on the aid to the lebanese army forces. i understand the lab's army forces is a delicate situation that we don't want those weapons to fall in the hands of hezbollah and hezbollah has practical control over the country although maybe not complete political control. how did you strike the right balance of which weapons in which aid to provide to the lebanese armed forces and by and with the tipping point come when you would say that it would no longer be appropriate given u.s. national security interests? >> well, i would say that i am very concerned about the lebanese government bert even if hezbollah does not -- is not

represented as the prime minister or hold significant cabinet positions nonetheless exercises a relatively effective control over the government. and since the development to place, i would just say without getting into too much detail, that i have become much more cautious in terms of the kind of cooperation that i prove. >> i would add to that it is something the secretary and i and others discuss all the time. you talk about allen's because it is something obviously but i certainly discuss with my counterpart and our counterparts in the idf also. so we share the concern and understand completely, but it is something we work her way throughout the time. >> mr. kohl. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to thank you gentlemen for your

service. mr. secretary, i hope honestly this is the last time you doing this. heaven knows you've given the country a lifetime of service, but under two different presidents you have done the country and repair service in the last couple years teared thank you for all you've done. it's been remarkable. i agreed with a lot of the tough decisions he started to make and no have our disagreements and still you represent median and you new canyon sunday. but i would like for you to talk a little bit about one of the recommendations you are making and the longer-term. i'm very concerned about the long-term reductions and manpower that you see in both the army and marines. as on the armed services committee and we all worked very hard to get those numbers up. i don't want to slip back to a situation particularly where we are using the guard and reserve as much as we used to put them under enormous strain.

it was so hard to get those numbers. thank you for your leadership on what they needed to be. it is a dangerous road as you pointed out. it is your right at the reductions you envision in 2015. >> in the case of the right corner, the numbers emanated from the marine corps as part of their overall -- the commandant's overwrought review of marine corps structure moving forward. this is an area for general conway and amos were in agreement that after the drawdowns anticipated in afghanistan after 2014 at the marine corps needed to get smaller and lighter. and so what they are thinking about is a reduction of about 12,000, which would lead them from -- i'm sorry, about 15,000, which would leave them with 12,000 more marines than when i became secretary. in the case of the army, it is

partly budget driven. i would say primarily budget driven at this point. and i just ask people to bear in mind all the caveats that we've surrounded this with in terms of conditions based, drawdowns take place in afghanistan as anticipated and presumably no new major commitments. as i indicated in my opening statement, with those caveats in under the current plan at the end of 2016, the army would still have 40,000 more troops than when i became secretary. i would tell you about the planning for the next five years, this is the one guy and the the most tentative about them feel that it is almost entirely dependent on the conditions that we find

ourselves in the 23rd 222, but we are in, but we are in a budget-cutting. were doing things a year ago we were telling you we were knocking to do. you will find support for tough decisions you're making and weapon systems a matter of a few months ago. the manpower thing if you get started coming your caveats may not listen to very much. i would just urge extraordinary caution. another question i have, you pointed out about how important the relationship we've built up over 30 years has been for this country at a moment of enormous crisis. could you run through some of the other relationships on a military to military bases that we have in the region that are

also yielding those kind of results? i think of that time and other places. back to the point that ms. granger made about how important relationships are so we don't find ourselves in contingencies are we have no assets, no relationships and very little knowledge. >> i was just in seven countries in seven days in starting in djibouti which is an emerging relationship in terms of support. but oman, which is fairly long-standing, the uae, which has been significant for a long period of time. you've mentioned saudi arabia, which is another when we've got extraordinarily strong relationship with historically, bahrain, which is the headquarters for faithfully. we've had a relationship on the navy side the late 40s.

as well as qatar and inchoate. i was literally in kuwait for the 20th anniversary of their liberation and intro to the streets with an american flag flying. the smiles on the young children who had been told by their parents. it was extraordinary. so those relationships. i mean, they are not all exactly the same, but we work to invest over a long period of time. in this moment of crisis, they certainly will help see everybody through to what is an uncertain future. >> i know my time is about to hear just to make one more point in reinforcing symphony both said. we did what out and we paid them horrific price for doing that. we've had two different

presidents with very different gives. i would just hope we are in this budget challenging time for the country that we not make some short-term financial decisions that are very dangerous for us long-term. i continue matter what you've all done to reestablish our relationships and our credibility throughout the area and a very difficult time. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you. i just want to express my deep appreciation to you for the work that you do. absolutely necessary essential work that you do. in the context of the conversations we've had here, it comes back again very clearly all the things you are doing, how you're dealing with it and complexities of the operations you have to be involved and and how those complexities can be very challenging in the context

of the situation as it has developed over the last number of years. for dangerous -- more difficult to deal with in many ways. so thank you. thanks very much for everything you've done and thanks for the candid conversations that we've had, particularly about the situation in afghanistan and complexities between afghanistan and pakistan. and you can't help but think that all of the operations that continue there now perhaps may be unnecessary if they had been dealt with more honestly and effectively after the attack of september 11. but of course that's all gone. upon the past and it just requires you to be focused on this as clearly and effectively as you are. so again, thanks very much.

we know how difficult the circumstances are and we deeply appreciate all the things you're doing on it. i have just a very simple question that i wanted to initiate. first of all, how can you do with the presidential helicopter program? as you remember back in the last congress, the house of representatives passed resolutions on the presidential helicopter program that provided the white house with a full fleet of others within the regional budget requirements of the program. and while scrapping the more costly version, ticking off a lot of the costs. so now, after $4 billion has already been spent by the department is working towards awarding new program at the navy estimates will cost somewhere between 10 and $17 billion. i think this is something that is absolutely necessary,

something that has to be done and is overdue. there recently, "the wall street journal" reported that the state brands china aviation corporation offered at 313 helicopter for use in the next marine one fleet. the helicopter transportation for the president for the president of the united states obviously as one of the most -- one of the most sensitive national security requirement is something that has to be done in a very good, open way. so i'm just wondering what you were thinking is likely to happen with this. how is this operation going to come to fulfill completely? hopefully it will end soon. how is it going to be done? is china involved in this? is there a possibility or likelihood that some of his corporate aunt t. could go over to china for the construction of this process? >> first of all, i haven't

received an update on where we are at the new presidential helicopter. end of the navy has been working very closely with actually the deputy secretary of defense is the working closely with the white house in terms of requirements and getting to a point where we could put out a request for proposals. that would just make two observations. the first is the cost that you just cited stagger me because one of the things that i made quite clear we made that decision last year is that any success or program would have to come in less expensive than the program we killed, including money that a dirty been spent, but projected money as well.

i will get you the latest report on where we stand on that in terms of the relationship. i frankly doubt -- based on the last information i had, i don't think were far enough in the process for anybody to have had another. it estimates on what the program would cost at this point. this is also the first i've heard that there might be a chinese company engaged in this competition without getting into any specifics that the acquisition would send me to jail. i'd be interested in in the secret service on that subject. >> well, it's very much. this is something i'm very interested in an opinion that is necessary because the level of security for the president as one of the most important things, probably the most important thing we have to focus

our attention on. and so this is a major part of it. it's long overdue and i am hopeful that it's going to come through in a very positive and effective way. >> will get you an update on it. >> i have three unrelated questions and i'll ask them in a row. the first two you might want to dispatch somebody to talk about. the first one is that at 18 years old you can enter into contract and buy a house, go to jail, get married, go to afghanistan and iraq. but when you come back you can't have a drink in a bar. it greatly disturbs me when i stand at the tarmac at under army airfield with the third of the tree deployed in a suit is 19 back that there'll obviously be in harms way and then they come back and cannot have a beer at the nco club.

last year introduced with congressman taylor a piece of legislation that had that 18-year-old soldiers could have a beer on the coast, the idea being that if that responsibility to do that. so your reaction to that if you want to have somebody talk about why that's a good idea or how that could be a good idea, that would be good. number two, i'm interested in your public comment the other day about the secretary of defense and i can only roughly paraphrased, but who entered were into the middle east should have his head examined. actually, if it was a very good comment because they think we need to have that discussion. it has been described that we've been in afghanistan when you're at a time for 10 years.

one of the things that try to do in my office unsuccessfully in largely because we couldn't get the support from the pentagon that we wanted, was to put a metrics together that had three acres to it. political progress, economic progress and military progress. for example, economic progress either in iraq or afghanistan, the number of businesses opens on the stock exchange with activities in iraq for example, unemployment rate is in the governmental process of elections rule of law, local councils being developed and then military, ied attacks, provinces, training missions. provinces conquered are stabilized and metrics like that some members of congress and the public weather for the word origins to work it's a-ok, i admit in these categories and various metrics there is

progress. you can get the information that is so scattered. it would just be excellent if we could have one document was issued monthly that said okay, here's what's going on. and then my third question is the bureaucracy at the pentagon. and i'm not sure what number or who is in the bureaucracy and who is that so to speak, but in 2002, the budget request was $329 billion. this year's 553 billion or 41% increase. i have had friends of mine who are in the military who come through the pentagon and save the bureaucracy they are, maybe 25% of the people work their tails off and then if that maybe 75% who aren't. a very dangerous place to stand us in the pentagon parking lot at 3:00 every day. and you know, stories of when you walk by, the computer

switches to home screen. again, a lot of people working their tails off come the blood of others who are maybe more nine to five and the government aircraft wheel kind of fear is not contributing enough to the bottom line that would like to see if taxpayers in these type of budgets. those are my three questions. mr. chairman, i don't know how many time i drank much time i have this something we can follow-up on or whatever. >> we have the extent that eyewitnesses want to respond. >> first, i would say we will get somebody to come talk to you about the 18-year-old drinking age. will make this observation. one of the things we are seeing as a result of repeated tours is not just an increase in suicide, but an increase in risky behavior, particularly by young

men. and so, that would be a concern of mine in risky behavior on post in terms of motorcycles in the vehicles and so on. so that would be a concern and the decree first of all of the foreign president of the huge public university, this isn't just confined to army post or military post either. >> and fair, i say as a native of texas and somebody who is reared in storage, i believe any college town as an industry of fake ids and absolute degree of hypocrisy and a society do we think 18 and 19-year-olds are drinking. to me maybe control it. >> and everybody has a 21-year-old friend. second, with respect to what i've said at west point was in

the context of spending a large land army into asia that were into the middle east. and by that, i meant the kind of land army we have in germany during the cold war with heavy mechanized divisions and so on come i think some of our folks in the army world were brave enough come to think that we need to get rid of them and that's not the case. it goes back to this question of balance. how many heavy brigade to need and so on? a matter allen's and they are absolutely essential. and we'll get back to you on the report, the idea of the report and so on. but let me address one question because i think there is value and in addressing your comment that we thought when you -- every year for 10 years the same

order. i actually think of it very differently. i think there've been three phases of this war. the first afghan war was 2001, 2002. and we won that outright. they were expelled from afghanistan, the constitution was created. elections were held, clinics railfan, gross went to school and i was 2001, 2002. keep your eye off the ball in 2003. in the 2003 until roughly toward the end of 2008, we really didn't pay as much attention as they should have to afghanistan.

we didn't pay attention to creating an afghan national security for us. we didn't pay attention to governments. we didn't pay attention to the fact that the taliban, beginning during that period were beginning to reconstitute themselves, recruiting, training coming to a new arms comer infiltrating back into afghanistan. the level of violence began to grow again in 2006 -- and the spring of 2006. when i came to the job in december of 06, i made the decision in january of 07 to extend the battalion commander brigade and may to do with the new fighting season that was supposed to have heavier fighting. that's all we have to put into afghanistan at that point. we didn't have anything more to put in until the end of 2008, when president bush made the decision to add 20,000 more troops, none of them would get there until 2009.

so when my view, we have really only begun, apart from 2001, 2002, we have only begun to take were seriously and get the inputs and strategy and great people it took place in the last 18 and 20 months. and as the admiral said earlier in this hearing, we now have all the right resource is, all the right people and the right strategy in place and all the signs we have are that it is working. it though, painful. we take great bosses in our young men and women, but it does seem to be working. i think it's too simple to talk about afghanistan and the tenure were. this is a war that had a front end in 2001, a period of relative neglect and then a full

and conflict. i'll just give you one statistic that illustrates my point and it's a it's tragic statistic. when i took this job, 194 americans had been killed in afghanistan. so in five years of war, 194. since then, now the total as of today is 1045. so you can tell when the real fight begins in afghanistan. most of that additional, almost 1000 have come in the last couple of years. >> we have a few minutes left. >> i'm going to be sustained in asking my questions. >> i don't want to steal your foot tall, coach. >> thank goodness.

so calm. he said the fabric is strong. it's not unraveling, but showing signs of wear. what is your view of how it is doing? by the way, i see you've named admiral nick raven who was an outstanding pick. i could not be more pleased at the you've chosen. he's done a great job. >> there is no question that our special forces are tired and will both speak to this. ..

>> for a long time after we are out of afghanistan. so one the things that we've done over the last two or three years is move a significant portion of the special operations budget out of the supplements and ocos and into the base budget so that we will have those capabilities when these wars end. >> i actually believe that when, you know, the history is written in iraq that, you know, that force will have been, you know, decisive in terms of turning in. their first in, they are lost out. and that has -- that is the case, that will be the case i think in iraq and certainly in afghanistan as well. they can't do it alone. because we've had exceptional performance in our entire military that i'm very, very proud of.

they have been extraordinary, they have evolved, and i am concerned about the number of deployments. i think admiral nelson had it right. mindful to the leaders, we have to payation. we cannot over use them as we call on them time and time again. and will in the future. the investment, the expansion, the marine corps which is now very much a part of the special operations world. i run into marines that are so excited about that, they don't want to go back to the fleet from which they came. there's been such a tremendous evolution there. they are truly extraordinary. their families have also sacrificed equally. so we have to pay a lot of attention to that. >> okay. good. now other question that i wanted to get briefly into the cyber command. do you believe you have the appropriate authorities to conduct military cyber activities? if not, what additional

authorities do you think are required? and if you want to just talk generally about the budget, but the threat, the cyber threat, i think, is the most serious threat to the united states right now. i mean the numbers that we see now there's $1 trillion been lost because of cyberattacks against companies all over the world on their intellectual property. this is a serious matter. >> this is an area where i think the executive and the congress need to work very closely together. i think there are probably some narrow areas where we could use some additional authorities. in general, i would say we pretty much got what we need. i suspect that there are some specific areas where we would use some additional legislative authority. i would just say that -- i think the hardest thing that we're dealing with in the government is figuring out the bridge between the military and the civilian world.

i think that we have the dot-mil world covered pretty well. but i worry a lot about the dot-gov and the dot-com world. and partly it's -- partly it's legal, and or legislative, partly it's capabilities, partly it's the scale of the problem. janet napolitano and i, secretary of dhs, and i signed a memorandum of understanding last year, last summer that put dhs executives in the leadership of nsa, and with their own general council and own firewalls to protect against -- with respect to privacy and civil liberties and so on. but so dhs could task directly into nsa in the event of a threat to the dot-com or dot-gov worlds for which they are principal responsible.

it's a start. but i would say it's only a start. >> does that document public or? >> i think so. >> or is it classified? >> i don't think so. i think it is not classified. >> so we could get a copy. >> i think so, sure. >> either way. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. dicks. mr. secretary, admiral mullen thank you very much for providing this subcommittee a very, very excellent and interesting hearing this morning. and for providing us as the top leaders, the best military in the world, you've kept the nation secure, and all we can say is thank you very much for -- i can't imagine what's on your mind when you settle down just to think with all of the tremendous responsibilities that you have. having to worry about congress picking at you from time to time. you guys do a really good job. and i -- as one that's been here in the congress a long time and been working in national defense

issues for more than -- more than half of my life, i really appreciate and i understand what you do. >> y'all have said some very nice things to us, mr. chairman. let me say something in return. this committee in particular, has been very supportive of the department of defense and men and women in uniform since forever. and i just want to point out one specific example where y'all played a critical role in saving lives. and this committee took the lead on it. and that was in funding my request to build these mraps, and you voted billions and billions and billions of dollars and you have saved countless lives and limbs. and we appreciate that. >> mr. secretary, on that point, why can't we do that more often? why can't we do the 18-month approach, rather than six or seven years in the -- as we go through development and then finally go into procurement?

>> i'll give you my two-minute speech which i have down pat. it's because the department of defense is structured and organized to plan for war, not to wage war. and everything that we have done to try to get capabilities to the field fast has to be done outside the bureaucracy. we did it with the mraps and the medevac in afghanistan and we did it with walter reed, and giato, and isr. it's had to be out the regular defense department and needed the direct involvement of the secretary of defense. >> why don't we do that more often? >> because i only have as much time during the time. >> hire a couple of more -- i mean. really the notion of us going ten, fifteen, twenty years on some of these things. you talk about the bomber. i went through the bomber thing.

it cost $25 billion to develop. i told you at the end of the day it was $700,000 per copy, the fly away cost. if the development cost, and that's what -- boy, when you talk about this bomber, you better have that understand control. how much money we are going to spend in development. >> mr. secretary, i remember the first meeting on the mrap up the senate intelligence room. you made the pitch, seems like we had them in the field two weeks later. you moved quickly. it proved that the defense department and congress can move quickly when they get together and work things out and just do it. thanks a lot for a great hearing. we're adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the supreme court ruled 8-1 today that the first amendment protects church members who hold anti-gay protests outside --

>> mark sherman is with the associated press. how did the supreme court rule in a case involving protests at military funerals? >> well, the court ruled by an 8-1 vote that the protests were protected by the first amendment. >> who's the plaintiff in this case? >> the plaintiff is a man named albert snyder who sued a

fundamentalist church in topeka, kansas, because church members showed outside his son's funeral, who was a veteran that died in iraq. they showed up with provocative signs, thank god for dead soldiers and thank god for 9/11 and things like that. >> the associated press urged for them to reach in favor. >> i think the media organizations while they try to distance themselves from the church's message, they were worried if the court were to side with the snyder family that it could lead to an erosion of free speech rights. >> how did it case end up at the supreme court? >> the -- mr. snyder won a large judgment that was later reduced,

but was still about $5 million after a jury trial. the jury found that the picketing had caused an intentional infliction of emotional pain. that judgment was appealed, and the federal appealed court in richmond, virginia threw it out saying the constitution wouldn't permit it. mr. snyder appealed that ruling to the supreme court which affirmed what the federal court said. >> john roberts described the courts holding as narrow. does this open up the door for others who might wish to take up the protesting? >> i think he made clear when the topic of the protest is a matter of public concern, in other words, not in -- not exclusively aan attack on the private individual, but on a topic of public concern, it's pretty well protected by the first amendment. >> he said the ruling in the case was 8-1.

who gave the dissenting vote? >> justice samuel alito was the only dissenter. he thought that the attacks on the snyder's for beyond the pale. alito said that the country has a profound national commitment to free and open debate. but that's not a license for vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case. >> has there been reactions from either party involved in the case to what the court decided? >> well, i have not yet heard from mr. snyder or his lawyers, but margie phelps who is the daughter of the minister of the church and who also is a lawyer who argued the case at the court, she said that the outcome was expected. she said the only surprise was alito's dissent. she said that the only way for a different ruling would be -- would have been to have shredded the first amendment. >> could people see this as the court sanctioning the message of

the westboro baptist church? >> well, that's not certainly not what the court said it was doing. it said that what it was doing, the chief justice said that sometimes even hurtful speech has to be protected because if not, it risks stifling public debate on public issues. >> mark sherman is with the associated press. thank for joining us today. >> you are quite welcome. >> now here is the supreme court oral argument from october. the court ruled today the westboro baptist church has the right to hold anti-gay protest near military funerals. the court also dismissed a $5 million judgment from the father of a dead marine. this is an hour. >> your argument first today in case 09751 snyder versus phelps. mr. summers?

>> mr. chief justice, may it please the court, we are talking about a funeral. if context is ever going to matter, it has to be matter in the context of a funeral. mr. snyder simply wanted to bury his son in a private, dignified manner. when the respondenting behavior made that impossible, mr. snyder was entitled to turn to the tort law of the state of maryland. >> we are talking about a funeral. that's one the problems that i have with the case. there was also this video that your client watched, right, later, after the funeral. >> there was a flier that was sent out prior to the funeral, the funeral, and the epic, which was put on the internet afterwards. >> what does that have to do with the funeral? >> as the district court explained and the circuit court followed their laws, and the trial will confirm this, the epic was actually a recap of the

funeral protests itself. >> that's fine. but it does not intrude upon the funeral. you either have two separate causes of other, the intrusion on the funeral, and the other is the harm caused by viewing this posting on the internet. but i don't see how they both relate to intrusion upon the funeral. >> well -- >> they were just submitted to the jury as one big lump accident right? >> we had the flier that was sent out before the funeral, the funeral, and the epic. we focus on the personal targeted comments in the epic when we presented our evidence. >> suppose it hadn't been a funeral protest. just the epic. would that have supported the cause of action that you assert. >> i think that's a closer call, but -- >> yes obvious not? >> i would say yes.

we had the personal targeted epitaph directed at the snyder family. >> even though you don't have to watch it. it's just posted on the internet. >> it's choice to watch them. if he chooses to watch them, he has a cause of action because it causes him distress. >> he has a cause of action. doesn't mean he's going to win, we are the pleading standards, judgment standards, and the motion to dismiss. >> why does he have a claim? as i understand after this case arose, maryland passed a statute putting time, place, and manner restrictions. i read that statute, and it seems to me that there was nothing unlawful, nothing out of compliance with that statute that was done here and there was considerable distance, there was no importuning anyone going to the funeral, stop before the funeral, the service began, am i

right? under the current statutes this conduct was not unlawful? >> justice ginsburg, the statute wasn't in place at the time. but it's a complicated answer to the question, because they were positioned about 30 feet from the main vehicle entrance to the church. they rerouted the funeral presession. >> didn't they stand when the police told them to? >> they told the police where they wanted to stand. the police said okay. the police didn't say please stand here. in fact, they sent out a flier -- >> nay were -- they were there with the knowledge of the police and permission of the police. >> is there anything to suggest the maryland legislature in enacting that statute intended to occupy the field of the regulation of events that occur at funerals. >> i believe -- maryland legislature made it clear that they didn't want people to protest funerals in general.

>> but they didn't prohibit it. >> they didn't prohibit it under certain circumstances. >> in which this case was the facts here meet. >> for statutory enforcement. but what we are dealing with here are tort law. >> that statute applied to any protested funerals, protesting the vietnam war, whatever, your case involved, at least if we accept your version of it, i hate protest of the dead soldier. who is going to hell and who's parents have raised him to go to hell. simply to say you can have a protest within a certain distance is not to say that you can have a protest within a certain distance that defames the courts. that's a different issue, isn't it? >> that's our position, yes, justice scalia. >> you knew just what was going on. do you suppose because this has

been done before, wasn't it the same day they picketed at annapolis and the state capitol? >> yes, the three locations. >> so they knew what the signs were going to be. could they have gotten an injunction, do you suppose, against this protest? >> i don't think they could have beforehand because although you said we knew what the signs were going to be, generally from their pattern, i think we could guess what the signs may have been. you don't really know what the signs are going to be until they show up. for example, in in case, they had a sign that said boys. god hates you, you are going to hell. >> you could go into court and say this signs were this, that, and the other things on the state capitol, same signs at annapolis, they are going to use the same signs at this protest. >> as justice ginsburg, from our

perspective, god hates you, you are going to hell referred directly to matthew snyder. we would hope and believe that the district court could adjoin those types of specific targeted epitaph, if, for example, this was done at a public park in montana, logically, i think you could conclude it wasn't directed at the family. when you show up at a 20-year-old marines funeral and say you are going to hell. >> did they have going to hell sign at the state capitol at annapolis? >> a majority of the sign. >> but the particular one that you mentioned, did they have those at the other two? >> yes, i believe the only one they changed where they have a sign for each different branch the service. matt was a marine. >> so it sounds like the whole society, the whole rotten society in their view? >> if we are forced to accept their view, yes, justice ginsburg, that's what they testified to. mr. snyder's view, the view of

the circuit was that god hates you. you are going to hell signs. specifically referred to matthew snyder and the thank god for dead soldiers, mr. snyder certainly interpreted that as referring to his son. afterall, matthew snyder was the only deceased marine/soldier. >> you said the signs targeted the family rather than the whole u.s. society. >> the god hates you and you are going to hell signs were the ones that the four circuit said they can avoid that issue because they can simply say it was paper and protected pursuant to it's interpretation under defamation law. and it's extension. >> do you think the epitaph is relevant as an explanation of some of these arguably ambiguous signs that were displayed at the

funeral? for example, you are going to hell. god hates you. who is the you? if you read the epitaph, that sheds light on who you is. >> it can shed light. if you put this in the context of a funeral goer, justice z li- alito. >> the sign says you. you doesn't mean matthew snyder. it manes a larger group. then up the epic which is directly directly at matthew snyder. doesn't that show, shed light on what you meant on the signs. >> correct. that's where i was going to go with that, justice alito. the epic specifically referenced matthew snyder by name, and specifically referenced matthew's parents by name. in our judgment, and the defendants testified the epic

sort of explains, at least in their explanation, explained the funeral protest itself. >> this is about a funeral. i understand there was a funeral in it. but the first amendment question seems to be a different -- possibly a broader and different question. did your client see the signs? i gather from the record he didn't see what the signs were. he just saw tops of signs. so he didn't read anything on the signs. is that right? >> he didn't read the content. >> so he hasn't seen it? how does -- how did your client find out that the signs, the tops of which he saw at the funeral, when the demonstrators were standing with the approval of the police three feet away, how did he find out what they said? >> your honor, two days in advance they sent out a flier. they had matthew snyder's picture there. they claimed they were going to

protest at st. john's catholic. >> my question is how did your client find out these very objectionable things on the signs? how did he find out what they said? >> he found out about the specifics of the signs by going to the family wake immediately following and seeing it on the television. >> okay. so now we have two questions. one is under what circumstances can a group of people broadcast on television something about a private individual that's very obnoxious? and because the funeral, you say that -- i accept that from your point of view. that is very obnoxious. the second is to what extent can they put that on the internet? where the victim is likely to see it either on television or by looking at it up on the internet. now those are the two questions that i'm very bothered about. i don't know what the rules

ought to be there. that is, do you think that a person can put anything on the internet? do you think they can put anything on television? even if it attacks say the most private things of a private individual? does maryland's -- does maryland's law actually prohibit that? you know, it does. what should the rules be there? have i said enough to get you talking? [laughter] >> yes, sir. right now the role we are stuck with hoster versus folwell for emotional distress. >> your claim is that folwell was a public figure, and the snyder family is not. so i think when i got from your brief is, you don't fall on that case, because you are not dealing with the public figure.

>> that's correct, justice ginsburg. >> okay. go ahead. >> will you finish answering justice breyer? the more you say about that, the happier i'll be. i'm interested. >> the private targeted nature of the speech in our judgment is what makes it unprotected. so, for example, the epitaphs directed at the family would be unprotected. if, for example, a person repeatedly put on the web site that mr. smith has aids. whether it's true or not, essentially at some point in time, it might rise to the level of an intentional infliction of emotional stress. there would have to be other facts. >> you would have no objection if the signs said get out of iraq? anti-war not directed at the individual? >> correct. i don't think there's any

constitutional pedimentses -- the constitutional would bar that from going forward. >> so the intrusion on the privacy of the funeral is out of the case; right? because that sign would intrude on the privacy of the funeral just as much. it's not what you are complaining about, you are complaining about the personal attacks, aren't you? >> yes, justice scalia, i think under a certain scenario, regardless of the signs, you could have a sign where the funeral was disrupted. >> it wasn't or was? >> it was. >> i thought the funeral began the protesters stopped. >> about eight minutes after they started, the protesters left the area. >> a different entrance. is that the extent. >> according to i believe, all of the witnesses, yes, they had to -- >> in order to avoid the protest. >> that, and they certainly took

away according to the priest that was coordinating the mass, they certainly took away the peaceful experience that all private figures. >> but you wantn't have objected if there weren't the nasty signs you just said; right? >> no, i hope i said, justice scalia, under the right context, there's a sign out there that says god hates america. i don't think we could have a claim. if they disrupted the funeral, i do think, in some set or facts, it could be a claim. >> council, i'm trying to tease out the importance of whether the persons of private nature or public figure. private person or a public figure. does it make a difference if i'm directing public comments to a public or private figure? >> well, in the context of

defamation, we had the rosenbloom, and gertz decision. >> i'm talking about emotional distress, if i am talking to you if you are a marine and talking about the iran war and saying you are perpetuating the horrors that america is doing and said other things that were offensive, would you have a cause of objection because you are being called to perpetrator of the american experience? >> i think there would have to be a lot more facts involve. harassing type of facts. >> but you are saying yes. so public speech, speech on a public matter, if directed to a private person should be treated differently under the law? i think that was part of what justice breyer was asking. is that what your position is?

>> public speech event directed to a private figure should be treated differently than as directed towards a public official. >> all right. and under what theory of the first amendment would we do that? what case would stand for the proposition that public speech or speech on a public matter should be treated differently depending on the recipient of the speech? >> gertz versus welsh treated the public versus private figure. >> that was defamation, wasn't it? that's all truthful. >> correct. correct. the problem is the only other case that we have that deals with intentional inflection of emotional distress is holster versus folwell. it interpreted as public figure. they have said it's not a

private figure. >> but have it done it in the context of differentiating between public and private speech? >> yes, there's a illinois case that we cited in the brief where they said it was a matter of public concern. they said the plaintiff was not a public figure, therefore, does it meet the elements of intentional inflection? >> i wasn't talking about state cases. i was talking about a supreme court case that subjected that we would treat the first amendment and the fights rightse rights to speak on public matters differently depending on the person. >> i think gertz versus welsh. >> well, it always goes to the context. now going to the contest of this speech. we look at the words on a sign alone, or do we look at the entire context of what all of the other signs said?

to determine whether or not the speech here was public or private speech? >> i think you have to look at the particular signs. if you don't, anyone could come up with a public concern because they could direct any type of epitaph a person. i'm for taxes or against taxes. forever -- therefore the entire -- >> i'm concerned if one comes top -- comes up to a marine and says you are contributing to a terribly unfair war. that that alone would form the basis for the choice of intentional infliction of emotional distress. what are the requirements for that? i thought it had to be outrageous conduct. doesn't it have to be outrageous conduct? >> it does, justice scalia. >> well, why accept that as parallel to what you are claiming here? >> and i hope i didn't. what i meant to say, if i didn't, there would have to be a

lot more facts involved to rise to the level of intentional infliction with enational distress if you just told the marine you are not in favor of the war. >> what about the taking -- if you are an instance where the defendant has said on television or on the internet something absolutely outrageous, you showed that. you show that it was intended to and did inflict serious emotional suffering, you showed that any reasonable person would have known that likelihood. and then the defendant says, yes, i did that. but in the cause. in a cause. and now in a cause that we're trying to demonstrate how awful the war is. at that point, i think the first amendment might not leave this alone. but if it's not going to leave this alone, there's where we

need a rule, or we need an approach, or we need something to tell us how the first amendment in that instance will begin to enter and force a balancing. is that you want to say no punitive damages in such a case? or that you'd have to insist on a particularly clear, or a reasonable connection between the private part of this and the public effort. have you thought about that at all? because that's where i am thinking and having trouble. >> the -- i think the standards should be holster versus folwell. >> that's a defamation. >> i thought it was intentional -- >> it is. >> intentional infliction. okay. good. thank you. go ahead. >> mr. summers -- >> answer then please. >> i think the rule does not apply to a private figure unless the defendants show some

compelling connection there. >> compelling. >> or at least reasonable and rational connection. in this case they don't claim a connection, they use the moment to hijack someone else's event when they are grieving over a 20-year-old child's funeral. >> hustler seems to have one position, outrageous in the political and social discourse has a subjectiveness about it that would allow them to impose liability on the basis of refuse or dislike of a particular express. how does that senate -- how is that sentence less implicated in a case about a private figure than in a case about at public figure? >> at least in hustler versus folwell, we had a public discourse. here what we are talking about is a private funeral.

i don't -- i would hope that the first amendment wasn't enacted to allow people to disrupt and harass people at someone else's private funeral. >> that goes back to question that was asked privately about suppose you had a general statute that just said there will be no disruptions of any kind at private funerals. pick your distance. 500 feet, 1,000 feet. but something that didn't refer to content, that didn't refer to ideas, that just made it absolutely clear that people could not disrupt private funerals. what harm would that statute not address in your case? >> well, the states have -- in a statutory case, they have the interest of penalizing the offending party, and in tort law it is to provide a remedy for the citizens under the circuit. mr. snyder has absolutely no

remedy. none, he's a private figure, grieving father, he's left without any remedy whatsoever. >> do we have other indances where conduct is lawful, meets all of the terms of the statute that is meant to govern a protest at a funeral, and yet there is an award of damages permitted. >> i believe hustler versus fol sell had similar tort claims. i understand it went the other way because of a public figure statute. that would be an example. >> i'm asking you for an example where a federal case where the conduct was permitted by the statute, by the police who were there, and yet, what was the

damage award? >> justice ginsburg, i'm not aware of any case. for example, if someone sued someone for defamation, there wouldn't be a statute that's violated. >> i'm talking about the intentional infliction of emotional stress that you are bringing. >> i do not have any federal cases to cite to you. >> is this a situation in which all conduct that complies with the maryland funeral protest statute is lawful? the legislature said these are the exclusive regulations that apply here. if someone came up to mr. phelps at the funeral and stat -- spat in his face, that would not be -- that wouldn't be illegal? >> justice alito, i don't know -- >> because it's prohibited by the statute. >> well, it would be because of

the distance. you'd have to be closer than the maryland statute. >> i believe that you could commit a tort and still be in compliance with the criminal code. >> mr. summers, can you ask you -- suppose i don't think you have a cause of action for invasion of privacy. because people work at this distance from the funeral. but that was one the causes of action submitted to the jury. if i disagree with you on that cause of action, i suppose i'd have to say there has to be a retrial now. >> of course, this court could do that, justice scalia. >> so you have to support both, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the invasion of privacy; right? >> yes, according to the fourth circuit, we agreed they waved that issue by not appealing that issue.

>> what issue? >> elements of the invasion of privacy. it contests that we met the almosts of the tort. they claim -- they contested the constitutional issue, but not whether or not we met the elements of the tort. >> oh. all right. okay. >> thank you, counsel. ms. phelps? >> mr. chief justice, may it please the court, when members of the westboro baptist church entered the discussion and wide array of activities taking place in direct connection with the death and funerals of soldiers killed in iraq and afghanistan, they did some with great circumspection and awareness of

the boundaries that have been set by the press -- precedence of this court. >> ms. phelps, suppose your group or another group picks a wounded soldier and follows him around. demonstrating at his home, demonstrates at his workplace, demonstrates at his church, basically saying a lot of the things that were on these signs or other offensive and outrageous things. and just follows this person around day to day. does that person not have a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress? >> any nonspeech activity like stalking, following, importuning, being confrontational could indeed give rise to a cause of action. >> demonstrations outside the persons home, outside the persons workplace, outside the

persons church, demonstrations, not disruptions, but saying these kinds of things. you are a war criminal. whatever these signs say or worse. >> my answer is, justice kagan, i don't believe that person should have a cause of action, or would under your case have a cause of action, you couldn't give that without direct reference to the view point which is exactly what happened in this case. >> we did have a doctrine of fighting words, and you acknowledge that somebody said, you know, things such as that to his face? that wouldn't be protected by the first amendment. >> we agreed that fighting words are less protected under the first amendment. >> unprotected. >> i'll go with unprotected, justice scalia. if i may add this, fighting words require eminence, they require proximity, and they require a lack of those words being part of broader -- >> is that so.

do we know that? >> i beg your pardon? >> do we know that? is it the criteria of the fighting words exception to the first amendment that there be an actual fight. certainly not that. is there a requirement that there will be a potential for a fight? i doubt it. where do you get the notion that it has -- there has to be an eminent fight. >> i get the notion from the series of cases starting within seven years after your topinsky case with the gooding case and on down -- >> which say what? the person was mote. the fight was not eminent? >> the definition, the working definition of fighting words is that they have to be words by their nature are likely to insight an immediate breech of the peace and not occur in the context of some social, artistic, educational, political kind of speech. and if i may hasten to adjust

this, scalia, these respondents were not charged for the fighting war. the jury was not instructed to limit themselves to fighting words. no element of the tort under which liability attached including fighting words. the words that were at issue in in case were people from a church delivering a religious view point, commenting not only on the broader public issues that the discussion was under way in this nation about dying soldiers, about the morals that the nation -- >> but -- there's no question that these signs have been -- the signs like that we saw during the vietnam war. but you had to demonstration at a capitol. and you've had the demonstration at annapolis. this is is case about exploiting a private family's grief. and the question is why should

the first amendment tolerate exploiting this bereaved family when you have so many other points for getting across the message the very same day that you did? so several pieces to that, justice ginsburg. when i hear the language exploiting, i look for the principal of law that comes from this court. and the principal of law as i understand it is, without regard to view points, there's a limit on what public places you can go to to deliver words as part of the public debate. if you stay within those bounds, and under these torts even, it has no definition in the principal of law that would guide people to when they could or not could. if i may -- >> isn't your argument that the first amendment never allows a claim for the intentional infliction

of emotional distress based on speech, unless the speech is such that it can be proven to be false or true? is that your argument? >> with -- yes, justice alito. with a little bit more from your cases if i may, and not under an inheritly subjective standard and where you are only claiming that the impact of the speech was adverse emotional impact. >> all right. justice kagan gave you one example. let me give you another example along the same lines. let's say there's a grandmother who has raised his son that was killed in afghanistan or in iraq by an ied. and she goes to visit her son, her grandson's grave, and she's waiting to take a bus back to her home and while she's at the bus stop, someone approaches and speeches to her in the vile tones about her son. he was killed by an ied.

do you know what they do? let me describe it. i'm so happy that it happened. i wish that i were there and could have taken pictures of it, and on and on. now is that protected by the first amendment? there's no false statement involved. and it's truly speech. >> right. and it may give rise to some fighting words, depending on the proximity and the context. >> it's an elderly person. she's really probably not in a position to punch this person in the nose. >> she's a quaker too. [laughter] >> if the grandmother had not done what mr. snyder did in this case, mr. snyder from the moment he learned of the son's death went to the public air waves multiple times in the days immediately before and

immediately after -- >> what is your answer to justice alito's question? do you think the first amendment would bar that or not? >> there would be have to be a narrow circumstances. >> you think there's intentional infliction of emotional distress is allowed even for a matter of public debate. >> not public debate, mr. chief justice. that's not the way i understand the hypothetical. >> i understood it, the person disagreed with the war in iraq and sending of the troops. >> and knew this elderly woman was the grandmother in the soldier. i would ask in the hypothetical how they knew. which is why i was making reference to what mr. snyder did. >> when that person selects the grandmother because he thinks that will give maximum publicity to his views. now does the first amendment bar that cause of action or not? >> if the grandmother entered

the public discussion, the first amendment -- >> justice alito said he was returning from the grave of his grandson. it didn't enter. i'm anxious, whether in those circumstances the first amendment allows that kind of action or not. >> i'm reluctant to say it does not, mr. chief justice. >> you gave the answer before, stalking, isn't that comprehendible to stalking. >> that's what i was trying to liken it to. that when it sounds like. >> do you think it supplies the tort for someone to come up and engage in discussion? >> well, chief justice, i would not file that claim for the elderly grandmother. i'm not prepared without knowing more to say absolutely there could be no cause of action. what i am prepared to say, there could be much more than that.

>> if there's a possibility that was a claim there. then what distinguishes this case? i thought you were beginning to say my hypothetical is different because mr. snyder made his son into a public figure. and the question that i wanted to ask in that connection is whether every bereaved family members who provides information to a local newspaper for an obituary, thereby makes the deceased person a public figure. >> not the deceased person, justice alito. we don't allege that the young man dead was the public figured. >> if the grandmother said let me tell you something about my grandson that was just killed in iraq. he liked football and camping. that makes him -- that makes her a public figure? >> it's getting closer. justice alito, if she went on then to say and how many more parents like me and my ex-wife

are going to have to suffer this way? and when will this senseless war end? i've gotten congressman metha involved. and continued to repeat that. then a little church where the servants of god are found say we have an answer to your question that you put in the public air wave. and our answer is you've got to stop sending if you want this trauma -- >> your response. your response to justice alito is dwelling upon the facts of this particular case. i'm interesting in knows what your position is on the broader question. can you imagine a circumstances where the same type of discussion is directed at an individual and yet would give rise to the tort of emotional distress? >> i can. >> sorry. can or cannot? >> i can imagine that there

could be a circumstances a hypothetical where it was not the level of involvement and out of the blue and up close if i may use the term. >> so if you recognize there can be a tort of emotional distress in circumstances like that, isn't that the factual question of whether it rises to that level of outrageousness, which is part of the tort for the jury? >> i don't agree with that, mr. chief justice. you have now taken an inheritly subjective standard with the absence of any of these nonspeech misbehaves. -- misbehaviors. now you are back to the only barrier between a person and their first amendment right to robust public debate, including this court has said, outrageous statements. >> i'm sorry. >> which is subjectively inherit standard and that subjective statement of emotional impact. >> does it make a difference, which seems to me to be the case here that mr. snyder was

selected not because of who he was, but because it was a way to get maximum publicity for the client's message? >> that is not accurate. >> assuming it is accurate, does that make a difference? >> the motive of the speecher to get maximum exposure, which every public speecher pines for, looks for, strives for, and is entitled to, does not change the legal principal that's at play. >> well, it might affect whether or not the selection inflicts emotional distress for a reason unconnected with the individual who is the subject of the emotional distress. in other words, if the person is selected because as a -- as i indicated it gives maximum publicity, rather than because of a particular connection to the matter of public debate, i wonder if that makes a difference. >> i think it makes a difference when you are looking at what role the plaintiff had in that

public discussion and how tied the words that they seek to punish are to his role in that public discussion. i think that's how you get to the point. >> ms. phelps, let's say we disagree with you as to whether mr. snyder had at all objected himself into this controversy. let's take a case it's clear that the father of the fallen soldier had not. had not called any newspapers, had not said anything to anybody. but a group knew that this funeral was taking place and was there with the same signs, the same -- are you saying that that makes the difference? that there there would be a claim? >> i'm saying it does make a difference. and no, there would not be a claim there in my opinion. >> so it's not a difference that matters? >> it is a difference that

matters in some measure. i believe the umbrella of protection under the first amendment that the court has established firmly is speech on public issues. sometimes you get under that umbrella because it's a public official or it's a public figure. but the umbrella that you give the protection for is speech on public issues. now when a plaintiff comes to your courts and says i want $11 million from a little church because they became forth with some preaching i didn't like. i think it does make a difference for the court to look closely at what role did that man have in that public -- >> your argument depending on the proposition that that is speech on a matter of public concern, is that correct? >> absolutely, justice scalia. >> let me give you this example. suppose someone believes that african-american are inferior. they are inheritly inferior. they are a bad influence on the country.

a person comes up to the african-american and starts berating that person with racial hatred. now is that -- this is just any other person on any other african-american on the street. that's a matter of public concern? >> i think the issue of race is a matter of public concern. i think approaching an individual up close and in their grill to be racism gets you out of the zone of protection. we would never do that. :

the more innocent there were more removed the person is the greater impact. so i think, i think your public consent issue may not be a limiting factor. in cases where there is an outrageous conduct and where there should be. >> the but again this court has given substantial long-standing protection to speech on public issues and how could it be said that the dying soldier is not on the lips of everyone in this country and it is a matter of great public interest and why they are dying and how god is dealing with this nation were you to consult the joint appendage and see at the same funeral right outside the front door of the church where people with flags and signs reticulated the god bless america viewpoint

and so. >> your position is that you can take this and you can follow any citizen around at any point. that was the thrust of the question. from justice alito in thinking that you should help us in finding some line there. >> yes i will help you justice kennedy and i'm pleased to do that as we don't do follow around in this church. we were 1000 feet away, seven picketers 1000 feet away out of sight, out of sound, not just ending with the police. >> but the hypothetical., there can be an intentional infliction of an emotional action for certain harassing conduct. >> for harassing conduct. not for speech, not for public speech justice kennedy. >> torts and crimes are committed all the time. >> i agree with that and there's never been any allegation in this case that the words of the westboro baptist church were in

any category of low value or less protected speech. >> talk about subjectivity. surely the fighting words, you know whether something is a fighting word, that is a very subjective call is made? >> i believe your case gives good light on that justice scalia. >> you don't think it is subjective? >> there may be in some peoples mind an element of subjectivity. >> you think that is solid? what is an outrageous statement is very much different from what it is a fighting work? i don't see the difference. besides which is not the case that in order to recover for this sort of intentional infliction of emotional injury you have to substantiate the injury with some physical manifestation. which the plaintiff here had. and my goodness for fighting

words you don't even need that. these words angered me to the degree that i would have been inclined to fight. at least for the stored, you have to have physical manifestation. isn't that a very objective standard? >> well, because the court said it was inherently subjective in the falwell case in the language that justice kagan brought forth and there are a few more paragraphs that follow identify what is inherently subjective and the way this case was tried identifies why it is inherently subjective, although two sides and then three were identified as actionable by a strained reading of those words. all of the -- of westboro baptist church including all of the signs at that pickett, all of the signs and other pickets and all their doctrines went to a jury without inherent -- speaks so your point depends upon the proposition, what is outrageous is more subjective than what is fighting words.

>> justice scalia i must hasten to does say this. i'm not a fan of the fighting words doctrine. i don't think it applies in this case. the court says -- we have not allowed the fighting words -- you say that to me and i'm immediately going to punch you in the nose because it is an instinctive reaction. i think the point is rejecting fighting words beyond that and especially to where there is emotional injury. that is where i particularly think although chabinsky would have suggested and broad language, you have not gone that way in any of the cases and again i have to reiterate you have have required immediacy and in 10. whether a fight ensues or not i do understand that hasn't been penned down as a requirement that an intent that your purpose is to mix it up with somebody, not to go out and say nation

here at this little church. if you want them to stop dying, stop sinning. that assailant purpose of this little church. 1000 feet away could not possibly be fighting words. >> so we are still worry about the television and the internet and the knowledge there. i am starting, and trying i'm trying to get the same answer that i was trying to get from your college. brandeis said the right to be let alone is the most important and so he must have been thinking there could be a tort. for interference but with privacy and the first amendment doesn't stop tort laws in appropriate circumstances and emotional injuries deliberately inflicted could he run. and i think it is one. but i see that in some instances that you would be abuse to prevent somebody from getting out the public message and therefore i'm looking for a line. let me suggest a couple to see

what you think. maybe you could think of some others. you could have the judge make the decision since the first amendment is involved, not the jury and the judge could say whether in this instance it was reasonable for the defendant to think that it was important to interfere with the emotion -- emotional life of that individual. you can say could say if that was so there will be no punitive damages. there could be ordinary damages. you could remove all the protection from the defendant in an instance where the defendant nonetheless nail and actually knew that they were going to cause an individual who is private severe injury, emotional injury irrespective of their public message. so what i'm doing is suggesting a number of thoughts of ways of trying to do what i am trying to accomplish, to allow the stores to exist but not about the

existence of it to interfere with an important public message where that is a reasonable thing to do. maybe this is impossible, this task but i would like your thoughts on this. >> thank you justice breyer and i am taking we are speaking out the intrusion plane and i believe that i could offer you a compare and attack to extremes. on the one hand you have a body of law that comes under the heading of passive audience and you can go into the body of law and read all those cases in one sitting so to speak from which you would conclude that it is very narrow, it is very limited and there must be some actual physical sound, sight, intrusion. if you are talking about invasion of privacy. at the other extreme for compare and contrast, is what they seek, what the trial judge gave them in this case which is in an unspecified period of time that each individual will call their morning. not.

no no one anytime anyplace in a manner may say any words that mourner says cause me emotional distress. >> wired the members of the family of the deceased a captive audience at the funeral? >> if we were right outside the door like the other express search word in these exhibits, they might have been. your body of law about captive audience, that line of cases recently taking the picketing where they by the way specifically said footnote 25, this isn't about content. you have to be and again i will use the colloquial term, up in your grill. the term i think the court use was confrontational and you can't be a captive audience to someone that you couldn't see. >> targeted picketing of a person's house is not protected by the first amendment. >> directly in front of can be

regulated and even in. >> what is the difference between that and picketing around the side of the reenroll? >> proximity because a captive audience doctrine is flushed out in those abortion picketing case is what you you were looking at was is it practical for that person to avoid it without having to run the gambit? that is why you said image as observable the only objection you can have there is get up and close the blinds. >> so it has to do with whether this is what you characterize as a public funeral as opposed to a private funeral? that is not the distinction you are relying on any longer? >> not primarily. i'm primarily relying on proximity. i do think you can have a public event where there was not as relevant a vulnerability in the people going in you might even let them up into their grill. i don't know for sure but we don't have to worry about that. >> council and following your argument and even your signs

involve public speech. what you have not explained to me is how your speech directed at the snyders constituted public speech. or speech about a public matter, because you are talking about raising matthew for the devil, teaching him to i think -- at what point and how do we take personal attacks and permit those as opposed to i fully accept your title in some circumstances to speak about any political issue you want. what is the line between doing that and personalizing it and creating hardship to an individual? >> justice soda meyer sotomayor when their father used the occasion of the sun staff to put a question out in the public

airwaves repeatedly. >> so if we disagree that made him a public theme, if we view him as a private figure is that enough to defeat your argument? been be no justice sotomayor. >> that is a private figure and you did this. explained to me how you are protected by the first amendment? >> without regard to what label is put on a person who steps into the public discussion --. >> you want to change my assumption? >> we assume that he is a private figure. you have now made a public statement and directed personal comments that an individual was a private figure. is that actionable? >> i don't know justice sotomayor. i don't know if i can give you a definitive answer as you framed it. what i can tell you if they think the court would have great difficulty egging a rule of law

that whether you call yourself tried it, public, limited whatever, you, not the person you are mad at over their words but you stepped in the public discussion and made public statements and then somebody wants to answer you. >> so did mr. snyder, the father, thebecome a public figure simply because his son was killed in iraq? >> no mr. chief justice. >> if he didn't take out the usual obituary notice, in this case to just come out the other way? >> it is not the obituary mr. chief justice. he went far beyond that. >> let's just say he does nothing, does nothing other than bury his son. he is that not a public figure? it is not publicized and you don't get the maximum publicity our clients are looking for. my question is, that if he simply buries his son is he a public figure open to this

protest or not? >> i don't know in the context of a war if i can give a definitive answer to that. it was not an issue of seeking maximum publicity. it was an issue of using an existing public platform to bring a viewpoint that was not being articulated. for two years --. >> after he puts in a pitcher information and is called by the local newspaper and asked for a comment and he says or she says, i am proud of my son because he died in service to our country. he is stepping to a public debate by doing that? >> however you call a justice alito. a church or anybody has a right to answer that public comment. >> thank you ms. phelps. mr. summers you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you mr. chief justice. >> mr. summers can i ask you to go back to an answer you gave to one of my colleagues when you were last up there?

you said that a more standard antiwar demonstration, get out of iraq, war is immoral, at the funeral, same distance, same signs that are more standard antiwar demonstration would be protested by the first amendment from an intentional affliction of emotional distress suit and i'm wondering why that is? if you think that what is, what causes a lack of protection here is the kind of glomming onto a private funeral, the exploitation of a private person's grief, the appearance for no other reason than to gain publicity at a private event, if that is the problem, why doesn't it also applied to a standard get out of iraq, war is wrong kind of demonstration? >> justice kagan one is a much closer call than to ever look at the fact to say the funeral

itself was disrupted. but that is in the backs of our case. the facts of our case was one that it was disrupt it personally targeted assaults. >> suppose it is not disrupted and i know that you can touch these facts but yours was an disruptive, they stopped when you started, that they were sufficient number of feet away from the funeral and so forth so we are just talking the fact that there are people who are appropriated in taking advantage of a private funeral in order to express their views and they are in compliance with all the content neutral rules. >> i would say that is a much closer call and. >> why is it a closer call? >> gives a closer call because it is not a personal targeted nature of the attack on the family that we have in this

case. >> so does that mean that now we have to start reading each sign and saying war is wrong on one side of the line but you are a war criminal on another side of the line? is that what we would have to do? >> i think that generally speaking yes, justice kagan. the district court would have to look at and determine which one he believes were directed at the family and which ones were not. there was a comment earlier that all the sides were presented. all the signs were presented by the respondents, not by mr. snyder. >> i guess that kind of the call is always necessary under the tort that you are relying upon. the conduct has to be outrageous, right? >> corrected and it always requires that kind of the call unless the tort is unconstitutional as applied to all harm inflicted by words.

>> korea justice scalia. the element of intentional distress requires outrageousness. >> that is true but i was assuming the situation which the jury found that war is wrong. that a jury did find it outrageous and the question was will be going to their reverse jury for because the first amendment prohibited its? >> again i would say yes, the general statement does not disrupt the funeral and did not target the family. i would say that it is a much closer call and it is more likely the competition will prevent that claim from going forward. >> thank you mr. summers. the cases submitted. >> today moammar qaddafi warned the united states and nato countries not to intervene in the civil conflict in libya. they will have part of colonel qaddafi's remarks in a moment on

c-span2. defense secretary robert gates was on capitol hill today and was asked about the situation in libya. that hearing is later. and then treasury secretary tim geithner on the future of fannie mae and freddie mac mortgage lenders. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network c-span3.

there is a new way to get a concise router the days events. does washington today on c-span radio. every weekday we'll take you to capitol hill, the white house and anywhere news is happening. we will also talk with experts and politicians and the journalist as we put the days events into perspective. the stories that matter to you the most every weekday at 5:00 to 7:00 eastern on c-span radio. you can listen the washington baltimore area at 90.1 fm in nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 132. on line at c-span.org. it is also available as an iphone app and you can download the program every evening as a c-span podcast. in his third televised speech since protests began in libya, leader moammar qaddafi blamed al qaeda operatives in the country for the uprising. the libyan leader also criticized the u.n. for moving forward on resolutions against his country. this portion of the speech is

courtesy of the al-jazeera network. >> translator: we wish to -- they are mistaken. those who are carrying on our much recognized and they will not and cannot be recognized. they will be labeled blasphemous. my children in benghazi who are carrying on on the bandwagon of terrorists, they will not gain more came out of it. they should abide by the people's democracy, security and safeguarding our city. they should not give an excuse for the outsiders to intervene. you are saying to the americans

that -- the libyans will die. if americans set foot on our territory. these are the classes explained. now, all the libyan people have the right to address the issue of constitution ngo's. they are not concerned with the media or newspaper. the majority of the media, the

absolute -- are backing their resolution supporting qaddafi. gadhafi you made the libyan people free and independent. and the libyan is walking any part of the world with his head held high. the outside forces wish to bring us to our knees. and it started this way which still remains undecided. now we started to lose your dignity, your land, your freedom, your oil. now i regret to say protection is declining to the degree that one day you cannot receive your pay. as a result of the acts of groups and terrorists attacking you. one is wishing to establish and and -- let him establish.

like italy. if one wishes to establish an empire, will you remain standing and watching? let us see the shape and form of this empire. how sensible it is. the king of saudi arabia told me once that the intellectual culture, liberals etc. wish to establish democracy. i told him okay. he said we put that democracy to a test in one village. through elections, he told me it was them who won the victory. other people of the village did not achieve anything. i told him, if this is democracy, we do not wish to tested.

even though seeking to establish an islamic state like al qaeda, they wish to put it to the test. let's see how women and women's condition will be, economical conditions. don't fight them. but them establish their islamic empire there. at the residence of dharna except to see one of them being killed every day, one of the women is being raped every day, let them experience it. the libyan people are far distance from armed militias and armed groups, from armed gangs. the libyan people are far remote

from the demands of the elite. however we do not object to any demands by the elites. we wish the libyan people to be free even if every libyan citizen owns his own newspaper. let the rich be in the hands of the people, the authority of the hands of the people and decisions in the hands of the people. [applause] if it is in the hands of the people we will -- prefer if it is in the hands of our groups if the newspaper is owned by a gang or a group, even the newspapers, the green marsh or the other one named -- what is it named? yes, yes, whatsoever the green marsh.

these newspapers are owned by certain buddies. i am against them. if the corporation is a company it is a joint stock company with syndicates. newspapers and media should be owned by the whole people, the whole people established in the corporation and owning their own newspaper. not a revolution committee syndicate or any however those professionals vocational newspapers are objected. and a syndicate or profession can establish a newspaper. speaking of mass media in general, it should be the property of the libyan people where all the libyan people should take part.

let the bloggers, advocates doctors and professors, let them ask however the media should be come in the hands of the people, not in the hands of any -- this is not available anywhere in the world. if a certain group is -- like what is happening now this is a grave mistake. those who are opposing the green marsh newspaper have the right to do so because they are representing one class of the people. other syndicates are representative of certain slides. now i called upon my children not to swim with the tides.

[applause] professors, bloggers, journalists, intellectuals, i am always in direct contact and consultation with them. i feel satisfied however to discuss and negotiate with them. however, radical they are. those others are talking directly with --. i am ready to address the demands of the elite. why not? they are part of us. it is the age of the public, the age of the masses. in this manner we will be able to sell the issue of media and oppression. i'm not afraid of the libyans.

i spoke of al qaeda operatives and inmates in miniature break free free from prisons. and those infiltrators from outside. and peaceful unsuspecting civilians who are against the authority of the people who are not comfortable with the system, they should be set through negotiation discussion democracy respects of our nation. apart from that the majority of the libyan people have certain demand commands demand send these demands are known. a decent standard of living. however according to your income, according to the revenues of oil he will be able to have these demands met. in addition to that, we have our

misled brainwashed children. my heart goes out to a young child who dies of an overdose. those children i will tell you how torturous this issue, how to remedy the situation. if i fail to remember to mention this point, please remind me. i have many other points to go through. just remind me in of your misled children. we also hear reports about assets and bank account ounces. it is the balances are pretty and assets of the libyan state.

no one has the right or authority to put his hand on these assets. it is a clear-cut act of robbery it it is the property of the libyan people. however, the bank account balances of certain individuals, the libyans, if this balance or funds are siphoned it is not our concern. [applause] it is a mockery. i wish i kept such balances. i asked them to bring me back $1 million.

i have no assets. i don't take pride in keeping assets of american dollars. okay, folks. thank you. [chanting] [applause] >> okay. let's keep quiet. yesterday, in an interview i was told that the head of government of written, cameron, froze your assets. i told him, i put my fingers in

cameron's eyes if it is established that i keep assets abroad. what they wish to do, the libyan assets and property, consider it as mine. it is the assets of the libyan central bank. they claim their assets. they are my personal accounts. i'm ready to have these accounts verified. my salary is only 465 -- [applause] now let's speak openly and frankly. you know that i have -- you know

my children from my wife. she has a charity organization in this organization receives donations which are channeled out as relief aid to the poor and the needy, especially those outside of libya and africa. sometimes these revenues are channeled domestically. no one can claim that these assets and credit balances belong to our show qaddafi. we cannot smear our history or glory. we cannot smear the history of our forefathers, those who sacrifice their blood for the sake of a bunch of dollars. we have paid the price in blood. my grandfather was the first to fall in defense of our homeland.

he was martyred in the middle of the desert. they were all martyred in defense of our homeland. this is a jurassic. they cannot sell this asset for a million dollars. the burned currency that has no value at all. this is our true asset. this is our church credit and which we take pride. i do not take pride in any credit in any currency. we cannot sacrifice our own glory for the sake of a bunch of dollars. this charity organization is channeling the revenues for charitable activities. let them verify the activities

in which these funds are channeled. another example. what else are they speaking of? still, still i remember the misled children. he is a very religious man. if you received any money or funds, he prefers them to the folks of gaza or afghanistan. those who are in need. speaking of the outside rank

accounts, if they are being illegally taken position up as if they were my personal account, it is a great conspiracy, an act of piracy against the libyan people's people's funds and property. i do not think that the outside world will reach this degree of validity. they showed certain property as if it were my own balance. it was a grand. it was a gift that the great libyan people. my great libyan people granted

me a residence in every city. it was you who gave me this place of residence. it is you who bent this normal place of residence. my people granted me places -- faces of presidents nationwide. let's be clear on that. may god bless you. we have been listening to moammar qaddafi addressing his people and tripoli during a long speech which is less of more than an hour and a half and he described himself as not really an man who is in power, not really a president, just somebody who was essentially holding the reins and in some cases in small villages.

he described as people those people who were an opposition as al qaeda inspired terrorist. let's go back now to qaddafi and his speech. >> i do not imagine that any of you could insult muqtada. it is impossible. from the young to the old. can you imagine that any single person in the united arab emirates could insult laura verified -- similarly i cannot imagine that any single individual and libya can verified orrin sold or swear at moammar qaddafi.

the young youth take me as their simple leader. they swear at my name. [applause] they take my name in both. in anyplace in libya. .pl, benghazi, sally, the mountains. everywhere. the misled families, the misled tribes, i know one of them. one of the officers there, he was with me on the night of the revolution on the eve of the revolution where we liberated the revolution radio.

he is one of the young youth. he said i can defend our leader, me, with my own life. it is our leader who broke -- brought independence to libya. [applause] to the international community, the whole world, tell them we are not in need of any funding, food or medical supplies. they are not like store for her iraq. any person who speaks of this

issue is considered to be a traitor and will be committing high treason against any person speaking on foreign aid will be considered to have opened the door of colonialism. we have sufficient rations, sufficient food and sufficient medical supplies. we do not need any from outside. please. now, we have nothing but fear of armed gangs and armed groups. at even the movement people are cautious. if any truck is moving from one place to another, then they exercise caution simply for the reason that it can be hijacked.

people are carrying arms everywhere. those moving to the airport, those distributing supplies, food and medical supplies are afraid. everyone fears for his own life. even the banks. oil and installations, oilfields, safe and secured, under control. however corporations are afraid. foreign experts are afraid. they were intimidated by their own states. they told them that armed gangs are launching attacks against you, coming in jocks and firing

at you. the oilfield in the heart of the desert, do you think it will have anything to do with peaceful demonstrations in benghazi? simply for the reasons that these corporations are aware that there are no demonstrations in the first place. only armed groups and armed gangs launching attacks against oil installations and oil companies. foreign experts can be kidnapped >> the people of libya have made themselves clear. it is time for qaddafi to go, now, without further violence or delay. >> as the unrest in libya and the middle east continues, world leaders continued to speak out against the future of the moammar qaddafi led libya. listen to their comments in their entirety.

defense secretary gates and joint chiefs chair mike allen testified about the president's budget request for 2012 which totals $553 billion. this house defense appropriations subcommittee hearing is over two and a half hours. >> the the committee will be inc order. this morning we welcome secretary gates, chairman admiral mullen, undersecretaryir mr. hale for what should prove to be an interesting hearing.st we come to you, to each other iw

a little different type of time than we have had in theth past. there seems to be more there seems to be more pressure to reduce spending on defense, which is something we're not really used to. we are in a different era now. we are in an era of starting the process for the fy 12 defense appropriations bill, but we're still not finished with the fy 11 appropriations bill, despite the fact that the election is halfway over. it is not that we can lay any blame on the chairman mr. dicks because he and i am a subcommittee worked very hard to prepare this bill last year and if we had our way, we would have been on the floor and pass before christmas, before thanksgiving actually.

anyway, we do have the issue of trying to find money from the defense budget that is not needed. we will do that as we did we did make sure that we did not adversely affect readiness for our troops. and i would make this promise to you and to our troops. the chairman will not support anything they'll have an adverse effect on our war fighters are on our readiness on the ability of our war fighters to heavy equipment, technology and training they need to carry out their mission and also to protect themselves while they are at it.

i know they are working tirelessly to make sure the department's operations are extremely as transparent as possible during this uncertain time in a thank them very much for their efforts. i noticed the political climate has changed in previous years and we have renewed our focus on deficit reduction. this means even defense must live within the same fiscal austerity be installed across the entire federal government. secretary gates come you can attest to this, having recently given up $70 billion in topline findings over the next five years. so as we go forward, i want to commit we choose not adversely impact the war fighter or jeopardize national security. however, the same time, will find every dime, which does not have a clear and immediate

requirement. we know i could we know i could have the luxury of leaving the necessary funding for possibilities will be made by all of this. i think what i'm saying is we are not going to be supporting appropriations they really don't have a requirement, that really don't have a plan for structure for their use but maybe in the future can be used for reprogramming. we're going to be very careful about. i think all of us working together can be a put that challenge. in that content, but they can then do for your effort in producing the fy 12 defense budget request. we've had the discussion several times as you are developing this and i know you've worked really hard on it and i know your heart is in the right place. it addresses several issues they've been working on for several years. for example, the budget request

and then begins to address technical flight or shortfall after yet another joint strike fighter delay and program restructure. for the first time in recent years, the navy is requesting 10 new ships, which is the minimum to reach a fleet size of 213 ships. and i don't think you'll find any disapproval of that from the subcommittee. they show the requested were funniness finally in line with actual spending petrich or deploy basis. not the least of which are the efficiencies i alluded to a moment ago. many are categorized as better business practices or reorganizations. the department will never fully realized the savings in 2012 and

in the out years. in legislated such as increases to try care premiums, which you have not had much success with despite these financial the burdens, they will work with you in the true bipartisan fashion we have always to make sure you have the necessary resources to accomplish the mission. as you know by now, you really have no better dreams on capitol hill and the members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle. remain committed to ensuring that our military men and women have all the equipment, funding and support they need to perform. while com and continue to to wrap up fiscal year 2011 and work towards fiscal year 20 told budget. now let me turn to my friend and former chairman of the state committee, mr. dicks for any

comment today to make. >> thank you, chairman young. regrade sidetrip chairman rogers here was been on before assuming chairmanship of the full committee. this morning the chairman welcomes robert gates, secretary of defense. also somebody from washington state. we give them high marks on that. admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and bob hill, undersecretary of defense who is the comptroller. we appreciate your continued dedication service to the men and women in our armed forces. you appear before the committee in time of many financial challenges. the congress continues to work towards finalizing fy 2011 while we began deliberations on the fiscal year 2012 request. in addition, the committee is doing its work against the backdrop of an annual federal deficit of roughly 1 trillion a total national debt of

14 trillion. obviously this has a profound effect on the outlook and thinking on capitol hill. the department is to be commended for starting to address the financial realities facing the country. i would like to acknowledge her effort to find 70 billion in savings begin on in fiscal year 12 and extending through fiscal year 2016. in addition we recognize you've realigned 100 billion within the department to exercise better stewardship over dod resources. of course the committee has a keen interest in the details of these initiatives and we look forward to working closely with the department to achieve the most effective use of defense resources. you appear before the committee at a time of significant foreign-policy challenges as well. we are proud of your congressman summer service personnel in afghanistan and iraq. we are committed to ensuring that our deployed forces have the support they require. as the u.s. continues operations in afghanistan and transitions this year to a diplomatic

presence in iraq, we are also interested in the strategic view of these operations. what is achievable to continuing operations in afghanistan and how long should we say? what should be the level of u.s. commitment to funding the development of iraqi and afghan security forces? to what extent should the u.s. defense department be involved in economic development in afghanistan? there are emerging security challenges as well. over the past month we've seen in egypt, tunisia, libya, yemen and elsewhere, an uprising against the government in this country. how is the defense department poshard in the face of these development. there are long-standing national security concerns with iran, north korea and elsewhere. we interested in your views on how the fy 12 budget provides for the u.s. forces in light of the challenges. on the modernization side, and please do the fy 12 request includes funding for key

initiatives that focus on current and high and conflicts. and it obviously -- we were very pleased with the announcement earlier this week on the kc 46a and that decision was a pink one that the department i know for very hard to do completely devoid of any political considerations on the merits. so mr. chairman, i think our witnesses for their great service and look forward to working with you on the issues that are faced. and i deeply appreciate your involvement on the "don't ask, don't tell" issue, which was extremely controversial and difficult. i thought the presentation and the discussion of how our soldiers would adapt to this was

extremely well done by you and made it possible to get this completed. we know there's a lot of work to be done. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. dicks. i like to note such presence of the chairman of the full committee who distinguished himself as chairman of the appropriations subcommittees. chairman -- >> we know how difficult your lot is because of the photon levels and the fact we have not passed a continuing resolution or 11. i know it's restrictions that you are under it but it's very inefficient the way we are operating now. and that's the reason why we

passed through the house, as you well know, two weeks ago a continuing resolution for the balance of the year, which included the portion of the omnibus bill that was agreed to last december, but never passed. we merely lifted the entire section of the almond of this and place it in a continuing resolution, which has now been sent to the senate that we are waiting for this to act. we are waiting for the senate to act and were waiting for the senate to act. we hope and trust that they will pass that bill intact, including vcr for dod, which i think would solve a good portion of your problems. so i'd be interested to hear what you had to say that that

due course in time. as my friend, mr. dicks has said, we are under and a sturdy program in this country. we have to rethink, all of you realize that. in fact, you said so. secretary gates, ye yourselves have mentioned the very serious national security concerns that are gross deficits are becoming in all of you have said words somewhat to that effect. so, we've increased discretionary spending 24% over the last two years. if you include the stimulus, it's 84% increase in just two years. we are pairing 42 cents of every dollar we send. i think it has serious sovereignty implications unless