felt into that kind of been, you know, badly treated. and so he gave him six years. and so andy, i think fastow is now, he's is in a halfway house or just about out. user after last six months in federal prison, they seem to a halfway house to get a transition back into the community. so andy fastow has never talked as far as i know to anybody in the press but he certainly wouldn't talk to me. and so i don't know what his plans are. i think he is still married. his wife has stuck with him. ..

he's about to start taking calls from listeners on their reactions. again and that's live right to know on our companion network c-span. a look at iowa's republican candidates hope to sprint to the finish leading up to the first in the nation caucuses next week. the state is being blanketed by and tical ads. ilre is a look at some of what is airing there. >> michele bachmann when she first appeared on the scene.

>> social and fiscal ve.servative fiscal >> i let is very important because these values to be carried into the white house. >> she stands up what she believes the commission listens to what the american people say. but i like her financial background and of course experience in congress. i hope she has a real positive campaign from here on out. >> if washington is the problem, why trust a congressman to fix it? among them, they spent 53 years in congress. congressman get $174,000 a year and you get the bill. we need the solution. >> that is the reason why i call for a part-time congress, cut the pay in half, cut their time in washington in half, cut their staff and half. send them home and let them get a job. >> i'm rick perry, and i approve this message. >> he is rick santorum, a loving husband, a devoted father, homes

cooler, and a man of deep faith. he wrote the law--- that ban partial birth abortion, overhauled the welfare system, and no one of them or to detect america against iran that a growing threat and rick santorum -- and palin, that, and huckabee

now to the commonwealth club of california for a discussion on national energy policy. it's been more then a year since the bp oil's political of mexico and the justice department is currently investigating allegations of bp's negligence in this bill. in january the national oil spill commission issued its report on the incident. the report faulted bp, transocean and halliburton for

the worst spill in history which killed 11 people. the report said these problems were systemic in the entire oil industry. the chairman of the president's national commission sat down to talk about lessons learned and what the recommendations in their final reports are being followed. this discussion runs just over an hour. ♪ >> good morning. thanks to coming to climate one. great to see you all. it's an honor to have the co-chair gramm and reilly. light speed and i'm going to tell you about climate one as an up-and-coming program and we will get right into the conversation. climate one is the sustainability mission of the commonwealth club of california and sweet rest on three pillars,

transportation, which includes fuel, vehicles and infrastructure, buildings and land use which includes material, energy use and building and then food and agriculture and water and all three of those things. a couple of upcoming programs. next week the executive chairman of the ford motor company will be here talking about electric vehicles, alternative fuels, where the system really is going and also senator jeff merkley, who's a democrat from oregon, will be sitting here talking about energy independence, and again, he has some initiatives on electric vehicles. leader in the month, early november, we have dan reichert from stanford and richard from mit talking about what is coming on at the three leading institutions on energy innovation. leader in the month we have dan sugar, ceo, and, of some power were talking about solar energy.

dan miller is here in november talking about a boom or bust. he's invested a lot in biofuel. and in december we will have authors talking to that extreme weather events and ipcc chair -- the authors talking about extreme weather events and the chair. the best way to obtain contracts to sign up for our e-mail newsletter or go to climate-one.org. i would like to thank the key supporter of climate one. now i would like to begin the radio program and get going with our conversation. what did america learn from the dp oil disaster in the gulf of mexico? the crude oil spill from the ocean captivated the country and dominated the news in the spring of 2010 it seems to have not

treated. in the summer bp finally plugged the gusher and in january 2011 the national oil spill commission convened by president obama issued a report on government and industry failures that caused an estimated 11,700,000,000 krivoy to be released into the ocean. i miss p.a., host climate one and for the next hour with a live audience of the commonwealth club we will discuss the oil disaster and we are delighted to have the chairman of the president's national commission here and joining us. please welcome republican bill reilly and democrat bob graham to the commonwealth club. [applause] >> gentlemen, thank you for coming. >> i don't think i've ever introduced quite that way as republican bill reilly. [laughter] >> let's get right into this.

mr. reilly, when the report came out you said that only systemic reform in government and business could prevent a similar disaster. are those systemic reforms happening? >> the system reforms that we recommended are under way certainly in the department under the direction of michael wrolich and secretaries owls are. they really are. the issue and a number of new rules on safety and environmental management that are long overdue. i think very defensible, every professional and appropriate. they are also reorganized so that they have separated the fund-raising for the revenue generating part of oil spill and gas leasing from environmental and safety. those are very important. it hasn't happened statutory because congress hasn't done that the secretary salazar has done as much as he can do a recommendation. i think a very promising and to some surprising response is the

response of industry. the center for offshore safety is basically coming together. the have had a couple of board meetings. they are going to interview two finalists for their executive directorship next week. they themselves have come around on the comments of the environmental management system. they've determined who can be a member and they will include contractors in that as well for this new organization, which is going to try to police itself, set standards. they are developing criteria for third-party audits, which is really a very important part of this process. that's a very promising response. and frankly industry is the more than the congress to respond to our report. >> bob graham, what would you give the government and industry in terms of implementing the recommendation from the commission? >> probably in both places it would be incomplete, but i think the actions that have been taken at the executive level with federal government are very

encouraging. i think there are some things you have to do such as fully implement the safety case approach to offshore safety and as distinct from the current prescriptive process. the congress would not get a very good grade because they essentially have done nothing. in some instances have even gone backwards by shortening the time frame within which the department of interior's agencies have to review applications. so i would say incomplete encouraging on the executive level, discouraging in the congress. >> and some of the previous disasters, three mile island had a somewhat of a long-lasting and transformational effect. are there ways to tell -- to be the with this disaster is going to have a similar impact on industry practice and oversight? >> i'd say the comments that bill has just made about the

industry organizing its own internal safety is the most encouraging thing that this event will not just pass into people's retrieving memories, but rather will be seen as both a wake-up and an opportunity for reform. things like this, such as the three mile island, for u.s. domestic nuclear and on a global basis the industry in the year for the chemical industry have been weak ups and have been the catalyst for major reforms. it certainly is our hope that macondo will have the same effect for offshore drilling. >> the area where the horizon will have similar impact, one lasting impact than the other turning points? >> well, you know, exxon valdez was a crisis catastrophe in

1989, and they did really have profound effects on any number of responses the double hulled tankers came out of that and the liability caps. a very large and find a settlement over a billion dollars got the attention of industry. and the company that was most involved was exxon valdez. exxon transformed itself according to most industry observers and became much more rigorous in fact more rigorous with respect to environmental safety standards. so that has had a very salutary effect particularly government's response to it in the country's. we will still take some time to see what the nature of the settlement is, where the money goes. one hopes it goes to restoration when it is finally allocated. restoration of the impaired areas of the wetlands of productive fisheries resources of the southern louisianan

coast, for example. so, i think the jury's still out a little bit on that. i have to say i'm a little disappointed that we moved on to another set of news conference, quite understandably, economic distress and banking scandals. but the industry certainly has to oversee the message, and that's very important, and i think they are lifting up their game. so welcome you mentioned this element in exxon valdez and that was in the courts for decades for long time. give us an update on the settlement. the money flows, different buckets some to bp and some to settle claims. what is the latest? >> the settlement wasn't in the courts. the was agreed to in the united states and exxon. the settlement and fine. it was by citizens in alaska. >> it took a long time. security at administrator during part of that. >> during all of it. the government part of it, yes.

>> and where are the buckets of money flowing to victims of the fish, shrimp farmers in the gulf, that sort of thing? that was very much in the news and now we've lost track of where that is. >> there are going to be essentially three buckets of money. one was the 20 billion that bp put up early on, and which has gone to deal with a media needs such as the shrimp farmers and people who have been damaged in the of economic and environmental manner. the second bucket is what is called word of which is that was passed after exxon valdez, which is used as a formula based on the amount of oil that was discharged to reimburse for the more long-range economic and environmental damage and then suffered bucket is the clean water act, which is essentially

a penalty, a putative pact also based on the amount of oil discharge. that money is what we hope will be used primarily for the restoration in the gulf. our commission and several other groups which have looked at this issue have recommended that up to 80% of the penalties coming through the clean water act be directed towards the goal frustration -- ralf restoration. there's been the environmental protection agency under the leadership of lisa jackson to try to develop with that plan would be. the congress has not yet acted either on the designated in the 80%, nor the specifics of the restoration plan. >> does that mean there is no money flowing at that it's bottled up in washington? >> for the specific purpose of restoration there is no money

flowing. >> i read recently the president of the louisiana shrimp association said the catch is down to 80% this year so people are still feeling on the cuban side media's of the restoration side. >> i think that the money has definitely moved through bp's 20 billion is in the process of moving through this board up legislation. but the restoration is still waiting for congressional action. >> how would the state's -- you also believe that there's some of the governors in the gulf states have some differences about where the money ought to go. you are a former governor. is there some puzzling over where the money goes between the states and perhaps the federal government? >> yes, and that's to be expected. our position was if you are going to justify earmarking 80% of this money for the gulf restoration which would have gone essentially into the federal treasury it ought to be used for the gulf restoration. the rationale for the

recommendation including the fact that many of the problems have occurred in the gulf have been the result of federal action, such as the channel was asian of the mississippi river has had a devastating effect on the wetlands in louisiana and therefore it's appropriate that the federal government make a major commitment to words gulf restoration. >> on where the money ought to go. >> we feel strongly that it should go substantially to the restoration. the senate environmental what works committee has in fact recommended that. the have purported out frankly i don't think that's going to happen unless the region gets together. unless the congressional representatives of the five states that are involved come to giver and agreed and the senators. they haven't yet. there are some issues that are very important concern to a couple of governors concerning economic development, priorities they have, probably economic development will be some

reasonable part of any money that goes to the area. but if they do not agree, and i rather doubt the justice department would support all of those funds going or even the substantial majority to the restoration. so, time is running out on getting some kind of agreement, and it seems to me it's really in the interest of those who want to see a restoration get the priority and it's the only significant money that we are likely to see for a very beleaguered very damaged environment in that region. and it's an exquisite environment. it's extremely important to the recreation fisheries, oil and gas port, port activity, commerce. the allegiance we are going to have in the near term given the budget situation is to get the funds that never were anticipated, never were part of anybody's plan simply a consequence of the disaster. directed towards the most urgent ecological restoration. >> of course governors look at jobs and then the next election they might want to

understandably steer that towards something that gets them more votes. >> it is on the scale of what we kind of anticipate in the double-digit billions of dollars, they're ought to be money to do a little of both, the little of the economic development for the vast majority go to the ecological restoration which has economic benefits. let's face it. that's where the substantial majority of the fish are nourished who then go out to the sea and that's where the nurseries are treat stomach and tourism can be a benefit to clean up. >> i would just slightly disagree with what bill has just said. i think the of the 45 states that are involved that are not one of the five gulf states were going to play a role particularly in the climate of the budget extreme concerns about the deficit. we are talking about a fairly substantial amount of money being diverted from general purposes to the specific purpose of restoration.

and my senses while i believe there is a political base for support for the restoration there's not going to be political support for what will be seen as just a back door form of earmarks for projects that are unrelated to the macondo incident and not to the long-term health. >> given the political climate in washington one cannot conceive us getting bogged down and not being resolved in either the ecosystem world of workers down there getting any money. >> that hasn't happened in any other issue that i can think of. >> very confident. >> if you can just join us our national will commission and the former senator bob graham also cochaired as the national commission. the health impact some who are concerned about the fda testing of the trend down there. do you know what the health impacts will be?

the cut of a report saying that the fda has not systematically tested the shrimp down there since october, 2010. so we don't know it isn't sure that there is potential long-term health concerns. >> i haven't seen any evidence that there has been any long-term threat to public health as a result of the event and the seafood which the gulf of mexico is one of the primary providers for the nation. i think however this issue goes into the same category as environmental damage and that is to fully assess the health implications of this and in the environmental implications. we are going to require an extended period of time as substantial investments in research and we need to make that investment. that was another one of our recommendations which thus far the congress has not acted upon. so when this becomes a genuine learning experience and we won't have to repeat this in a future

similar incident to the estimate but if we are not doing testing how well we know if there are health impacts? >> that's exactly the question to expect that's the point of the monitoring which is an important part of the settlement in alaska in 1989, $100 million for research monitoring and because of that we know that there were substantial declines in the fish catches in the impacts on bird populations. we won't know that really definitively in the gulf unless there is some systematic monitoring and research. >> and that's not happening yet. >> not in a serious way. some bp money has been used and some of the institutions, but the problem with monitoring is it is a long-term kind of proposition. you don't just do it once. you have to continue to do to get a trendline because there are crashes were unrelated to oil and oil skills and you ought to get a reasonable preponderant of evidence if you are going to make some judgments about that.

unlikely it seems to me that a spell of this magnitude will not have consequences for some species for some time. the state's were doing monitoring about 3 miles of oysters from a sample to the food and drug administration's in the kunkel listing monitoring for the route. the unreasonable in -- and i personally went into this at one point when we heard complaints from the vietnamese fisherman particularly in the region of louisiana. they have not found problems or concentrations of hydrocarbon and that is what they were looking for. so, there was something of a difference of opinion on how thorough the testing was and whether it was a spread around significantly and because it is a very large area in the gulf that was affected. but that's something that over time we should be able to resolve. >> what are the recommendations of your commission also was that

the oil and gas industry followed from the nuclear industry in terms of setting up, setting that up. is that an organization that you refer to -- >> the shore safety. is the key thing they are following the nuclear industry and that will be one of the success points of the lessons really applied. speed the institute for the nuclear power organization that is established after three mile island really did improve the performance monitoring inspections of the nuclear industry without reference to government. they simply recognized their self-interest as like the oil industry has. one of these things happens again it will just be maybe 37 rigs that are shut down in the call for the 41 rigs, but maybe the industry will be shut out of the gulf for a while for some time to come. the i think recognize that and so they are establishing something more less on the model of the institute for nuclear power operations. more difficult to do. there are lots more operators, what were contractors. it's a more complex, very

negated kind of industry. but they are going to have third-party of its coming into the are going to have the capability of saying as somebody should have said to bp before this all happened we are calling you out. you're not -- >> you are putting us at risk. >> -- you are putting us at risk buy not putting adequate attention and priority of the safety and we've already seen evidence of it in texas on the refinery that exploded and of an alaska years later where 5,000 barrels went out onto the snow because the failure to maintain their pipeline. so, people should have known, and it turns out people in the industry did know. some of them actually went to the ceo of bp to try to get a correction and successfully. this should create the capacity to make sure that the treaty comes up to a common standard of best practice, and those who don't are kicked out of the club. that which has consequences obviously to the regulator. >> bp said they were not a grossly negligent, were they?

>> we were asked by the president of the chartered to get into that. we assigned the cause, but we did not determine liability. so i will to get into the very large -- >> you can say -- >> i won't get into the characterization of it is negligence or gross negligence that has huge financial consequences. i will leave that to the justice department could you understand is away on it. >> probably the most controversial statement in our report was that this was a systemic failure. there are many people who would like to say this was a failure of bp and its contractor the rest of the industry should be left untouched. the reality is when we found that the industry itself had significant problems. the fact that there was no response capability after they took two months to cap the well. the indictment of the industry's

capability. second, the fact that in a very formidable the environment, the north sea for everyone death on their oil shore rigs we have for in the gulf of mexico. some indicator of the differential in safety. second is the fact of the consequences of this cannot be confined. i spoke recently at a bp conference in abu dhabi and people from all over lubold were talking about the fact that this incident, the gulf of mexico, was having an effect on them, their relationship with their government and fairly to the tory policy. so, the industry is increasingly accepting the fact that they are all in this together and they are going to -- the tendency will be to judge them by the out lawyer with the lowest standards of safety and then the whole industry gets painted with that brush. it was very encouraging what bill just reported the industry responds and setting up an independent industry safety

watch guard. >> if you're just joining us on the radio on climate one, the co-chair with the commission on the oil still in the gulf of mexico bill reilly and bob graham to read and speed. let's talk about the future and that is the liability cap. one of the issues is the liability cap of 50 or $70 million in companies to the countries. is that high enough it is the industry going to get together and manage its risk that should drive down the cost of insurance and they shouldn't be kofi because of concern because it would cost that much if you're doing everything that this industry group is supposedly going to do. >> one thing that the neighbors and the gulf were fortunate is that this happened to a company of bp's financial strength. this had happened to a marginal company that took advantage of the 75 million-dollar cap.

there would have been enormous distress, uncompensated among the other users of the gulf of mexico and its terrestrial neighbor. we recommended that the cap be lifted. personally i think that it should be lifted in a subjective way. there are some places where the risk is clearly minimal such as shallow water drilling where we have had lots of experience. there are other places such as and 18,000-foot drill that bp was undertaking at macondo that are very risky so if there is going to be a liability cap in my judgment it should vary with the degree of actual risk that that particular operation goes. >> i would just add that the 75 million-dollar cap is not the last word. if there is a catastrophe, there

were clean water act penalties of the gross negligence of the $43 billion a barrel, negligence $1,100 a barrel. if that adds up obviously. the state has legal action that it can take under its own the law that is not affected by the cap. so, probably for many medium-sized operators, it is a life-threatening consequence. it's probably going to bankrupt the company, even with the 75 billion-dollar cap. $75 billion is a symbolic number that we set 20 years ago. it ought to be revisited. we didn't have time to go into the details on how that should be done in our six months. but we did notice the cap is significantly lower in canada, and its lower in the north sea. so getting some parity on that, given that the same company is operating everywhere, really seems to make sense, and perhaps some kind of international both standard setting for certainly

deep water and for the ecologically sensitive areas like the arctic and then standards for the liability might be appropriate internationally. >> let's talk about the arctic. that is the future right now is a lot of controversy about potential drilling for oil and gas. there's tremendous reserves in the arctic. what are the risks of their? is away from the response capabilities that there is tremendous resource up there. >> well, we recommended that a number of steps be taken to try to improve the assurance that any drilling in that very fragile and very rich in terms of the fisheries and other resource areas be protected against, and one is to bring the coast guard response capability little closer than a thousand miles away -- >> we are going to leave this for them at this point to go live to the state department for a joint briefing officials. they will talk about today's announcement of an arms sales with saudi arabia.

we also expect questions on your on's statements regarding the closing of the streets. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> the under secretary of defense for policy james miller. so without further ado, secretary. >> -- the nature of this briefing and the fact the pentagon is here. [laughter] >> thank you everyone for coming this afternoon, and as mentioned i am joined by principal deputy undersecretary defense jim miller. as you may recall in october, 2010i officially announced that the stations plan to sell saudi arabia a significant package that will include advanced f-15 fighter aircraft and helicopters. we are pleased to announce that over this past weekend the united states and saudi arabia signed a letter to offering acceptance for the sale of up to 84 advanced f-15 fighter

aircraft. it also includes upgrades to its current fleet of 70 f-15 fighter aircraft as well as missions, spare parts, training, maintenance and logistics. this sale is worth $29.4 billion. these f-15 aircraft manufactured by boeing company will be among the most sophisticated and capable aircraft in the world. this agreement serves to reinforce the strong and enduring relationship between the united states and saudi arabia. it demonstrates the u.s. commitment to a strong saudi defense capabilities as a key component to the regional security. since announcing in june, 2010 our intent to conclude the sale of the department state and defense have worked closely with the saudi government industry to finalize the particulars of the deal. jim and i was recently made separate trips to saudi arabia in part to discuss the sale.

let me outline a few of the reasons why this defense package is so important and historic and how would love to dance u.s. national interest. this sale will send a strong message to countries in the region the the united states has committed to stability in the gulf and brought middle east. it will enhance saudi arabia's ability to detour against external threats to. it will lead this interoperable the between the air force of the two countries to the joint training exercises. and last, this agreement will positively impact the u.s. economy and for other bands the president's commitment to create jobs by increasing exports. according to the industry experts, this agreement will support more than 50,000 american jobs. it will engage 600 suppliers and 44 states and provide replete $5 billion in annual economic impact to the u.s. economy. this will support jobs not only

in the aerospace sector, but also in our manufacturing base and support chain, which were all crucial for sustained our national defense. i also wanted to note that this sale was carefully assessed under the u.s. government's conventional arms transfer policy. this policy requires such sales be deemed in the national security interest of the united states are consistent with the country's legitimate security needs and support u.s. regional security objectives. with this agreement, the united states and saudi arabia have accomplished a historic achievement in our longstanding security partnership, a partnership that furthers security and stability in the gulf region. our longstanding security relationship with saudi arabia and other partners in the region has been a primary color of regional security for decades. and it further illustrates the firm commitment of the united states to the security and stability of the gulf region. i will now turn over to jim

miller has more to say on the detail the seals package and how it advances u.s.-saudi military interest. after that we will be happy to take your questions. >> 64 come ann curry and good afternoon and happy holidays to everybody. let me start by reiterating that the united states is committed to the security of saudi arabia. as we have been for nearly seven decades. in that more broadly, the united states and saudi arabia have a strong mutual interest in the security and stability of the gulf. close cooperation between our military is central to that security stability. and we are announcing today the most recent example of that cooperation. on december 24th in riyadh, the united states and saudi arabia finalized the letter of acceptance for the purchase of 84 f-15 aircraft and as andersen for the of greed of additional 70 f-15 aircraft to the

configuration. and this government to government foreign military sale is valued at $29.4 billion. that can take just a few words about the capabilities that are under consideration. this aircraft, the f-15 will be the most capable aircraft in the saudi inventory and indeed, it will be one of the most capable aircraft in the world. the f-15 s.a. will have the latest generation of computing power, radar technology, infrared sensors and electronic warfare systems. as one exit of the f-15 will be equipped with active electronically scanned radar. this report includes the latest technology and will ensure that saudia arabia has the capability to operate against regional air strikes. the sale also includes a naim missiles which provide both radar and infrared guided capability.

f-15sa will strike targets a day or night and all kind of weather with a variety of precision guided munitions. the day the ground to the book includes laser-guided and gps guided weapons along with missiles that can attack with ground-based radars and missiles and harpoons in particular specialized attack capabilities. the communications systems of the f-15sa will allow royal saudi forced to operate together in the same air space. and the systems interoperable the will also allow both countries to participate in coalition training for both of our country's. and in fact this f-15sa package includes not just in aircraft and munitions, but the training of the logistics support that andrew talked about and it's a very robust package. much of the saudi trading on the f-15sa will occur alongside u.s. forces. this will enhance our already strong defense relationship, and

approximately 5,500 saudi personnel will be trained through 2019, 5,500 through 20 plame team further striking the bonds between our forces and our countries. i provided just a very high level review of the f-15sa's capabilities come in and i know that the air force and the boeing company will be proud to offer more details. as andrew said, the u.s. troops to saudi relationship is the polar of regional security for decades. and this f-15sa then it treats the firm commitment of the united states of the kingdom and reinforces our mutual commitment to the security and stability in the gulf. and with that, andrew lee and i would be pleased to take your questions. >> , you said that it sends a strong message to countries in the region that the u.s. is committed to security. you didn't mention any -- i presume you mean both friends and foes. i would like to ask about countries that are not mentioned that both begin with i, israel and iran. one of israel.

how would you see it would overcome any sensitivity that they might have about the sale. does it affect their advantage that you seek to preserve? and then ought iran, you didn't mention it, but presumably that is the biggest threat to the saudis in the region is that -- is that you're thinking to these planes equipped with a map leading into iran and half israel like black out? what's the thinking -- what's the specific message to iran? >> the maps or a quick on the aircraft but on israel, let me just say that by law all of the region must be evaluated for the impact israel's action. we've conducted that assessment as i mentioned earlier in the congressional briefing as well as the briefing last year discussing.

we conducted that assessment and we are satisfied that this sale to saudi arabia will not the print israel's qualitative military action. as far as regional threats, aircraft or a platform that last for decades. so they are designed to address both current security threats as well as threats that the merge down the road as well. so, these aircraft will be delivered over the coming years it a long-term commitment to the united states to saudi arabia security. -- why can't get you to use the word iran? it's only four letters psp as i mentioned it is designed to allow saudi arabia to address threats to sovereignty in this aircraft is able to provide that capability. >> where do you see that threat coming from right now

>> as you know the middle east right now, there is a number of threats. they have a border security issues in the gulf as well. and clearly one of the threats that the fees as well as other countries in the region is iran, but it is not -- this is not directed towards iran. this is directed towards meeting the partner saudi arabia. >> i think that andrew covered it very well. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> just the same question but a little bit differently. the timing. you said the video was struck december 24th. today's the day there is a lot of news about this standoff with iran in the street of hormuz. can you definitively say there is no connection even in the announcement today? >> well, we've been planning this announcement since the deal was struck even before the

latest tensions in the straight of hormuz. and this deal was first, you know, we've been talking with the saudis about how to provide their airpower means for a number of years and as i announced this last year, so we did that have a package in response to current events in the region, but this is part of a longstanding discussing with our saudi partners about how to best meet their needs, and we are announcing it because it was signed on christmas eve which would have the right time to announce it. >> a b. butler from aviation week. i curious if you can say did they decide to do with the ge engine? also what is the delivery time line and house saudi arabia expected any interest in some of the add-ons that boeing has

proposed that eds potential internal weapons characteristics for the future for their fire fleet? >> let me take the question by delivery first. we expect the first delivery of the f-15sa of the new aircraft and early 2015. and expect the upgrades of the configuration to start in 2014. that is the expectation now. for schedules are as schedules are. with respect to the -- with respect to the internal to the devotee of the aircraft, it has very substantial capabilities. i will give you just a little bit more in terms of -- i mentioned some of the munitions. the missile that goes against radar >> capabilities, the joint which has an elkus capability, the

harpoon missile, very capable called a centrifuge weapon and for the defense people in the room which is just an incredibly capable system, and of course air-to-air as well. it's a very significant capabilities. there's always the possibility that they would ask for more. this provides another thing they ask for in the request and i know we have ongoing discussions that is to be provided in the future. >> and then on the engine -- >> i would like to defer that to the company. >> i wanted to ask you about any conditions on the sale as a member of the country to the situation that happened whether it can also be applied to other

countries that it's part of or for the use of saudi arabia [inaudible] >> this is to saudi arabia and it is designed for the defense team's. that being said, we are interested in working with all of the nations and developing the regional security architecture that will enable them to meet their challenges and threats to the region. however, this is a sale to saudi arabia that can be used by the saudi air force in order to defend its sovereignty. >> i think the question though is related to the fact that the saudis is a part of the gcc send people into bahrain so i think the question is are there restrictions so that the saudis can't kind of, i don't know, loaning them out or send them out for use against protesters

and allies. >> under the u.s. law and regulation, any attempt to transfer weapons to any other country requires our approval. so, this is not paid the aircraft yet. there's been no request made, and indeed if they wanted to transfer these aircraft to any other partner the would need our approval. >> i don't think it is a question of transferring. it is if bahrain is a part of the gcc or other country is part of the request of assistance, and that assistance would include, i don't know, just obviously very hypothetical, but it would include then sending planes to buy grain not transferring them, but using them in bahrain are there any restrictions. >> i'm not going to get into the highly speculative when they are not going to be delivered until at least 2015 as jim said.

but our common understanding with the saudis is that these aircraft are helped with their security needs and to protect their sovereignty. >> was their anything in the request that wasn't granted? >> as jim mentioned there was a letter of request and the letter of request was in a letter of acceptance. >> these are sophisticated as the plans we are going to send to iraq? >> i will let you take that one. >> as you know, looking to a different set of capabilities the f-15sa is a terrific capability includes some of the best attributes of the f-15 we have in our inventory and some of the things including this radar that goes beyond what we had crossed out today and we will be looking to bring another guest capabilities and for

ourselves. different missions, a different focus for the f-15 and the f-16. i wouldn't compare them looking to provide a very significant capability with the f-16 to iraq as well but with a very heavy focus in that case. -- [inaudible] speed is there any work share, will saudi be doing the work in country? >> that is a topic that is not government-government but as you know is between the company, boeing company and the saudi government. and as you probably also know it's a standard to have something to that regard, again, rather than speaking to the boeing company to answer. >> one come if you have informed iran [inaudible] and second did you see any

threat in the region that you had to take such action on [inaudible] sorry, saudi has been peaceful ever since no demonstrations, no problems of any kind. >> on the first question i'm not going to get into private to blood discussions with israel other than to note that our evaluation is that the sale will not have an impact on israel's qualitative action. on the second, again, the timing of this, this has been long in the making. discussions over providing aircraft for the saudi air force has taken a number of years. we announced the notifications package last year in 2010, and we negotiated the agreement over the past year and it was signed on christmas eve. >> okay. one here.

>> what is the payment going to be? >> i'm sorry? >> payment. is there a time line? >> under the foreign military this will be analogous. there is a famous schedule. the first payment will be due in the coming weeks and months, and the payments will come over a period of a number of years. >> when you mentioned the first delivery in 2015, when is it completed, wind to the last planes get the last finished? >> you will be several years after that. >> so is it five -- i mean, we're talking -- the reason i'm asking is because it goes without saying but i want you to say it any way that this is a sign of war and indication that you have faith in the stability of the market and think it is going to be around for at least a little while longer.

>> we have nearly seven decades on the relationship partnership with the government. >> but as you know foes cui expected to continue for long term. >> so you have faith in the stability. senator i think that he's answered your question. >> i still waiting for how long -- how many years does it take to be completed? >> there's various elements of it. we have the aircraft themselves so be it your go over several years in the initial delivery. we have the training that will occur and that will occur over a period of i believe it's ten plus years. so it is something that is a sustained effort, and shows sustained commitment between the u.s. and the saudi government, and full force security and relations and for the promotion of the regional -- >> so is there no ending date for when all of the planes are delivered? >> there is a date that will be several years after.

>> several is how many parks 62 >> how long do you expect this deal to sustain and support the 60,000 jobs? >> those numbers for a decade plus. skilling okay. thanks. we will be back.

cnn reports that one of michele bachman's high-profile the visors and audio has announced that he is now supporting ron paul pbr of a state senator sorensen said at a ron paul rally that, quote, while she has fought tremendously for my conservative values i believe we are at a turning point in this campaign. i believe that we have an opportunity to elect a conservative. someone who holds values dearly. mr. sorenson just appeared with congresswoman michelle bachmann the campaign isn't just a few hours before he announced he would support congressman ron paul. and a reminder that for all things campaign really did, c-span.org is the place to go. watch events from the trail, speeches and taha meetings to be also links to the candidates and related editorials and endorsements. that c-span.org/campaign2012.

>> ben nelson to terms is retiring. here he is talking about his retirement yesterday. >> there's much more that needs to be done to keep america strong and while i relished the opportunity to undertake the work that lies ahead, i also feel it's time for me to step away from elected office. spend more time with my family and look for new ways to serve our state and nation. >> after 20 years first as governor and senator from nebraska democrat ben nelson announced his retirement to stay the night senator not running for reelection next year. watches appearances dating back to 1991 archived and searchable on line at this he's been video library. the u.s. navy says it expects to get 15% of its energy from renewable fuel in the coming decade. as it strives to move away from fossil fuel.

the commonwealth callable california recently held a panel discussion on the u.s. military energy policies. you'll hear from the assistant navy secretary in charge of energy and installations as well as a research fellow at the hoover institution who works with former secretary of state george shultz on energy policy. this event runs just over an hour. >> we are excited to have the second part of our conversation. we are focusing on the armed services and we are delighted to have assistant secretary of the navy and jeremy from the hoover institute. on this day in 2010 the happen in the world of american energy. in the gulf of mexico the deepwater horizon oil rig fell spending $100 million of crude oil. but about the same time when the military and the navy base in

maryland, something important happened. they tested and s. eighteen's zubrin hornet fighter jet that was powered by blended petroleum and biofuel. the disaster was a wake-up call about the cost and the danger of extracting fossil fuels the u.s. navy heard a loud and clear. the secretary said in a vicious goal of providing half of the public and the use is on the shore and a float from the lawn fossil fuel by 2020 whether it includes nuclear energy. how? what would the impact have on other branches of the armed services and commercial markets for technologies such as biofuel and solar power? the would be the topic of conversation for the next hour with our audience here at the commonwealth club and the two experts. we are delighted to have with assistant secretary of the navy jackie and jeremy who is a research fellow at hoover and

stanford university. please welcome them to climate one. [applause] >> so the assistant secretary, let's begin with you. what is the strategic and national security aspect of moving away from fossil fuel for the u.s. navy? >> well, we are doing it to make better war fighters. we see energy as the vulnerability of in the short term tactically. the largest import to afghanistan, to the actual theatre going on. oil and water. for every 50 convoys in afghanistan we have a casualty. and americans are killed or wounded so there is an enormous tactical full portability. >> but there's also a strategic imperative here where we are buying our oil from parts of the world that are not stable

sometimes come from countries that are not always our friends and about how vulnerable the become of that strategic vulnerability is something that we absolutely have to ween ourselves off of. .. really the leader in that. >> so it's not the navy become tree huggers.

they do it for strategic reasons. jeremy, you do think there's been some hype and overpromise around alternative fuels in the past. this time different? >> i do have some concerns. i think -- if you go back again even to solar and wind going back to the 70s when these first things have shown up there's been a lot of promises that they can do has been a little more than what they can do. a token you have a 60% drop in solar panel prices. some of that is structural, some of it is china. first solar, a company is a low cast producer. a lot of people talk about china. i do think these things have been oversold at times. i do think they could potentially be different. the navy has set itself a very aggressive goal with bio fuels. i think that there are -- it's

very ambitious. i do have some concerns -- whether we'll ever get this that being achievable but certainly the dollars and private capital that are flowing in to make this happen are at a much greater skill than they were before. >> and if i might, i think this is the fundamental question, is this time different? those of us who have been in the energy field for a long time have seen ebbs and flows of american interests, american investment, new technologies that look like they will be the breakthrough technologies that could have been and then prove not to be. we have heard not long ago former epa administrator o'reilly saying, you know, if it's all based on the price of oil, it's probably not going to work because oil prices go up, oil prices go down and you see

the interest in technology investment going up and going down. and there's seems to be a growing consensus that there needs to be some public policy, some public effort really long term, a commitment at this time. and i agree totally. if we are just following oil prices, it's not going to be really much different this time than any other time. there's more fossil fuels coming out of the ground than we thought there would be. but there are several things that are very different this time. one is technology improvement. the solar costs are coming down and that's making an enormous difference. the technology of automobiles on both hybrids which is a well-known, well-developed technology and now i think a greater increase in electric-only automobiles. so those things -- the

technologies are improving, but i would argue that the interests of the military at this point in promoting alternative fuels, alternative technologies is an enormous difference. the military has led in the u.s. in several technologies that have now become standard. they led in some of the computer technologies and gps, many others that we can name and this time the navy has said, we will get 50% of our energy from nonfossil fuels within the decade. and so we're investing. we're purchasing. we're exploring. we're researching in those areas. >> what caused that leadership change because a lot of these fundamental arguments about the vulnerability of supply lines -- that's not new. i hear the point that there's alternatives now the monopoly that oil has had, finally there's another competition in the marketplace. but -- i'm very curious what caused that mind shift in the

leadership? was it a change of administration? >> i do think it is leadership. i think that it is fundamentally leadership. president obama has made it clear that this is the path that he wants to go down in terms of alternative energy. secretary mavis has been out there in front. secretary mavis was an ambassador to saudi arabia. he understands up close and personal what the oil -- the international oil situation is. he understands the vulnerabilities so he came in as secretary of the navy recognizing that we needed to wean ourselves off of that vulnerability and has provided the leadership to do so. within this past year, i think april or february of this year, of 2011, president obama directed the department of the navy with the department of energy and the department of agriculture to work towards developing a viable biofuels

industry in the united states. he said you three agencies do what you want to do but let's get that industry out there, not just for -- not just for military uses, but for commercial uses as well. so we're in that path. >> do you think the navy is out front on this and that's because of the leadership of the military. >> secretary pfannenstiel is motion to dismiss -- and the navy has really been, you know, very strong leader here. we've had a lot of interactions with them. i do think that leadership has been absolutely critical. and it certainly, you know, explains -- i was just down last week at the naval energy forum in washington, dc. and one of the things i really took away it was surprising, you know, senior, senior officers throughout the navy not just folks with direct line responsibility for energy were there giving talks and i think

either really showing some knowledge and i think that shows a priority. to that i would add again i think the real development of technology, again, for solar, for example -- the whole development of solar printing and the vastly better module efficiencies that we were getting than a few years ago to have the juice to supply and the sort of industrial strength manufacturing to make them rugged eyes so that you can have something like india 35 company for the marines where you have these expeditionary forces that are able to go out in afghanistan and shed 700 pounds of batteries. that's a real operational gain. and then when you get to the sorts of real operational gains versus what you were doing before, well, if it costs two or three x in the context of the operation, that's not as important as it is for, say, a utility, okay? i think there's -- it's a combination of leadership and technologies. >> and it's one thing to put out goals. it's another thing to actually meet them so how far has the

navy long for having to meet these goals by half fuels to renewable fuels by 2020? >> secretary mavis set out those goals a year or so ago, and then, you know, he brought me -- >> he told to you make it happen? >> make it happen. let's make this work? and people ask me frequently, are these just aspirational goals? are these just to get our thinking in that direction? and my answer is always no, they're real. we're going to do them. and so let's look at what they are. what are these goals that we're trying to accomplish. the first as you had said that half of our energy use will be nonfossil, nontraditional fuels by 2020. >> including nuclear. >> including nuclear. >> that half of our bases and that's marine corps, navy bases are about 100 of them around the world -- that half of those will be zero net energy by 2020. in other words, they'll produce as much as they will use.

that half of our nontactical fleet, our bus and buses on cars that we use on bases, for example, will be alternative fuels by 2015 that. that we will sail a great green fleet. in other words, the carrier strike group with the planes and the and ships that go with that will sail but 2016 and we'll have it ready to go -- i'm sorry, we'll sail it by 2012, next year, and we'll have it ready to go outside of local operations by 2016. and last is our important goal because it's a longer term that we'll consider energy in our new platforms, in our new systems that we develop that will make energy one of the deciding factors as we go ahead and invest in new technologies. so your question is, how are we doing? we're making amazing progress. two areas that make the big

difference on the bases, half of the bases being zero net energy. that's an enormous net decline. some of the bases are in places where renewable energy makes a lot of sense. they're in places that have a lot of sun, where they have high energy prices, that they'd be paying for these -- pencil out more easily, renewable power makes a lot more sense. we have some that don't. the bases are very focused on doing this and doing this by the way within a constrained -- a financially constrained budget. nobody has unlimited money to put into this. and so every base that i have visited has an enormous program of energy efficiency, that penciled out their place of their hvvac systems. they're remodeling their buildings to be more efficient. they're very much focused on how to do that and we're doing some smart grid work. we're going to try to tie in

some groups of bases on the smart grid so that they can share their renewable power. so on the base side of it, they're developing the technologies. they're developing the culture, it's very important. on the 50% overall, one thing to point out is 1% of the fuel the navy uses is on the operations not on the bases. we have about 75% that ship planes and tactical vehicles. that is primarily about liquid fuels because we need a drop in fuel. we need a fuel that will work with the existing platform, the existing engines. so we're working very hard with the bio fuel industry. we're making enormous strides in working with them. will they be ready in the time frame we have? we believe that they will. we are both working with them as

a potential customer and having a customer with the kind of demand we have, give them enormous credibility in their marketplace. but we also are using some existing authorities that we have to do some investment. we're worrying with the department of energy, department of agriculture to be able to do some feed investment in the bio fuels industry. >> well, what percentage of the fuel the navy uses today is renewable? >> it's a very small percentage right now. i would say it's -- well, depending on how you consider geothermal but it's about 10, 11%. >> oh, even that high. i didn't realize it was that high. okay. you got 40% to go and nine years or something like that. >> 11% -- 17%, i believe, is nuclear. >> so you're a third of -- well, you got 30 some to 20 something? >> the 10, 11%, again, it's sort of a -- if you take some of the -- if you take geothermal

which is -- we have an enormous geothermal facility that's on our base but it's feeding into the grid -- >> it keeps coming out of the earth that generates electricity? >> exactly. that's sometimes it's considered ours and sometimes it's considered not as ours. and if you take that -- those megawatts out, then we're down in a couple percent. so it's a small percentage now, i think, in terms of where we need to go. >> and it seems -- if i heard you correctly, the big goal is liquid transportation fuels and that's where second generation or cellulosic bio fuels come in and those don't compete with food stocks. and how far away -- you've done some testing, blending this with jet fuel. how far away from you really having that deployed and standard use, bio fuels and some petroleum? >> i think we're fairly close. we have very strict criteria for the fuels -- the bio fuels that we're going to use. they have to be domestically produced. they have to not compete with

food stock. they have to be produced at a price point. they have to be useful in existing platforms. >> make sense, that means cheaper than regular gasoline? regular jpa's of fuel. >> and, again, one doesn't know what the price of oil is going to be so you don't know what the price of jp5 is going to be over time. this has to be an imperative. we cannot buy quantities of fuel with a subsidy. for long periods of time. we can -- right now we're buying small amounts of gas but when we get to quality -- the last crier tearion that i mentioned, they need to be scalable. they need to be able to be up from where we need them. and some studies have said that without intervention, a public intervention, it's probably going to be a decade or so before you have these bio fuels at scale. but with some kind of intervention -- and i think we have two possibilities, one as a

customer and the other is perhaps as a small investor in the industry, you can get them moving much faster. you can avoid this valley of death that many new technologies go into because you'll help them bridge both with some investment and with a contract out there. so we are looking to sail the great green fleet by 2012 and then have it behind local operations at 2016. that's a lot of bio fuel and yes it will be mixed with conventional fuel but it's still a lot of bio fuel. >> jackalyne pfannenstiel is the secretary of navy and the other guest is jeremy carl. is it a good thing the navy creating a market for biofuel? >> i think -- i think i'll give that certainly at least a qualified yes. yes, i probably have greater concern. it's great that secretary pfannenstiel, i think, clearly operationally needs to have that optimism about their ability to scale and get those costs down.

i think on the cost side we're seeing some pretty aggressive things. we had secretary mavis who casually dropped in conversation a very large order that the navy, you know, put in for bio fuels that's currently in the process of being met sort of at a much greater scale than anything else that's been done commercially. there are june security reasons at a reasonable budget, one can vary on what might be reasonable to sort of at least test these concepts. cellulosic alternative bio fuels have been 10 years away for a long time. i don't mean to use that to dismiss things because i do think just the level of seriousness and scale is much different now. but i wouldn't want to undersell that challenge either. i think there's -- there's no certainty that we will get to the place we need to be, at least with that -- respect to that. some of the other expeditionary things i'm a great deal more

optimistic. >> let's talk about that cost issue because we've had ceos of drop-in fuel companies. these are companies that will make fuels in existing vehicles, go in existing pumps, go in existing refineries. nobody needs to change their existing infrastructure. they make these pronouncements that we will be make this much by this date and they fall back because it's hard to do this stuff at scale. are they coming in where you want them to? and at a price that is competitive yet or it's something, well, we promised -- if this chart continues to go like that, based on extrapolation or actuality? >> we've all seen those promises in the past, haven't we? [laughter] >> we're working with them. and we do see that they have the potential to get us there at the level -- the amount we need at the price we're willing to pay in the time frame. so all of those things -- there

is nothing that is a deal-killer at this point. i've been in the energy field to know there are a lot of heart breaks. there are a lot of things that are supposed to be there that we want. who projected the prettiest? who really thought that americans would take on that kind of hybrid technology and really make it work? i'm not counting on those surprises. i mean, we're working very hard to make that happen. and we're working with the industry. we're working with the venture capital community. we're working with the academic community and we're not sitting back and assuming it will happen. we're with that industry every day. and so do we think that we're going to get the quantities we need in the time we need them? yes, we do. >> one of the obstacles is financing and capital costs. it can cost a billion dollars to

build a big bio fuel facility, whatever the input is, whether it's corn or sugar, et cetera. is the navy going to pay for that? some of the companies say, hey, you know, that's a big capital cost in this tight economy, where are they going to come up with a billion dollars for that is still cutting edge? >> if i can jump in on that for a second. i think one of the interesting things and particularly the valley has clearly learned than after losing a fair bit of money on some ventures is that this is not like the -- >> not two kids coating the dorm room. >> you can't dress this enough. this is not a brilliant m-sight that i can make. it cannot be stretched enough because lay people i don't think understand that. you have these huge capital costs. the ways that we're used to funding innovative companies at a small scale in this country don't immediately translate and there's a whole cultural shift that's going to need to and new forms of financing will have to

come up. there may be a role for the government in certain amounts of this. i'm not wild about loan guarantees. that was even before solyndra and i'm even less wild about them. but i do think there are failing demonstration planes that sustain basic plans for r & d and these are very important roles for the government to be playing. >> one way that we're actually putting some money into this, besides our role as a consumer -- we have existing legislative authority to support through an investment the department of defense does -- support through investment industries that we considered to be or that congress has considered to be crucial to defense. energy is one such industry. and so the department of the navy, department of defense, i think is actually going to put some money, about $170 million into a fund that will be met by

the department of energy, department of agriculture. each putting in the 170 million. you'll have a fund of about $500 million, which then will be matched at least in kind, at least 1 to 1 by private investors. so you'll have then a pot of a billion dollars. and that will be used for new refineries to redo refineries, to help with that initial capital cost. that's a project that's underway as we speak -- we won't be picking the winners. we won't be picking a specific technology. but there will be some funds available which will be equity funds into some four or five or three -- however many we can do refineries for exactly this point. and then we'll be a customer and so we'll be able to take some of the product out to meet our needs. >> and where are the big oil

companies in this? are they sitting on the sidelines, are they throwing gum in the wheels? >> i think every major oil company has some investment in bio fuel. >> yesterday, literally, i met with a few other people and chris somerville who heads a $500 million effort over here in berkeley totally dedicated to advanced bio fuel research being funded by bp. it's basically in its entirety. i think maybe some matching funds from elsewhere. but that's just part of 3 billion, i think, that bp has put into bio fuels generally in the last few years. so -- i mean, yes, oil companies are going to look after their bottom line and there may be strategic considerations and competition, but i think they definitely see broadly that this is an area that at least could be very meaningful and they're investing in it in not just a kind of -- some of the annoying ways that you'll see them advertising, you know, kind of a very marginal investment but making it act like it's a big part of their portfolio.

i mean, these are actually very serious bets, that the billions of dollars of money really even to oil companies. >> and it's not just the military that's interested. we are out there right now, but commercial aviation is enormously interested in bio fuels. >> and there's some real policy drivers for why that's happening. >> right. europe is putting some carbon fees on blending fees in the e.u. and so commercial aviation -- >> so europe vacations are going to get more expensive for everybody, right? >> if you can redecouple the bio fuel cost for oil cost which we certainly don't do with ethanol where you have approximately 54% coming out of the oil market so that's why those two markets really decouple. that serves the commercial aviation some strategic goals because they get killed -- i mean -- >> when oil prices -- >> you saw the american airlines

released. they don't want to put their bets on this one thing but to the extent they've got choices and they can arbitrage in a meaningful way, even maybe a slight premium to the oil market in most cases, i think they'd love to have that option value. >> jeremy carl is a research fellow at the hoover institute in stanford university. another guest of the commonwealth club jackalyne pfannenstiel. i'm greg dalton. let's talk about the appropriate role of government here. some people would say we're entering into industrial policy here. jeremy, you're from a free market organization. does government playing the appropriate role here? >> well, this is a subject of lively debate internally. and i should say there's certainly no official for position. my own view again is i am -- i am not a fan personally of programs where at a very large scale, you know, tesla being another example where we're kind of making bets on individual private companies and investors, i don't think that's the best role and even as larry summers it's slightly unprintable but he

said in an internal white house email the united states government is not a particularly good venture capitalist. and i ascribe to that. basic r & d funding where it's critical. i think bridge funding and even building at a very large cost -- if solyndra had been a demonstration plant and just been run by solyndra but we weren't actually giving ownership of that private capital to somebody else, i think that sort of thing -- if you really think that from a technology perspective that's an interesting bet to make, that's a slightly different question. i think the problem gets in where you get into these sorts of cozy relationships that i think we've seen again in solyndra. even if there's no actual intent to defraud but people's judgment can get kind of swayed. >> i was told the bush administration thought when it left that solyndra was likely to be among the first to receive some funds. so that was already pretty far down the pipeline before some of this coziness came along. >> we could go back and forth.

actually i think the -- i truly don't think this is necessarily a plus or minus but i think there's pretty good evidence that the bush administration was going to cut that funding. there was a push in the bush administration to get that funded by folks close to solyndra and they sort of passed but i think even playing the blame on one administration i would like to stay away for the purposes of this. >> sure. >> whether it's the bush administration or the obama administration or any future administration, i don't personally like to see that type of debt being made by the government. i just don't think it's the best thing we do best. >> can the government and taxpayers accept failures? >> yeah. >> private funding -- you know, you put 50 chips down, you know a lot of them are going to fail, some are going to hit big. but taxpayers and voters seem to be very risk-averse to any kind of failure even though in this grand scheme of things there might be more winners -- >> but i think when you have a demonstration plant you kind of take that off the table and that

could be at a very large scale but then you don't get in the question well, this private investor may have or may not have a cozy relationship. you want to do things at the same scale and maybe at some point you sell it to the person who's been operating it at some kind of very transparent way. and they could plague some of the areas such as solyndra. >> some of these bets just go south. are you ready for that? what's going to be the consequences of the navy? is that going to be acceptable because it certainly is in the investor community. failure is a badge of honor and courage in sylvan valley but not so much in government. >> not so much in government. we're out there as customers. fundamentally, primarily, we know what we want to buy in the way of bio fuels. we know what price, we know what scale, we know what qualities they have to bring to us. that's our fundamental role.

we're not attempting and we don't intend to pick a technology. we don't know whether it's going to be -- whether it's a feed stock or -- >> kind of a mustard -- >> it's a weed. it's a mustard weed. it's used as a rotational crop and it grows about anywhere. it has some great possibilities. or is it going to be, you know, some other -- some other crop? there are a lot of different technologies. we do think that we can do r & d and we are doing r & d. we're working with the department of energy on r & d. so that's all fine. but ultimately, where we are in this -- in the entire story is we want to fuel our ships and our planes with some nonfossil fuel product. and we need to be there in the marketplace to make sure that's going to happen. >> and you can make some companies more viable, get them

funding, et cetera by being that customer and creating that kind of demand pull that consumers may not be quite ready to do it, to do some things on this scale that you're willing to do. >> that's exactly true. it's true in bio fuels, it's true on renewable fuel on bases. we're looking for many opportunities to be cost-effective, users of solar. whether it's rooftop solar or parking lot solar. in some cases we may have some opportunity to do some small utility scale. we've got about 100 megawatts of solar, kind of on the drawing boards now. , projects that we're thinking about. so that's another area where we're a consumer. we need certain product at a certain price. >> and china, as we all know, has driven down the cost of photovoltaic solar recently. are you finding that solar is

price competitive with traditional electricity on these bases or what's the cost differential because you could buy the good prices because you got scale? >> not yet. solar generally is not yet cost competitive. there's specific attributes where it is. >> 5% more expensive, 50% more expensive? >> it varies so much because it depends where it is and where you bought it from. >> right. >> but we are -- we're looking at all different applications in some cases. you know, down in san diego where you can do some rooftop, we're looking at china lakes. we have a working station and working at twentynine palms and marine corps bases. very, very promising in those kinds of technologies. wind, you know, is a cheaper technology but it has some operational constraints around military bases. so it's harder to find the right

place for wind turbines. we have geothermal plant, as i mentioned, at china lake. we're looking at other opportunities for that. so a lot of the alternative technologies that are land-based, based on our different installations around the world, making an enormous investment in them. >> but you're willing to pay a little more -- jeremy carl, you want to jump in. >> i agree with everything secretary pfannenstiel add kind of as a plug and partly adding information. we have a report that we're releasing with the brookings institution with some of the security elements. we worked with e3 which is going to be well-known to folks here in the energy community really top-tier energy consulting group and kind of modeled the latest, you know, down to like two months ago for some of these distributive technologies --

>> distributed we should explain a small not a big industrial power plant. >> sometimes distributed could be actually quite large but things close to the sort of things on bases than and what you find there's still a pretty large cost increment in most cases. you'll find certain things like wind, small wind can be competitive although it has operational problems for the navy that secretary pfannenstiel alluded to. some types of solar system use applications but even with carbon prices we're still not there if economics is the only criterion and even economics and a reasonable climate is the only criterion. if you expand the field a little bit there's some nonquantifiable areas that are there that can justify. when we made the earlier reference to things being oversold, that's the certain thing i'm talking about. you see a lot of very bad information. stuff we have in the report is the best most current information. it's not politically slanted at all. it's very down the middle. and we still got a ways to go. >> and that's from hoover and

the brookings institution. what's the direction of the prices. solar has gone down, what, 30%. >> it's great. we have a snapshot in time. and we say that absolutely in the report. and, again, we've seen tremendous -- tremendous improvements, fuel cells, solar, wind, the whole bit. we are getting better. these are no longer science fair products. there are things that real capital is being deployed against. and, you know, i'm very optimistic over the longer term but i think one of the things that sets you up for failure is when you get these overpromising and then secretary pfannenstiel used to work at cg & g and the california commission and at a very senior level and thee sees these sorts of promises in and when they're not delivered on, it creates more problems than if they hadn't been promised at all. >> and i do think what we are seeing on the technology front is -- everybody has been looking from the time i've been in this field looking for the silver

bullet. the technological breakthrough a-ha, this will happen and we won't have to worry about any of the rest of it. we've not seen that. i for one have stopped looking for the silver bullet. but what i am finding is some of the unsexiest things, some of the energy efficiency, the lighting the building envelope, the -- >> insulation. >> insulation. >> has made enormous improvements. refrigerators are just an entirely different technology than they were a couple decades ago. those kinds of changes -- if you really focus them, it made all the difference. and there's a reduction of solar panels. that's not a specific breakthrough. that's not somebody working in their garage and say, a-ha, i found the answer. it's this constant american way of improving the technology. a lot of the solar panel -- i

was just reading an article the other day, a large part of that reduction of the solar panels is silicone. a couple years ago, three or four years ago -- >> which is basically made from sand. >> solar panels which depends on silicon and there was a shortage of silicon. silicon comes from sand. there's material that's available but it has to be refined or whatever you call it into silicon. well, supply and demand. there's a demand for it and now the supply has caught up since that supply has caught up, prices of silicon has gone down and the price of panels has gone down. all of those things are happening and they're happening as we speak. how quickly, you know, what do you want to bet in terms of the timing is, i think, really the big question that we're talking about. >> and there's also the information management aspect. secretary mavis of the navy -- secretary mavis said was here,

we don't know where a lot of the energy goes once it's at the base, like a lot of homes or a lot of corporate campuses. so they're doing smart meters. is that going to have an impact on the management of information so all the guys who are running those refrigerators keeping the beer cold, they know how much that's going to cost? >> enormous difference. we within the next couple of years we're going to have 98% of all our electricity in our smart bases. we are going to know where it's coming. where the energy is being used, how it's being used. we're going to be able to do things like compare one barracks to another. when the ships come in and plug in, how one ship compares to the other. with all that stuff which we don't have -- but we want to do more than monitor. we want to be able to use that as a basis to be able to, you

know, shut down one part of the base if we don't need it. and still protect our mission-critical loads somewhere else. we want to use that as a basis for doing some control on our base. because the other thing that we want to use these smart meters for is cultural change. we want to get that information to people who are actually flipping the light switch or changing the air conditioning in their barracks room. we want people to understand in a way that, i think, they haven't, frankly, most americans don't think about the energy they use. this is a really good opportunity. so that change to the smart meters i think is making an enormous difference on our bases. >> it's one thing to give information. it's another to put it in budgets and operational responsibilities. we had chief sustainability person here from microsoft recently who said for the first time microsoft is putting the budget for the data center -- the energy for the data centers

in the data center budget. it's like before facilities pays the budget. i want big service and i want them fast. i don't care much electricity and they have to pay the electricity charge and things are starting to change. are you going to put the budgetary responsibility in the operational chain of command for energy. >> that's an alternative. we are thinking that way -- even though they have tenants on the base. they have people who are using the hangars and people who are using the industrial facilities and all of that. so, yes, we need to start thinking about letting them know and then perhaps migrating. big change. it would be a big administrative change as well as a big cultural change. but ultimately the culture needs to understand that and allow you

to get there. >> and how do you change culture in something as big as the u.s. navy? >> it's something that i think we're going to be working with along with mit and the navy to sort of identify -- i don't want to say too much but identify different ways that you can change that culture, you know, in all different respects. it's a challenge. i mean, even just -- [inaudible] >> energy always -- some persistence -- and george

schultz is famous for saying it's amazing what you can learn as long as you start paying attention and i don't think the military is really starting to pay attention. >> i agree. we are doing some pilots in terms of giving people exactly that information and doing some shadow billing on that. and that's going to make a difference. we're doing more in the way of rewards and recognition. just kind of letting people see who's making the biggest changes in their energy use and making a big deal about that. we have very, very, i think, effective programs there. we've actually started -- we've started a mattress program at the naval post-graduate program at the naval academy. two tracks, one in policy and one in operational so again we're trying all ways we can think of to get the word out there. >> 'cause when you said earlier the navy is going to consider energy in weapons designs, i thought that wasn't considered before? cheap oil was just -- was not

sort of -- >> some of these new weapons are incredibly energy intensive. you really need because you're going to lose a lot of that gain through some of these more advanced guns -- >> but if i heard you correctly, energy wasn't a big deal before. it uses what it uses. performance is what matters. >> performance is what matters. and it's probably not unlike american level of their cars for all those years. it's there. it's something you knew. you thought about, but it probably wasn't a decision factor. >> jackalyne pfannenstiel is a secretary of the navy and jeremy carl, i'm greg dalton. let's talk about the political context of how this is happening. budget cuts, there's potential budget cuts for the pentagon. are some of these programs going to get whacked? >> we looked at these programs as, in fact, being part of how we're going to meet the constrained budgets. we look at these programs as

helping us be more effective with what we have. >> save money over time. >> save money over time. and in some cases save money in the short term. we had some energy efficiency programs that have good paybacks. very effective paybacks but we may be focusing more on the short payback programs but we're -- we're not putting our energy programs on the front of what might be cut. clearly, it's a time within the pentagon where everything has to be looked at, has to be scrutinized in a way that we probably haven't had to do for a while. and, you know, energy is something that not everybody understands the same way we do. but so we need to be able to make the case that energy is, in fact, part of our solution. >> but we have a congress that recently tried to go backwards on some mandated light bulb efficiencies so energy -- jeremy carl? >> mission, mission, mission. and when i talk to people in all different branches of service and we're not just talking to

the navy, i mean, that is the really key component. anything that you have that really uses energy but does so in a way that enhances the core mission keeps a ship sitting there from sitting there and refueling, it's interesting what the navy is doing there too, allows patrols to go further because they are not as dependent on a energy supply line or carry that many heavy batteries that will be saved in any budgetary environment. that is again the centrality of the mission. i think there's some other things that will be more at risk because they're sort of things that may have paybacks over time and experimental and push the envelope. >> are bio fuels in there? >> that is my concern for some of that. i don't mean to say that blanket because it's a very large initiative. but i think when you talk about at least at the top end of those goals, and that's a concern shared by folks like former senator warner who, you know, is

the former chairman of the senate arms services committee and is a better place to understand how the budget appropriations -- >> the former secretary of the navy. >> and a former secretary of the navy, thank you. and he's concerned as i am in a friendly way we would like to see these things go forward and there's a concern that, you know, if that cost increment is not able to get shaved down, boy, that's going to look like a tempting area to cut, especially, because leadership is obviously not permanent and political environments and dynamics change what you want to do is something that is really permanent and predictable. >> well, let's address that. next year there's an election. there may be a change of administration, maybe not. i mean, how much of this could be undone or how much will be sort of set rolling that there will be some continuity across the administration change when there is one? >> it's very important for us to institutionalize this transforma. transformation of how we work with energy. and we're institutionalizing it through really many of our programs. what we're doing -- bio fuels, i

think it's an excellent example because we want to be able to purchase biofuels at the quantities we need, at the price we need, that meets a criteria that we've laid out and that's going to happen -- we're in the process of making that happen. once those bio fuels are available to us, that then is what we will be using for our great green flight. we have -- we've set in place both on the bases and operationally products and practices that we're not going to go back on. the marines who are using these new technologies in afghanistan like the new technologies. they free them from the battery requirements. >> they have to carry around less weight. >> they have to carry less weight. they have these -- their tents are cooler. they don't need the kind of air -- the diesel for air

conditioning. they have found ways to adapt these new technologies, very specific operational needs. they're not going to go back. those kinds of practices and those technologies are only going to get better. so is there a possibility there's some slippage, always? and, again, i started by saying, you know, if this is all just based on oil prices then, you know, none of it is basically secure. so we're looking at vetting the department of the navy, the navy and the marines on a path that's not going to backtrack based on some temporary changes. >> we had a discussion recently here about china. and the way the government has structured there and china's current five-year plan fundamentally changes the incentive structure for government officials in china and gives them -- it used to be all gdp growth but grow the economy, the regime stays in power, everybody's happy.

now, they have some energy goals as well. so how are you driving down inside the navy these efficiency goals so that promotion and -- i don't know if they get bonuses or whatever their compensation reward structure is tied to energy production rather than traditional metrics? >> and that gets perhaps into an area of the navy that i'm not very knowledgeable but i can say, yes, they are driving that down. secretary mavis has made sure that the use of energy and the ability to meet these goals isn't something that the recognition system -- >> beyond metals and stars on their refrigerators if somebody will get fired if they don't make their goals -- >> don't discount metals on the refrigerator. [laughter] >> will that be the single factor? of course not. but is that something that will

be considered if people's performance and their career? yes. >> okay. we're going to be able to put a microphone out here and invite your participation. it's better when you step up and participate. so please come up and present your questions. if you're just joining us on the radio, our guests today at the commonwealth club are jackalyne pfannenstiel, assistant secretary of the navy and jeremy carl a research fellow at the hoover institute at stanford university. i'm greg dalton. let's talk about -- while people are coming up to the microphone, the line will form just right over there, sir, we can go ahead since you were so speedy. >> that was a forward deployment of the question. >> thank you so much for all the work you've been doing on this issue. the department of the navy has a very large presence in the pacific. in the hawaiian islands and also out in guam and the territories and we understand that there has

a great deal of work done by the navy and hawaii particularly in the algae areas and also working with some of the former sugar cane because sugar cane is no longer gone commercially in hawaii. it's gone to the philippines and i understand there's been a lot of looking at guam in particular because there's going to be a troop buildup likely at some point, we're not sure when, on guam. and guam being an island with a lot of sunshine, a lot of wind, some tidal, could you tell us a little bit about those efforts, please? >> yes. thank you. >> you get to travel into some nice spots. >> i do. it's one of the high points of the position. i've been to guam four times now. and we are looking at a -- building a marine base in guam. you're right, the timing is a little uncertain. because we're spending a lot of time in guam and we recognize all of the potential there,

we've, in fact, been working with the national energy -- national renewable energy lab, enrel which is one of the department of energy's labs, specifically, to look at the potential for renewables in guam and they're out there practically as we speak looking at potential for wind, for solar, for some tidal as well as some of the energy efficiency potentials. there's a lot of low-hanging fruit on improvements that can be done in guam. hawaii and enrl is doing a project for us both in guam and in hawaii and in both cases looking at potential renewables. but hawaii has a lot going on, both the military bases there, of which there are many but also hawaiian electric is very interested in renewables and specifically in bio fuels. so we've been working with a group that involves the military and hawaiian electric and many

other stakeholders in hawaii. both in bio fuels and on solar. so i think that's perhaps the most advanced of any place in the united states right now. >> if i could just add to that -- >> jeremy carl. >> briefly, because i think implicit in your question but i think we should make it explicit because it's important. it matters that hawaii and guam are located where they are. in other words, the places where you have situational opportunities that are more cost-effective may be places that are islands that are more remote. hawaii in particular has very high costs of traditional energy so you do have an opportunity to sort of use those as test beds and, again, in ways that are resolve more durable to a budget process that may or may not go in your direction in the future. and so i think again that's the sort of unique thing we have at some of our -- sort of bases that are not here in the u.s., particularly, on islands like

that. >> david garcia, it's got expensive to have energy there. >> thank you for your time there. >> i'm jonathan with the kevlis group. my question is www.decision for the navy and the going in to make capital investment decisions, particularly for big buildings or planes or fleets that are energy intensive. is it now a rule or just a change in culture that, say, lifecycle costs of an investment are taken into consideration rather than the capital budget person say i'm regarded for doing something cheap and i don't really care about the operational guy -- what he has to pay for utility bills. is there still a culture where some people do it based on an old way and other folks are mandated to do it in a lifecycle basis or a analysis for decisions becoming mandatory? >> well, let me start by saying that my entire experience with

the federal government procurement process is the last 18 months in this position. and i have found that the federal government procurement process is way beyond my area of expertise. but i can tell you a couple of -- a couple of things that i do know. that within the department of defense, the services don't buy our own liquid fuels. those -- those decisions on what fuels to buy are done by the defense logistic agents. and so, you know, we work with them, obviously, and we set the criteria to some extent, but those decisions are made by, you know, centrally. and they make their decisions based on a whole variety of factors, price being, i think, one of the primary ones. in terms of other acquisitions on the basis, for example, the decision as to whether to

install solar panels or not, that's made by for a number of reasons, a number of decisions, but i think that the actual question about how much to pay for a solar panel and whether that's a good investment as opposed to not is something that the local people have the first say in, but many of us have a finger in that. whether it's a change in culture, i would say yes because people are now more interested in energy efficiency. is it totally -- does that outweigh everything else? probably not. >> but when they're deciding to put solar panels on a base, do they consider the fact that a lot of goal was burned making those packages. do they look at the whole life cycle because the photovoltaic goes into a lot of chemicals into making them.

>> i can't get precise in it because i'm outside of my expertise in what they consider in doing there but, no, they don't go through the whole lifecycle. for example, do they assume a carbon cost of the electricity? would a plant in -- would an installation in north carolina, for example, where a lot of the electricity is produced by coal be considered for that coal when deciding to make a solar panel. >> is it a goal to consider that lifecycle analysis? >> i think the goal would be to have a public policy because our -- our spending any of the defense department spending is overseen by congress and so i have to go to congress and defend our budget and defend what we have spent. and so it can be an argument but it's not necessarily a policy.

>> these are not small questions. there's a new hybrid drive ship that the navy -- i don't know the name off of it. >> the macon islands. >> the macon islands. i did a quick -- based on the numbers i got. lifecycle off-savings if you assumed a 50-year life span, it's like $150 million savings just for that one ship. >> right. >> versus the conventional alternative so it's not insignificant how we do treat these but as secretary pfannenstiel noted, it's a very opaque and complex process. >> but those are ones that are relatively easy for us to do which we can make that kind of assessment and say, let's do -- let's put in a hybrid drive for this ship but some of the others are murkier when you're talking about not buying electricity that's generated from coal, it's a harder decision to make. >> let's go to our next audience question.

yes. >> good morning, i'm an intern for the office of environmental policy and compliance. and my question is about terrorism and how much terrorism affects our energy security and our infrastructure. and take, for example, the current grid that we have, that uses technology from 100 years ago. how is the military involved in improving this security threat? >> we have a few minutes left. any questions? >> we're very actively looking at specifically the vulnerability of the commercial electric bid for all of our installations. it is something that we've recognized and frankly it's not just the terrorists. it's fires. it's, you know, other kinds of issues that can affect the grid. what are we doing about it? we have backup generation on all the bases to protect resources. but i think we're trying to get of combining ourhisticated

bases into some smart grids and using those as a way of protecting ourselves from grid vulnerability. i think it's each of our bases -- and we do buy mostly from the commercial grid. we're looking at how do we -- what kind of backup do we have? renewables make a lot of sense there. in some cases, you're putting in renewables as a grid backup so it's not just comparing against the price of electricity you'd be buying from the local utility. you have another value for doing the renewables. so thank you for raising that. good point. >> and just to build on that, i was talking to jim yesterday a former cia director. who has been involved in these issues. he said where we're getting at right now we can maybe stop the 9-year-old hackers and we need to be able to stop maybe the 12-year-old hackers by doing some slightly bigger things so there's a lot of vulnerability there. again, this can be -- we

mentioned this in our report, but having certain types of distributive energy as secretary pfannenstiel alluded to you can address that but certainly for the military, even some of our international bases they're pretty much dependent on these foreign grids that we don't control. the exact bases and their dependentcs is classified. >> if those bases generated their own power they would be more secure. >> yes. >> let's wrap up real quickly. jeremy carl you are at the hoover institute and part of secretary schultz's task force before. we both heard him say earlier this year there's a lot of yakety-yak and i want to ask you is that holding us back for these moves of clean energy. that it becomes a political litmus test in some circles to deny climate change and say it's

hooey. >> i would say that's a partisan question. obviously, climate change has become very politicized and become a political football. we can argue about what the origins of that are. maybe al gore being the initial spokesman is not the political move of the stance who publicly identified with it but certainly, again, regardless of the views of the climate change, i believe are personal largely what the consensus scientists say but there's a lot of people who don't. ..

something will be going on. it will be pretty substantial in that kind of, you know, i think ultimately that would be classified one of the projections will be falsified from either the dhaka your projection of the optimistic projection. >> the laws of physics and chemistry will turn to the laws of congress. we need to end it there. thanks to jackalyne pfannenstiel secretary of the navy and jeremy carl from the hoover institution for joining today. climate one the commonwealth club. i'm greg dalton did you for joining us on the radio and on c-span. thank you very much. [applause] >> now you can catch your plane.

[inaudible conversations]

earlier today we spoke with a director of the iowa department of cultural affairs about the history of presidential campaigns in that state. >> what would you say is the purpose of the state historical society of iowa? >> under the umbrella of the cultural affairs, we have the iowa arts council and the state historical society of fallujah, and our job is to -- we called the state's interest in terms of the development of art's history and culture across the state of iowa, and it's very big for us and important to ensure that we are raising awareness about not only what we do but working to educate on humans and other resources we have not only here but in terms of outreach. obviously with the arts council on the art site is in the way of merits because they reach their own departments but then we have the state historical society that holds eight state-owned sites around the state of iowa. we also have our museum here,

our state historic preservation office, our libraries, archives and state records. so it's a great opportunity for us to not only to collect the resources about iowans and whether that is through donations and people saying would you please take this and it's an opportunity for us to educate iowans nutter it's something 100-years-old or 500-years-old that will one day be history. >> a lot of exhibits. you have a series of airplanes, one of three printing presses as well and other exhibits. talk about the diversity and the exhibits to teach people about iowa. >> back in 1987 and december governor branstad and others came together and thought it was important that we had a museum to focus on iowa's history and thought we need to start collecting and ensuring that we are preserving our history starting 25 years ago. so as you can see here from the mammoth behind you we have the neighborhood here, the delicate balance, which also reflects

iowa's history and an overview of history. on the second level you have the territory. we have an exhibit that opened this past summer that gives an overview of the history of electric railway is in iowa. on the upper level we have some u.s.s. iowa sterling silverware and we will be moving to the port of l.a.. but then obviously right now it's a very timely and relevant as the caucus audio exit has been getting most of the detention nowadays. >> this is part of the caucus series that your hosting of the society. >> yes, correct. this is four years ago we wanted to update it and make sure it was relevant in shooting people walk through and didn't cut off and 08 so we want to continue to show what happened the past four years but more importantly, over the past few months we've held a caucus iowa speaker series to ensure that we are able to raise awareness and ensure people were engaged and able to have an

opportunity to come here, focus to the cover looks like david yetsen to talk about all your life and the process and how important it is that iowans continue to take our role seriously and not for granted as you see sometimes we are in the crosshairs in terms of why i love should not remain first and why or why not the caucuses are a good thing or bad thing. >> you see most traffic when you have evens like the caucuses in town or is it consistency? >> definitely. right now and especially with media when they come -- and i've always said the media a lot of times will call the respective state parties or call us to say do you have background or photographs or video of jimmy carter or for those from the 1982? what's great is are you encouraged the media to come here because really is a one-stop shop to get your whole overview of the caucasus. we can also provide those elements of research, video, photographs, articles in addition to obviously other

newspapers. but we help collective dailies and weeklies from all over the state. >> if you look at the outside it's hard to see the inside is quite large and goes of several floors. tell us about the the design and about what you do. >> this building, we are here in the east village which is in downtown des moines which was pretty run down 25 years ago and it's been restored and revitalized. the east village actually is writing as you can see will drive down locust and grant and sea media doing their stand-up because the capitals to the east of the building. we are part of the capitol complex, and right now going into the 25th anniversary they are actually looking at having a visitor center where people would come to the historical museum first lady to get an overview of fallujah, the capitol and what not and talk up to the capitol. but this building is so important not only for downtown but iowans in general and how we can educate and continue to educate them about what only the past, the president also their

future. >> with the iowa caucuses tuesday, january 3rd, c-span cameras are following the candidates at the vince through the state and every morning life for all iowa political guests are taking your calls on the washington journal program. you can also stay of to date with c-span campaign 2012 website with new features including candidates on the campaign trail with biography informational videos from campaign stops. candidates on the issues with to see what the candidates have said on issues important to you and its social media buzz read what the candidates, political reporters and people like you are saying on the sites like facebook and twitter all at c-span.org/campaign2012. a day after evaluating an airplane using a slide supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg discussed legal issues in front of all students at the university of california hastings college of law in san francisco. joe williams the founding director of the center for work

life law interviewed justice ginsburg for 90 minutes on topics including gender equality, civil procedures, the wal-mart decision as well as other important cases and legal issues that came before justice ginsburg on the high court. [applause] >> thank you and good evening. it is with tremendous pride that we welcome to hastings the first law school of the university of california two great pioneers for conversation and for faults about law and justice. and so honored to be able to present to you joanne williams, a member of our faculty who is a rock star, has actually been called that by "the new york times" for her terrific work

over so many years really reinventing the law of the work place. joan has been a major voice on issues of women in law firms for more than two decades. in 1999 she started a project called the attorney -- project for attorney retention which came off with the modern policies that have allowed working women to make partners at major law firms even after and the need to lower their hours. for this, she was given the margaret brent award for the women lawyers of achievement. but beyond that, through the center for work life law. you see hastings, a center that really demonstrates the best of what the scholarship is a lot, taking big ideas and applying them in the real world, she developed a series that protect each and every one of us. you may have heard over the past few years that it is now in

proper to discriminate against employees on the basis of them having a family caregiving responsibilities. that was joan's work, virtually single-handedly. she came up with this idea in 2000, and the eeoc adopted officially in 2007. joan will be speaking with justice ruth bader ginsburg. justice ginsburg, follows a distinguished career as a law professor herself was appointed a 1980 by president jimmy carter to the united states court of appeals in the d.c. circuit. she was elevated to the supreme court in 1990 by president bill clinton. so please, join me in welcoming both joan williams, professor of law and justice ruth bader ginsburg. thank you. [applause]

>> i certainly want to start by welcoming new, justice ginsburg. justice ginsburg and i were talking before this and we realized that she was on the same faculty as my father, and i was in her daughter's law school class. [laughter] and son-in-law as well. and i wanted to thank you so much for coming out here. not everybody is willing to jump out of a plan on to an inflatable slide. [laughter] [applause] >> i didn't plan that as part of my journey here. [laughter] but i had a unique invitation from hastings law school. and it was this way, if it was

even lee who said here is the program for the san francisco opera in september. [laughter] pick any one and mary will invite u.s. redressed. [laughter] and so we saw last night a remarkable production and i think there were performances remaining, so i highly recommend it. [laughter] >> and i gather you did get to the opera despite the fact you were late. >> we missed the first act but it turns out they don't appear until the second act. [laughter] and it was a david cophney design. it was stunning. >> i wanted to go back a little bit and talk about your past and early life. you've often said the first pop thing you saw the most is your mother and her key messages were to be leedy and to be independent.

i was thinking about that and i think for many women of her generation, they wouldn't have seen it as a problem if a wife was supported by her husband. did you think differently? >> on the contrary, if the woman worked, it was a sign that her husband couldn't make it. was a disgrace for a man to have a woman who worked outside of the home. i think my father realized years later that my mother would have been -- she would have had a fuller life had she been employed. >> it sounds like if she was sending you that early the message that there was very important for a woman and even a wife to be independent, she sounds like a bit of a free thinker for her generation. >> she of course hoped that i would someday to meet prince

charming. [laughter] >> which you did. >> and be married happily ever after, as i was for 56 years. but she also thought it was important for a woman to be self landing and to be able to support herself and her family and need be. >> another influence you have said on you actually was a novelist vladimir and one teacher you talk about that a little bit, since most people don't think of artists and lawyers in the same breath. but you're clearly very interested and drawn to art. >> well, he was a european literature professors at cornell university, and he changed the way i read and influenced the way i write. he was a man in love with the

founding words. let me see if i can give you one example. it was a course that we had on the dickens novel and the question was when we first meet where is he if and the part -- professor announced those of you remember that his head is sticking through a great but only seat number 59 which happened to be my husband's seat wrote that we see peepe's large head sticking through and that gives you an image of this child you would not have otherwise. i remember that he read to us the first page giving the

picture of miss white. he also spoke i think english was his third language and the french and russian and he spoke about what he liked in the english-language. suppose you wanted to say a white horse in english use a white horse, you see yp4 horse commesso when you get to the horse is already white. and french [inaudible] and then you have to convert. [laughter] >> your note for your opinions for as you said keep it right and keep it tight. >> it came in part from him. it also came from my being a law

teacher and a lawyer and realizing that opinions were much stronger than they had to be. [laughter] >> i think my students would agree. i also wanted to ask you about your husband, marty ginsburg who use it was the first boy i ever met that kershaw had a brain. he was very unusual for his generation and for his support for your career. and i just wonder very concretely how you balance work and family from day to day. and for a sample, when you took off to study swedish coming your daughter must have been what, 546? how did you put it altogether? >> marty and i married in the same month i graduated from cornell. i had never lived alone and i worried about little things like that it at a restaurant, could i

do those things for myself. marty understood and was supportive of my decision and cap jane who i guess then was in kindergarten and once her school finished then she came and joined me. so i had six weeks all on my own and got it all out of my system. [laughter] i was confident i could manage for myself. but one of my -- one of my college friends noticed something about marty when we were very young. when we met i was 17, he was 18. that marty was so confident of his own ability, so comfortable with himself that he never regarded me as any kind of a threat. on the contrary, he always made me believe that i could do more than i thought i could. >> and i think that is what we

wanted to know what advice did you have for finding a partner who is really partner and i can't you just gave that. >> the of a special thing about marty is that he was a great cook. [laughter] he said that he attributed his skill in the kitchen to to people. first, his mother and then his wife. i think that was unfair with respect to my mother-in-law as an description of week. [laughter] we started out on was the everyday coke cook in he was the weekend and company cook. i had seven things i could make. when we got to number seven we went back to number one. [laughter] the al qaim from a book called "the 60 minute chef" which meant

nothing took longer than 1i were to go from the kitchen to the table. she got as a gift -- we spent the first two years of our marriage in oklahoma, the location of fortcel and he was a utility operator. when jane was born i went back to his folks and she was born in long island. my husband got a cook book in english translation and said this will give you something to do while your wife is a way. marty started out as a chemistry major at cornell so golf practice interfered. [laughter] so he took this cookbook and treated it like a chemistry text and he started with the basic stuff for two years, said he was quite accomplished by the time

we left. >> so cooking is chemistry. >> than the best part of the story for me is jane brough high school years she was 15, 16 noticed a distinct difference between my cooking and daddy's cooking. [laughter] we moved to washington, d.c. in 1980 and i have not cooked a meal from the day we made the move and that's true even today. my husband died a year ago in june. my daughter comes once a month to cover for me. she fills the freezer. sometimes she makes so much i have to take the overload to the court freezer. [laughter]

>> that's wonderful because having read so much about you and knowing you don't like to cook i was worried about who was cooking for you, so now i know. another question related to your late husband from my class as well, when, as you mentioned when you got appointed to the d.c. circuit he gave up his job in new york. was he still practicing? >> he was a professor at columbia law school. >> and he gave up both and faludi to washington. so my question -- >> he transferred to georgetown. >> what would you say to young man about why they should accept the situation where their career sometimes comes? >> i think in a family there is

balance sometimes. but we started out i said unfortunately in oklahoma with students together for the next two years, so it was natural to share everything, and when marty was starting out in law practice and able to make partner i would say i was responsible for the lion's share of taking care of jane and home. that a balanced changed when the women's movement came alive and marty appreciated the importance of the work i was doing. so, then i became the person who's career came first. and when i was appointed to the

d.c. circuit, so often people would come up to me and say it must be hard for you commuting back and forth to new york. they say they couldn't imagine that a man would leave his work to follow his wife. and even then, we would go to parties and i would be -- we would be introduced -- i was introduced as judge ginsburg. a hand would extend marty. [laughter] that didn't happen when i was appointed to the supreme court. [laughter] [applause] >> so you see, young ladies, we have a solution for that problem. [laughter] >> i should tell you, too, marty was a member of the denis thatcher club.

he was introduced by sean o'connor and a requirement of being a member of the club is your wife has a clue job that in your heart of hearts you would really like to have yourself. [laughter] >> i wanted to talk as the first case i want to talk about hastings very own supreme court case which is the legal society versus martinez. as you know it was a first amendment case that said the hastings insist that all student groups accept all comers in other words be open to anyone who wanted to join them. and when we teach that case we find that students are generally satisfied at the supreme court's opinion. i'm sure you would be pleased to hear. [laughter] but they wonder this: is every student group is required to accept everyone, they wonder how an individual group can

distinguish itself for its view point? you have any thoughts -- >> i think the history of that organization answers the question. for years as a christian legal society accepted all comers, and then when they became an affiliate of the national, i think it was the national who said you can accept only true believers. and people who had been a part of the club when it was open to all comers talked about the experience of having people who were not the same, and particularly having gay members and how it affected them. so i think it was -- it's pretty clear that the ecology policy worked -- ecology polis you worked and did not destroy the mission of the organization. it just made them more

understanding of others feeling different. >> okay. >> thank you. [laughter] >> i want to shift towards in a somewhat on the case, an establishment clause prohibits the establishment of religion and in one prior case law for its people as you know prohibits states from buying books for religious schools. they decided arizona christian involved a state law that gives a tax credit for up to $500 worth of contributions for student tuition organizations then that money is used to buy scholarships to pay for students to go to private schools often religious schools. a tax payer sood saying that this violated the establishment clause and the supreme court majority said the tax payer had

no standards to sue distinguishing and media overruling the past cases and i think about arizona christian sto that leaves me wondering what is left of the establishment clause it seems all a government needs to do is structured funding through a tax credit were different tax expenditure rather than paying a direct subsidy. so, why is the establishment clause so important in your view?,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,, what the law school's figure

out what it meant. [applause] [applause] >> i must say, having been a law professor for over 30 years, thank you. and to the students, when something does not make sense, you just her say it doesn't make sense. >> and i can say to that there is a lot of togetherness on the court be read we have exchanges

usually to your -- 34 even more of us. a basis of the european court of justice a few times. i was in india with the justice. elegant, elegance. and by feminist france, they see the photograph of ginsburg and cilia. why you sitting in the back. >> and you heard it here. we did say that. i wanted to talk to you actually about international and foreign law. you said learning about another legal system open your eyes to facets of your own system. i frankly don't understand the reservations voiced by some of my colleagues about referring to a foreign and international law in eventually talking to a friend of mine close to you way back when you're on the d.c.

circuit. she said that even then he traveled to other countries. judges from other countries. in conversations and your study of international law have given new both to other systems and also into ours. >> one is the seat there are other ways to achieve the same man's. and they're bright minds and other places sterling with the same basic human rights. how much military living to give up in the name of security. in one case, it comes on the supreme court, the judgment

side. this ticking bomb case. if the police have a suspect that they believe knows where and when a bomb is going to go off can the police use extraordinary means or to put it bluntly torture to extract that information? the message of that opinion was torture never. the explanation is that if we allow security concerns to so over wall our attachment to fundamental human values to much of it -- the dignity of each person, we will come more and

more to look like our enemy. and what critter victory could we hand them that over time to resemble them in their disrespect. and i think we have a majority of the court that recognize the value of references to what courts are doing abroad. i should qualify that by saying, of course, what another court does is never undermine the president, people serving out. but still towing if i can read and refer an opinion to any love you about, even if students no, no one questions that.

why should a question to back a sidebar, to opinions, the supreme court of canada or the german constitutional court or the european court of human rights. >> you have also said in some ways u.s. courts' failure to engage with decisions and other countries could undermine the overall influence of this country and undermine the sense that we are part of the world community. >> yes. until world war ii we did not look abroad simply because there was nothing to look at. most systems were fiercely attached to parliamentary supremacy, and that meant the legislature, the court said with the constitution means.

then after world war ii the constitutional court's emerged in many places in the world map. in those courts have only one place to look, and that was at decisions of the u.s. supreme court. well, after some years when i went abroad i was often asked, we look at decisions of your court. of course to see what you think about this hard question. and yet you never refer to our decisions. don't you think we have something to contribute to this? is into national conversation about fundamental human rights.

we have engaged in this activity . if we don't listen to others, if we pay no attention to what they're doing, we won't be listening -- listened to. i think nowadays it may mean that candidates -- canada's supreme court decided in four decisions more frequently than decisions of the united states supreme court. why? because if you pick up the sessions of that court you will find that they refer to decisions of other courts. we don't very often. there are notable exceptions in the -- what was the case?

the case that fund conventual same-sex relations cannot be made. lawrence. >> justice kennedy cited a leading decision of the european court of human rights from 1981. and in several follow once. not because we are bound by this judgment of the european court of human rights. that court has recognized that consensual relations between two people do no harm to anyone and cannot be something that government prohibits. and so they're going to also in some of the death penalty cases there have been references to

foreign decisions and legislation. you would think that there would be more and more of it if folks in our nation was knew we looked abroad. it's very common. just like abroad. >> extended. >> and as far as international is concerned, distinguishing the law of another nation, that is part of our law. we among the world's nations. we are bound by the law of nations which is what they call into national law. john marshall stay. >> i have to ask one question. since i am basically an employment lawyer, you know what isn't going to ask about, the walmart case, dukes. >> i thought it was going to believe that there.

>> well, i had a question about that too, but that was such a happy case the results. your descends really current -- turned people's head. you read from the bench. one of the first times in your career since 2007. a guest when question before i get back to walmart, much muffins' will kill you didn't tell me about this before that you had almost never or maybe never read from the bench. what changed? >> mccourts custom is that the majority opinion will be summarized from the bench. and then the person you reach the majority opinion this summarizes it. it will say justice so and so, the dissenting opinion enjoined by this but is dissented.

it is not summarized. if you think that the court has not simply gone wrong, but to use jeff stevens expression, the court was profoundly misguided, that it was egregiously wrong, and you want to call attention to that. in lee ledbetter's case it was an immediate object, and it was congress. it ended the dissent by saying the ball is now in congress's court. to say what congress meant along . and in other cases u.s. speaking to a later court, and that is every dissenters hope, that the law will be one day as they thought it should be. you think of the great dissenters in the first

amendment cases, homes in grand best, there were just too. and most of their descent today the law of the land. so either you are aiming for immediate reaction, the reaction to the ledbetter was just like the reaction to the gilbert case. discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is not discrimination on the base of sex. and then with the pregnancy discrimination, the result of that, and did make people understand that coalitions, i mean, everybody came in for the pregnancy discrimination. and there was a similar reaction . and now. >> britney packs i can survive another day. the pact to walmart, the supreme

court opinion really unsettled class-action law in a very big way. and really also changed the economics of class action law. and i struggle to find a question i'd ask you. i could not find one, but i did -- here's what i came up with. what are some of the key issues that divide the majority and the dissenters? some of us were surprised at the part of the majority opinion that the dissenters find on. i don't want to get too raunchy. but can you say? >> there is two parts. one is the basic requirement to have a class action. you have a common question of law or fact. that is a gateway to termination that has to be made in every class action.

and it had been considered not a very high fur. this court, i mean the common question of law or fact in the was that women overwhelmingly were not getting promoted. and the court said, well, this class as one. -- one-and-a-half million people. one-and-a-half million discreet and plumbing questions. how could they be commonality?

maybe one woman was passed over because she was stealing from the tel. and maybe another one was just incompetent. the dissenters understood. there were people making decisions and they were overwhelmingly white man. and the people that they were choosing for the promotions were of the same base, the same gender. perhaps there was unconscious, so not delivered of discrimination, but people feel more comfortable with people like themselves.

in the example that i gave in the opinion criticizing the majority was, there was a great transformation in this symphony orchestras in the united states by the simple device of dropping the curtain for the additions to know where there was a woman or whether it was a man. and as i mentioned to the constitutional law class this morning, my friend told me, it was more than that. we auditioned to this because then -- >> i wondered about that. >> there was no deliberate discrimination. a woman came on stage. there was a certain perception of her. it was different. so that was on that part. the other part and which we all

agree was what kind of class action should this be. if what you're dominant seeking then you can go under the to end easier forms to do with than the three wherry a dominant complaint is money. the b-2 glasses had been prominent in the civil rights era when people were seeking class relief that is no segregation in schools. you want to a decree that would bind everyone. it did not matter if one of the members of a class set up like to be segregated. over the same thing in the effort to put women on juries. so some might say i like it the way it is. don't change it.

the relief has to be the same for every member of the class, so it's -- that is what she was meant to deal with the claim in walmart was the object of relief as we want back pay. the court thought that the driving force in that case was the money. most of the women in the class had already left while being employed. it means a lot to them. everyone wanted the money. frankly, so the the lawyers. so we said, this class is fit for -- these two classifications. we were unanimous in our judgment.

you could not take a class action rule that the with money claims and said they get this way. some of these plans. try to shove the money plans into the engine to relief category. >> i see everyone standing up, but i'm going to ask you more short questions. before i do i want to thank everybody unit helped me prepare for this interview. my staff at the center for work lifelong, hilary term council, joe paul, susan williams, and by gender and law class. here are my two questions. what is your favorite comfort food? >> made some many wonderful things. the time for me to pick out this

one thing. well, he made, i don't know if you all this comfort food, but the ambassador of the united states had dinner with us one evening and said marty made the best they get outside france. so that was nice. >> so, my goodness. >> and my very last question is this. why would you like to see as your legacy of the court? >> i would just like people to think of me as a judge she did not -- to the best she could with whatever limited talent i had. what makes it a great nation. to make things a little better than might have been if i had been near. >> and i would like to thank you

for all the work he had done on behalf of women and also, working so hard to keep the courts the respected institution. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> here's what's coming up on it

>> with the caucus. the director of caucus higher oil here at the state oratorical society in the morning to my law. tell us a little bit. >> the purpose of this exhibit is to let the press smell of visitors to iowa, how the caucuses work. the most complicated process. here use been an even talking about issues and elected people

for your county convention and expressing a preference for you want to be president. >> spanning what looks to be high-school gymnasium. >> exactly. these characters represent some many kinds of people involved in the process, whether it's as a blocker, a captain, the voter, a campaign manager. we just trying to tell how many characters are involved in this. this is actually an example of the democratic caucus in its gymnasium setting. and we kind of explain because democrats don't do it the same republicans to. >> of those folks, you're standing here, look a little bit about what they do know what their role is to read what other aspect you cover beside that? >> of the caucuses work, and we have a history of how each caucus became first in the nation and how it impacts the election process. we election by election beginning in 1972. that is an important component as well. >> tell us with questions you get when people visit and ask you about the caucus and what

this project illustrates. >> well, one of the -- have their work. don't use that word. you are expressing a preference and appalling. the other thing is, how did it start? why did it start? that is kind of a complicated question. i can give the dates. we talked about the impact of jimmy carter that propels this into a national event. and another thing we talk about, since your the press, is the existence of the press, how the stories and of the press needs the cannabis to get the story. the kennedy really wants publicity. that is a cinematic relationship between the press and a candid it's. >> how does this caucus it updated? >> this exhibit. >> well, we added some elements from the last caucus. the republican winner and barack obama, the democratic winner. we talked about that. >> put these things together.

tell us a little bit about the design and how you went about getting the various rooms and the at the is. >> we talk about retail politics , and the present has depressed the fuss. you can't just do campaign commercials. that is where the candidates go in and talk to people and said done as a cup of coffee. we have a component with the republicans beat like in the house. this gymnasium setting. we have a news from setting. we have these settings that happen. this is not just a one night thing. obviously a process that goes on . >> how many visitors? >> oh, thousands. especially this time that year. >> so when they come what is the best way to go through it as far as what would you advise folks? >> it is self guided. there is a clear inference. what tyson general affirmation. you can't miss to get in through here.

>> did you learn things about the caucus, putting this into the to get a? >> every time to be relied have complicated the democrats did things worse the republicans. in each one has the dynamic. each caucus has some support, you might say, event that happens or a candidate that does things differently. >> so the actual figures that we are seeing standing here, day in iowa? >> oh, yes. a lot of them are just co-workers. we needed people, and we see these old desks that are like exhibit labels. this was tall then longtime caucus door. the precinct captain where there is one here that says local reporter. all of these different kinds of people that are doing different things come have a different point of view in the cell -- this whole caucus process. >> there are a lot of people that get involved and make it work. >> it is not just a campaign manager and worker. so many other people. the internet is a change things and television. always been a huge presence.

>> the internet, but is your destiny from year, somebody called a video blocker. >> that's right some kind of do will central. so every year some new technology. i remember 1988. d. h. as video tapes were sent out by candid, and that was a new thing. you could go home and stick it in your tv and read about your candidates. so that is technology. it certainly impacting the caucus. >> if you were in the morning, caucus iowa, the exhibit, jack levin is the project director. thank you. >> thank you. >> and a reminder that for all things campaign related to c-span.org is your place to go. watch events from the trail, speeches, and town hall meetings. also, leaks to the candid it's an related editorials and the board endorsements.

>> eighty-three day holiday weekend that 3,000 year history of jerusalem saturday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern. on after words scientist michael does senega on free will and the sides of the brain at 10:00 p.m. and monday at 7:00 p.m. mark stein believes that the u.s. is destined for financial collapse in the client if current political and cultural trends continue. also this weekend, some they live in and your calls and e-mails in depth with former new york times foreign correspondent and pull a surprise winner chris hedges, the author of nine books and writes about religion and war and its impact on civilizations. his latest is the world as it is book tv every weekend. >> supreme court justice samuel of the doe give a top-10 thing -- top-10 list of things you don't know. justice alito told the audience

of over 500 attorneys that while oral arguments is only one our preparation for the case is often involving reading over 500 or more pages of legal briefs. and a large part of the justices work. the remarks are part of the association's launch a celebration which recognizes the role of the law in american society. this is about 40 minutes. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much. senator danforth's fellow judges, fellow attorneys, any non attorneys who have managed to infiltrate the room. i hope there are at least a few

of the year. thank you for that wonderful introduction. as he mentioned, we were at law school classmates. it seems like just a couple of years ago plane was certainly one of the stars of our law school class. it would not have surprised many of his classmates to learn, had they been able to foresee this fact that today he would surely be one of the real stars of this federal judiciary. so i want to thank him for the great introduction. i want to thank all of you for the warm welcome. i want to thank the bar association for all of the courtesies that have been extended to me. it is a great pleasure for me to be here and have this opportunity to talk to you this afternoon for many reasons. among other things, i welcome this opportunity to congratulate your bar association for its centuries long commitment to providing equal access to

justice. i am sure many of you know that the inscription on the front of the supreme court building reads equal access. equal justice under law. that is surely the highest ideal of our profession, and i commend the bar association for its many efforts to translate that ideal into reality, and i hope that during the next century you will redouble those efforts. i mentioned one fact about the supreme court that i think many of you know, the inspiring inscription on the front of the building. but i want to talk about this afternoon are some other things about the supreme court that some people even knowledgeable people either don't know or more likely a tended to forget in reading coverage of our day-to-day work. now, i got the idea for this talk a couple of years ago when

i heard about a poll that asked people to named two justices of the supreme court. and what the poll revealed was that more people could name two of snow white's seven dwarfs and could name two justices of the supreme court. i was actually not disturbed by that poll results knowing the names of the personalities and justices is not really very important. and i was just relieved that all these people did not think that sleepy, grumpy, and dopey were the names of some of the current supreme court justices. so that kind of trivia is not important for ordinary knowledgeable americans to know. there are some things about the court that i think should be perhaps widely known. as i mentioned, many of these will be things that the knowledgeable people in this room know, but i think we tend to forget them if we read

coverage of the court in the general media or even in some general interest legal publications. so the little title that i have for my talk today is the top ten things that you may not know about the supreme court. everybody watches late night tv. so this is my spin on what you might see during that time now, on to the first item. and to introduce this i want to paint a fairly common scene. it is 10:00 a.m. on monday morning in the nation's capital. our core room is filled with spectators. the first few rows of benches are occupied by lawyers who were members of the bar of our court, the rest of the court room is usually pretty full, and many of the people who occupy the seats are simply tourists who are in town and the like to see the supreme court argument.

and among those spectators in the general gallery and the supreme court, there are often a lot of students who have heard about the court's custody the court in high school, american history course or maybe in a college course. and they have heard about the great supreme court cases of the past. margaret versus madison, brown versus board of education, gideon versus wainwright. things of that nature. so the marshal of our core stands up promptly at 10:00 a.m. and announces all rise, the chief justice and the associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. the first case is called the audience looks on with anticipation. and then lawyers and the justices began to talk about something that is incredibly 14 -- arcane, technical, and from many i suspect downright boring. for the truth of the matter is,

and this is my -- the first item on my list. most of our cases are not about their great issues of constitutional law. in fact, the great majority of our cases are not about the constitutional. astern three-quarters of our cases were not about the constitutional issues. there are mostly about the interpretation of the statutes enacted by congress or rules promulgated by one of the federal administrative agencies. this term we attach cases involved in all of the following federal statutes. erisa, the alley employee retirement security act in 1974. is there anybody in the room who knows what the four are active? you get a door prize. you really deserve a door prize for that.

yes. but only one person in this room of a couple's lawyers. the railroad revitalization and regulatory reform act of 1976. we have also heard cases involving the federal arbitration act, the veterans judicial review at, the national childhood vaccine, injury act and truth in lending act, copyrights act and the uniformed services employment and reemployment rights act, the fair labor standards act and the freedom of permission at, privacy act of false claims act, armed career criminal act, the securities and exchange act of 1934, national traffic and motor vehicle safety act in 1966, the bankruptcy act, internal revenue code, and many others. now, these cases involve important questions, but for the most part they are not what people have in mind when they think about the united states supreme court cases. that is three-quarters of the caseload. what about the remaining 25%? suppose that a law student heard

oral arguments for today's in our court and so heard arguments in four cases. the odds are at least one of them would be about the constitutional issue. what sort of arguments is the student likely to hear in that case? most of you are probably aware that for the past few decades in the legal academia there has been an intense debate and intensifying debate about constitutional theory, but a regionalism and non a regionalism and all of that. i think that a lot of boston's are introduced to those in class and come to have, perhaps, an exaggerated impression of their importance in actual litigation. of course, there are cases in which theory looms very large. a couple of terms ago we had a very good example of this bill be the case i'm talking about is district of columbia versus

heller. this was a case concerning the interpretation of the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. the question was whether that means their right to keep and bear arms that is individual and incorporates the right to use and keep an arm, to keep a firearm for the purpose of self-defense. it was an unusual case because there was so little prior supreme court precedent, really just one unusual decided in 1939 in a very short end cryptic opinion. so this was the case in which. naturally had an important role. and the opinion for the court written by justice scalia was an example of one leading theory of constitutional interpretation, not surprisingly it was vigorously original list.

the principal dissent by justice stevens also perhaps more surprisingly was also an original stepanian. justice prior knows a separate dissent, and that was true to his judicial philosophy which he has articulated in a number of books. it was just as rigorously pragmatic. so this was an example of a case in which theory meant a lot. the choice of the theory that the justice selected men a lot. but that was really the exception that proves the rule. and another case that came along a couple of years later in the wake of keller illustrates his point. and this is the second item on my list. most of our constitutional cases are governed by precedent and not by theory. the case that came along in the

wake of heller which illustrates this point is a case called mcdonald's verses the city of chicago, and this was also about the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. heller involve the district of columbia, so it did not concern the question of the application of the second amendment to the state. mcdonnell presented that latter question. now, for the few non lawyers who are in the room, let me back up for a second and provide a little bit of constitutional background. the provisions of the bill of rights as originally adopted applied only to the federal government. they did not apply to the state. it was not until after the ratification of the post civil war amendments, the 13th amendment, 14th amendment, and the 15th amendment that the question arose, the type of question was presented and knew about the application of the bill of rights provisions to the

state. now, in the macdonald case to provisions of those posts civil war amendments which fundamentally altered -- altered the relationship between the federal government and the state's or issue. one was the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment prohibiting a state from abridging the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the united states. the other provision was the do process clause of the 14th amendment providing any person from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. shortly after the civil war in a very famous case called the slaughterhouse cases decided in 1873, the supreme court gave the privileges or immunities clause a very narrow interpretation. we might think of the metaphors. there has been so much wedding. and i think of the metaphor of water heading down to the sea,

water is calling to flow downhill no matter what you do. it is going to make its way to the sea, and so if it is blocked in one channel it will find another channel to reach its destination. and that may be viewed as what happens with respect to the interpretation of the 14th amendment. the slaughterhouse cases blocked the use of the privileges or immunities clause to provide substantive protections or rights that are not specifically mentioned in the constitution. now, today many scholars believe that was exactly what the privileges or immunities clause was intended to do. but actual case law flood that different direction, and they went through the due process clause of the 14th amendment. bit by bit almost all of the provisions of the bill of rights were made applicable to the

states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment by means of what is called the teary of incorporation. just as there are a lot of scholars to think that the privileges or emmy's clause is badly misinterpreted and the slaughterhouse cases. instead, today you can hardly find a scholar who thinks that the slaughterhouse cases interpreted that provision correctly. there are scholars to think that the due process clause was meant to kill -- protect process and not substantive. all right. in the macdonald case we have the question whether the right to keep or bear arms, keep and bear arms is applicable to the states, and if so, through which provision of the constitution? a friend-of-the-court that was filed by a group of academics contained the following plea. as professor of constitutional law we will look forward to the day when we can teach our

students how the supreme court corrected the grievous error made in the slaughterhouse cases. the lead attorney representing the petitioners and macdonald, the citizens of chicago who wanted to overturn the chicago firearms ordinance argue that we should use the privileges or immunities clause and not the due process clause. ..

took the wind out of the sales when he said the following. would you argue is the darling of the professoriate for sure but it's also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence. why do you undertake debt burden? and wind the decision in mcdonald was announced only one member of the court as the privileges. okay, pint number four, this is a question that i am frequently asked during a week like this week when we are not hearing oral arguments. it tends to come up in my house over thanksgiving dinner when one of my cousins says are you off this weekend when someone asks me that question i say well we are not hearing oral arguments, but i actually have a lot of work to do, which is true

also what often gets the impression that the people who hear that don't believe me. they really seem to have the idea that sitting on the bench and hearing oral argument is our main job. it is not. and this is my fourth point. during oral argument is a relatively small and as the truth is told relatively unimportant part of what we do. for every case that we hear on the merits, we hear one hour of oral argument. that's all. sometimes when justices were judges from other countries attend one of our arguments they are particularly from another english-speaking country they are absolutely astonished that we will devote just one hour to argument any major case. in countries like the united kingdom and canada the argument goes on much longer. but for us it is one hour and

that sit with rare exceptions. now, buy contrast for the one hour we spent listening to the argument or participating in the argument we spend many many hours reading and studying the case before we ever take the bench. before we take the bench to hear argument in a case, we will have spent many hours and often days studying the case. the volume of the briefing that we now have received is really enormous. last term we had nine cases in which the briefs including the amicus briefs totaled more than 500 pages, and we had one case involving an important patent issue in which the briefs exceeded 2,000 cases -- 2,000 pages. so you can see a lot of times put into the case before the argument begins and as a result i think when we do take fact we aren't really primed for the argument and the justices tend

to have a lot to say. last term the court average 120 questions per case. 120 questions slash 60 minutes you can see we are averaging two questions per minute. 40% of the words that were spoken during the oral arguments last term were uttered by the justices and locked by ev attorneys. this term in lot of observers have commented that we seem to be asking even more questions. if the statistics are compiled at the end of this turmoil wouldn't be surprised if we are pushing the 50% mark and if we don't reach it this term - pretty sure we will reach it in the future. now i personally find that oral argument is helpful as one of the final steps in the decisionmaking process. but as i said, the truth of the matter is it is less important than the briefing or the opinion

preparation process that follows the oral argument. this brings me to my fifth point. we do our own work. now here i am quoting justice brandeis. his exact words were as follows the reason the public thinks so much of the justices of the supreme court is they are almost always the only people in washington who do their own work. [laughter] now i'm not going to address the first part of justice brandeis statement about what people think about the supreme court but the latter is definitely true. we still do not own work and when i say that, i don't mean to cast any aspersions on the president or congress. their responsibilities are now so fast that an enormous amount of the obligation is unavoidable. can you imagine how does president could possibly do his job if flexible he wrote his own speeches or did many of the

other things that are done in his name? sali not criticizing the other branches, but we have had the luxury of retaining an old-fashioned personal role. we have very small staffs. some people are quite astonished that we don't have a larger support staff. we each have free career small lawyers who provide office support and we have four small clerks. the clerks served for just one year. they are very brilliant attorneys and young attorneys and they are assistance to us is invaluable. but as i said, they serve only one year. by the time they become fully familiar with all of the tasks that at least once released possibly half of their tenure is completed. despite this there are those on the outside that think that the clerks are actually pulling our strings. a recent article after quoting

justice brandeis' assertion that the justices do their own work said, quote, today no knowledgeable observer of the court would make a similar claim. but if that is true then the so-called knowledgeable observers of the court are wrong. keep that in mind because i will come back to that later. for now, on to point number six. we are very independent. we are not manipulated by our clerks and while we give serious consideration to our colleagues arguments, in the and we each reach an independent judgment. for the most part, we don't even discuss cases come ourselves prior to the time when we vote at the conference. and with respect to what counts most, we are all equal. we all have one vote, and no one is ever required to sign onto an opinion with which he or she does not agree.

and we always have the right to issue our own concurrence for our own descent if we are not pleased with the opinion of the court. now of course there is a big difference between productive independence if and a refusal to listen to or taken to account the views of colleagues. of this house and i think so many things in life the trick is striking the right balance. i recall to cartoons about the supreme court that appear in new york some years ago and i think they brackett the approach that a justice should take into considering how to react to the views of colleagues and that justice doesn't agree with his or her colleagues' views. both of these cartoons featuring a picture of the supreme court bench, all of the justices sitting on the bench in their

black robes, and in one -- in both cases one of the justices was speaking. in the first come on the one side of the brackett one of the justices says well if all you smart cookies agree, who am i to dissent. that's one extreme of deference to your colleagues. the other khartoum, which appeared later, again, shows the whole bench under the justice speaking. the justice is reading a dissenting opinion and the justice says am i doesn't opinion will be briefed. you are all full of crap. [laughter] i've had a couple of cases during the last two terms in which i was the only person in dissent, but that was not what i was saying about my colleagues. [laughter] if you read some of our dissenting opinions you might interpret them as essentially saying that because sometimes

they are pretty strongly worded, and this brings me to my seventh point. we are not at each other's throats contrary to the impression some people might get from reading your opinions. a couple of years ago i was assigned to write an opinion for the court. i wrote the opinion, and it produced a concurrence. while this is the concurrence mind you not my descent, and the concurrence said that my opinion was, quote, meaning less, and consistent with the rule of law kinnock and sang in. now these are strong words but i didn't take them personally and i know they were not meant personally. this was just the sort of their knuckles intellectual disagreement that we sometimes have but it doesn't mean that there's personal animosity involved. this may not have always been true on the supreme court. in the last year a very interesting book was published

called scorpions the battles and triumphs of fdr's great supreme court justices, and the book claims that some of the justices who served during the 1940's and 1950's through the dislike each other and sometimes show that. it's an interesting book. obviously i don't know for sure how accurate all of the inside baseball stuff is, but it has some interesting anecdotes and here is an example. according to the book, during a conference one day justice frankfurter, former law professor, made a remark about something that chief justice mengin had written or said and chief justice then supposedly got so upset by this that he rose from his seat and started walking towards frankfurter with the intention of punching him in those. i can assure you that nothing like that goes on today. after a morning conference when

we may disagree quite sharply about legal issues -- and they may be legal issues about which we care very deeply -- we all have lunch together a. we make a point of doing that every argument and conference day and we have one rule at lunch and that is you may not talk about any case. so we talked about items in the news, we talk about music, sports, our families, books, anything about the case, the cases including the ones where we may have disagreed very sharply just a short period before. shifting gears now, i'm ready for my point number eight, and that is some of our opinions mean less than a lot of people think. what do i mean by that? this is so for several reasons. for one thing, the opinion right and justice has a.

we don't make stylistic changes in the request for stylistic changes in each other's opinions. if you have eight people for making all sorts of editorial suggestions and opinion you can imagine how long it would take to get anything out and what the end product might look like. so we don't mess with a style of our colleagues' opinions, but it sometimes leads him soon substance and so if someone takes something from the tone of a particular opinion, that person may be reading something into the opinion that is just not there. our opinions are also written under a considerable time pressure. we don't have as much to mull over and revise our opinions as, for the disabled, the author of a book might have in many instances. and the third is our opinions focus on primarily on deciding the case at hand. so the majority that endorses

the opinion and the rule that is set out on the opinion necessarily believes that that rule is the right one for that case and it governs the case. but the agreement among the members of the majority may not actually extend a lot further than the ground that is actually recovered in the opinion and if you read more into it, if you read it is having a much broader applications, you may or may not be correct. point number nine. some of what is written about us is misleading or just plain wrong. now give you two examples, the first involves something that is misleading. i think unintentionally but nevertheless misleading. i was struck and a somewhat displeased earlier this term by a flurry of articles regarding justice thomas' practice of not asking questions during oral

arguments. if he asked as many questions as the rest of us don't think the lawyers could get a word in edgewise but it is his practice not to ask questions except upon unusual occasions and much was made of this in the press there were even articles suggesting that the justices have an obligation to ask questions during oral arguments so that the lawyers will know what they are thinking. one of the articles that i read a pointed out something that i think is important and will put this matter in historical perspective and that is that justice thomas' practice of not asking questions just as far as i can tell is the same as the practice of the person who is just about universally regarded as the greatest supreme court justice ever and that's john marshall, chief justice of the united states person who more than anyone else felt the supreme court into the institution that it has become.

in john marshall's david justices asked no questions. they sat there and they listened to the attorneys. the attorneys did not submit briefs. and so the entire presentation was oral. there were no limits on the length of the argument, and there was no prohibition on the tag team arguments. a party could have to its attorneys arguing on his or her behalf. that was john marshall's practice. the stupak is of the other great justices during the founding era. the story and other names that you would recognize. i think maybe it would have provided some historical perspective if at least one of the articles had pointed out that fact. now on to something that is just plain wrong. and i think and intentionally so, for several years now a widespread popular criticism of our court is we are very pro-business. we always decide cases in favor

of business as opposed to employees and people who are in the consumer's. this has been mentioned in a lot of articles in the body lot of public officials. now, a few months ago i was running on my treadmill, and when i do that i almost always watch television to try to overcome the boredom and discomfort of what i'm doing. so i'm flipping through the channels to find something that will make 45 minutes or so pass relatively painlessly, and i found really slim pickings. nothing that really interested me. and so finally somewhat reluctantly i settled on a c-span program that featured a debate between a very well-known and a distinguished commentator on the supreme court and another. now i wouldn't have watched it is the topic of this debate was squarely about the court, but it wasn't, so for one if anything else started watching. well, within a few minutes the commentator on the court began

to discuss the court and he said, you know, the current supreme court is very pro-business. but what can you expect because both chief justice roberts and justice alito used to work for the chamber of commerce. now, when i heard this i almost fell off the treadmill because i have no recollection of this episode in my career. [laughter] as you might have gathered from the introduction i had only to employers in my entire working life, the department of justice and the united states courts. never actually earned an honest living in a private sector. [laughter] when i heard this life thought something is happened to you. you have partial amnesia. you have forgotten in entire period of your life. and i thought i'd better jump off the treadmill, run to my computer and look up my entry on wikipedia to see by forgotten.

[laughter] but i knew if i did that who knows what i would have found. justice alito was once in the french foreign legion. [laughter] well, that was maybe in the early 2011. a short time after that, a number of articles began to appear that expressed surprise at most of our cases involving business law and employment law the term had actually gone against business interests and gone against employers. linda greenhouse who covered the supreme court for "the new york times" for many years wrote an article about this and asked, quote, what accounts for the topsy-turvy world of the supreme court's 2010 through come 2011 term packs will come here as a possible explanation. media law has something to do with it. maybe the text of the particular

statute involved and the precedent that we have to apply has something to do with the outcome in these cases. now i know it is a radical fought, but it's worth considering. that brings me to my last item. number ten, we in the federal court, the supreme court of appeals and the district court's, the bankruptcy courts, all of the federal court taken together, we are a coequal branch of government. we are not more equal than in the other branches and we have to keep that in mind. we are also not less equal than the other branches. constitution calls on the three branches of government to check each other. but this can be done with fairness and with respect. i think that is what the american people expect this is what they deserved. this is the message i would

leave you with on the occasion of this day it is important for all of those who work in a thus law for those of us the fortunate enough to be judges and those of us that are fortunate enough to be attorneys it is important for us to teach other people about our legal system and the learning center that was described earlier is a perfect example in the sort of thing that we need to do to reach out to ordinary citizens, both children and adults and that they appreciate our legal system and it's important for us to defend that will system against encroachment. it is important for us to record - the strengths and weaknesses of our legal system to preserve the strengths and work to correct the weaknesses. one of the advantages that i had and one of the great experiences that i have had during the last five plus years serving on the supreme court has been the opportunity to speak to justices

and judges from many other countries, and when you take an international perspective, when you look at our legal system if you draw back from the details we are concerned with on a daily basis and to look at the system somewhat from a far, you appreciate what a great legal system is. yes, those of us who are working attorneys and judges know the defect of the system. we know them better than most people, but in understanding of the weaknesses and resulting to work to improve them we also should not lose sight of the fact that we have the best legal system in the world. it is quite a rarity as it is something that we have to work to preserve. it's been a pleasure for me to be able to participate in your law celebration today. thank you so much. [applause]

it's now my pleasure to actually cite the united states supreme court precedent to the united states supreme court justice. i am going to refer you to a case that involved curt flood a st. louis cardinal and the majority opinion was written by joseph blackmon. however it is fairly unique among the opinions and not he wrote a sort of valentine to baseball that the rest of the majority opinion did molson

coors. the first section and put a plank of baseball players hall of famers mostly come and i picked this not because it was and joined by the other justices but by the position that it is not unusual for supreme court justices to have an interest in baseball or for that matter of our president. so as a token of our appreciation, we have selected a baseball theme gift for you. it's obviously this baseball bat and engraved with your name law day, 2011. and we will be enjoying a baseball game later this evening. thank you very much. enjoy. [applause] >> thank you i will certainly treasure this. this will go into my baseball shrine i have in my office. and just as enthusiastic about baseball as justice blackmun was.

i would have joined the first part of his opinion. [laughter] and just to tell you that that's the truth, when the marshals drove me here to the hotel last evening after they picked me about the airport, i had a request which i think they may have thought was rather strange that i gave them a street address and i said i want to drive past year. and the address was the former location of sportsman's park, and the first stadium because that, no, that's where rogers and dizzy dean and stand and bob gibson and all those great players played. so just for a fan like me seeing that was an experience that i wanted to have and this will, as i said, be displayed in my baseball museum in my office. thank you very much. [applause]

told cnn that if ron paul won the republican nomination he would not vote for him. he's a congressman paul was out of line with mainstream republican viewpoint including

his stand on israel and iran in september 11th.

misgovernment announced an agreement on the sale of f-15 fighter jets to saudi arabia. officials from the state and defense department say the nearly $30 billion sale reinforces u.s. commitment to stability and security in the region and would support over 50,000 american jobs. the first delivery of aircraft is expected to be in early 2015. this is about 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. before we do our regular daily briefing we have a special briefing today on u.s. sales to the kingdom of saudi arabia. with us today we have assistant secretary of state for political military affairs andrew shapiro and principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, james miller. so without further ado. >> the wanton nature of this briefing from someone from the

pentagon. [laughter] >> thank you everyone for coming this afternoon and joined by principal deputy undersecretary jim miller. as you may recall in october of 2010, i officially announced the administration's's plan to sell saudi arabia a package that included advanced f-15 fighter aircraft and helicopters. we are pleased to announce that over this past weekend the united states and saudi arabia signed a letter left offer and acceptance for the sale of up to 84 advanced f-15sa aircraft. it also includes upgrades to its current fleet of 70 f-15 aircraft as well as munitions, spare parts, training, maintenance and logistics. this sale is worth $29.4 billion. these f-15sa aircraft

manufactured by the boeing company will be among the most sophisticated and capable aircraft in the world. this agreement serves to reinforce the strong and enduring relationship between the united states and saudi arabia. it demonstrates the u.s. commitment to a strong saudi defense capability as a key component to regional security. since we've seen in june, 2010 our intent to conclude the sale, the department of state and defense have worked closely with the saudi government industry to finalize the particulars of the deal. jim and i both recently made separate trips to saudi arabia in part to discuss the sale. let me outline a few of the reasons why this decent package is so important and historic and how it will lead and u.s. national interest. this sale will send a strong message to countries in the region that the united states is committed to stability in the gulf and a broad middle east. it will enhance saudi and

media's ability to detour and defend against external threats it will lead and interoperable between air force of the two countries through the joint training and exercises. and lastly, this agreement will positively impact the u.s. economy and further evidence the president's commitment to create jobs by increasing exports. according to industry experts, this agreement will support more than 50,000 american jobs. it will engage 600 suppliers in 43 states and provide $3.5 billion in annual economic impact for the u.s. economy. this will support jobs will only in the aerospace sector but also in our manufacturing base and support chain which are all crucial for sustaining our national defense. i also wanted to note that this was carefully assessed under the u.s. government conventional arms transfer policy. this policy requires such sales

to be deemed to national security interest of the united states, consistent with the country's legitimate security needs and support for the u.s. regional objectives. with this agreement, the united states and saudi arabia have accomplished a historic achievement in a longstanding security partnership. a partnership that further security and stability in the gulf region. our longstanding security relationship with saudi arabia and other partners in the region has been a primary color of regional security for decades. and this sale further illustrates the firm commitment of the united states to the security and stability of the gulf region to but i will not turn over to jim miller who has more to say on the details of the package and how it advances the u.s. saudi military to military interest. after that we will be happy to take your questions. >> thank you, andrew kuran good afternoon and happy holidays to everybody. let me start by reiterating that

the united states is committed to the security of the kingdom of saudi arabia has we have been for nearly seven decades. the more broadly, the united states and saudi arabia have a strong mutual interest in the security and stability of the gulf. close cooperation between the military's is essential to the security and stability in and we are announcing today the most recent example of that cooperation. on december 24, the united states and saudi arabia finalized a letter of offer in acceptance for the purchase of 84 f-15sa aircraft and has an additional 70 f-15sa aircraft to this configuration. and this government-government foreign military sale fell used $29.4 billion. i'd like to say just a few words about the things under consideration. this aircraft, the f-15sa will be most capable and verso aircraft in the saudi fighter

inventory and indeed, it would be one of the most capable aircraft in the world. the f-15sa will have the latest generation of computer power, greed or technology, infrared sensors and electronic warfare systems. as one example, the f-15sa would be equal to with the scan radar putative this radar includes the latest technology and we will ensure that saudi vv and has the capability to operate against regional air threats. the sale also includes air-to-air missiles which provides both radar and infrared guided capability. the f-15sa will be civil to strike targets day or night in all weather. with a variety of precision guided munitions. be aided the ground with and give the includes laser-guided and gps guided weapons along with missiles that can attack the ground-based radar and missiles with harpoon in particular specialized

capabilities. the communications systems of the f-15sa will allow the u.s. air force and saudia arabia forced to operate together in the same air aerospace into the of portability will also allow both countries to participate in coalition training which is for both of our country's. in fact as the package includes not just aircraft and munitions, but the training and logistics supports that we talked about and it's a very robust package. much of the saudi training and the f-15sa looker alongside u.s. forces. this will enhance our already strong defense relationship and approximately 5,500 personnel will be trained through 2019. 5,500 through 2019. further striking the bond between the forces and between the countries. i've provided just a very high level review of the f-15sa capabilities. and i know they are forcing the company would be glad to offer a lot more details.

as andrew said, the u.s. saudi relationship has been a pillar of the regional security for decades. and this f-15sa seals demonstrates the firm commitment of the united states and reinforces our mutual commitment to the security and stability in the gulf. and with that, andrew and i would be glad to take your questions to reverse the mexican you said it sends a strong message to the countries in the region of the u.s. is committed to security. you didn't mention, and i presume that you both mean friends and foes. i would like to ask about two that haven't been mentioned which both begin with i, israel and iran. to begin with, israel. how easy was it to overcome any sensitivity that they might have about the sale? does it affect, you know, their advantage that you seek to preserve? and then on iran, you didn't mention it, but presumably the threat to the saudis in the region, is that you're thinking

do these planes coming equipped with like a map leading to iran and have israel like black out? what's of the thinking, what's the specific message to iran? >> maps are equal to the aircraft on israel, let me just say that by law all sales to the region must be evaluated for the impact of israel's quality and military action. we've conducted that assessment as i mentioned in a congressional briefing as during the briefing last year discussing. we conducted the assessment and we are satisfied that this sale with saudi area will not permit israel's quality to military action. as far as regional threats, aircraft are a platform last for decades. so they are designed to address

both current security threats as well as threats that are marched down the road as well. so, these aircraft will be delivered over the coming years, and our long-term commitment for the united states to saudi arabia security. >> so i can't get you to use the word iran? it's only four letters. [laughter] >> as i mentioned, it's designed to allow saudi arabia to address threats to its sovereignty and we believe this aircraft is able to provide the capability to use >> where do you see that coming from right now? at this specific moment in time? >> as you know, the middle east right now there is a number of threats. they have had border security issues, they have threats in the gulf as well. and clearly one of the threats that they face as well as other countries in the region is iran. but this is not solely directed

towards iran this is directed towards meeting partners in saudi arabia defense teams. >> welcome to the state department briefing. [laughter] >> just the same questions but a little bit differently. the timing of this said the video was struck the 24th. today is a day where there is a lot of news about the standoff with iran. can you definitively say there is no connection even in the announcement to that? >> well, we have been planning this announcement since the deal was struck before the latest tensions in the streets to become straight. and this deal -- we have been talking with the saudis about how to provide for their airpower needs for a number of years. and as i noted, announced this

package last year. so we do not have a package that responds to current events in the region but this is part of a longstanding discussion with our saudi partners about how to invest in these and we are announcing it because it was assigned on christmas eve which wouldn't have the right time to announce that three islamic amy butler from aviation. to go to the ge engine or did they go with a flat in jim? also what is the delivery time line and has saudi arabia expressed any interest in some of the add-ons that boeing has proposed that it had potential internal weapons to stop the characteristics for the future for their fighter fleet? >> let me take the question about the delivery terse. we expect the first delivery of the f-15 of a new aircraft in early 2015 and expect the upgrades of the f-15 to the

configuration to start in 2014 that is the expectation now scheduled. with respect to the internal capability of the aircraft it has very substantial capabilities. i will give you just a little bit more in terms of i mentioned some of the munitions. the radiation missile that goes against the radar with the precision strike capabilities also house in august to delay, the harpoon anti-ship missile very capable system called the centrifuge within and people in the room with the connected mission it's an incredible system with moving vehicles and of course -- very significant

capabilities there's always the possibility they would ask for more this provides another thing they ask for the the request and i know we have ongoing discussions with not to be provided the future. >> did go with the she or the flat? >> i would like to go back to the boeing company. >> to read as the many conditions put on the sale as an important member of the ec companies during the consideration if this can also be applied to other countries [inaudible] >> this was from saudi arabia and it is designed for the saudi defense team's. that being said, we are interested in working with other nations and developing a

regional architecture that will enable them to meet the challenges and threats posed in the region and this is a sale to saudi arabia that can be used by the saudi air force in order to defend its sovereignty. spread the question there was related to the fact that the saudis as a part of the gcc sent people into bahrain to put down so i think the question is are there restrictions so that they can't loaned them out or send them for use against the protesters and allies. is there in the u.s. law and regulation, any attempt to transfer weapons to any other country requires our approval. so, if not paid their craft yet. there has been no request made,

and indeed of the wanted to transfer these aircraft to any other partner -- >> i don't think it is a question of transfer. it's a question of if bombing is a part of the gcc or part of the other country requests assistance, and that assistance would include, i don't know, just this is obviously very hypothetical, but it would include them sending planes to bomb maine not transferring them, but for using them in bahrain are there any restrictions? >> i'm not going to get into the highly speculative political in the aircraft are not going to be delivered for until what least 2015 and as jim said. but our common understanding is that these aircraft are to help with their security needs and to protect the sovereignty. >> was their anything in the request that wasn't granted? >> as jimenez mentioned there was a letter of request and in a letter of request was in a

letter of acceptance. [inaudible] >> i will but jim take that one >> we're looking to sell the f-15 to iraq a different set of capabilities. the f-15sa is a terrific to devotee that includes some of the best attributes of the f-15 that we have in our inventory in some things including the radar that goes beyond what we have had for ourselves and will be looking to the analogous capabilities and to ourself to be a really different missions and a different focus for the f-16 and f-15. i wouldn't compare them looking to provide a very significant to the devotee with the f-16 to iraq as well with a very heavy focus on that case.

>> i'm curious is there any work share offset for the country? >> that is not government-government but as you know is between the boeing company and the saudi government. and as you probably also know it's better to have something in that regard rather than speaking to a before the company to answer. >> if you have [inaudible] did you see any threat in that region you had to take such action now by the u.s. on the sales? ever since the demonstrations [inaudible] spearman on the first question and not lead to get into the

private diplomatic discussions because they note that our evaluation is that the sale wouldn't have an impact on a qualitative military action. on the second, again, this has been long in the making discussions over providing aircraft for the saudi air force have taken place over a number of years. we announced the package last year, 2010, and we've negotiated the agreement over the past year and it was selling on christmas eve. >> how is the payment going to be made? >> i'm sorry? >> payment. timeline? speed under the foreign military style this would be analogous to the famous schedule. the first payment will be due in the coming weeks and months, and

the parents will occur over a period of a number of years. >> when you mention the first deliveries in early 2015 when is it completed, when do the last planes get their upgrades finished? >> it will be seven years after that. >> so fight? how many -- the reason i'm asking is because it does -- it goes without saying but i want you to see it any way that this is a sign or an indicator, indication that you have faith in the stability of the monarchies and think it is going to be around a little while longer. >> this is -- we have nearly seven decades of the relationship partnership with the saudi government. >> yeah, but as you know -- >> it continues for the long term. >> see you have faith and the stability of the market. >> if you see answer your question. thank you very much. >> i'm still waiting for how long -- how many years does it

take for the deal to be completed? >> we've got the aircraft themselves over a pergola several years after the initial delivery. we have the training that will occur over a period of i believe it is ten plus years and so it's something that is a sustained effort and shows sustained commitment between the u.s. and the saudi government, and both for the saudi security and the u.s. relations and for the promotion of the regional -- >> so do you have no end date for when all of the planes are delivered? >> there's a target date of seven years after -- >> several is how many? >> i will give you a precise answer. -- how long do you expect for this deals to sustain the 50,000 jobs you tell -- tallied? >> those numbers, a decade plus.

>> thanks. -- before. the supreme court hears a case

that fits privacy rights against search and policies of jails the case involves a man who was wrongfully arrested in 2005 for an unpaid find who was then taken to two different jails strip searched each one of them and released six days later after all charges were dropped. the court will decide if the fourth amendment which deals with unreasonable search and seizure was violated. this is an hour. >> we will hear argument first this morning in case 945 florence v. board of chosen freeholders of the county of burlington. mr. goldstein. >> mr. chief justice ne please the court? a jail made trips search in cases of reasonable suspicion that is the rule that was applied throughout almost the entire country and the three decades after without either administrative difficulty or any inherent increase in smuggling. we are here today of course because both the burlington jail

require every arrestee to stand 2 feet in front of a correctional officer and strip naked. >> you apply the reasonable suspicion rule to the oral arrestees i thought you are making a distinction between less serious offenders to respect me to apply it to all of the recipes. the presence to draw a line at major verses minor offenders. i think they do that because they think people who commit more serious crimes might be inclined to greater, nobody would our rule is one of reasonable suspicion. our question draws a line of the minor offenders because the definition is only people who were arrested for minor -- >> is there reasonable suspicion or easily met if is detained for a serious felony? >> it is in the view of the parts that have considered this question.

>> and you are going by a case by case basis on the defense? >> there's the categorical and that is fair was adopted by the respondents by the presence and the courts of appeals that say few were arrested for a more serious offense, categorically there is reasonable suspicion. artistic his role is true place with respect to lighter offenders if for. >> how does this work with respect to individuals who have been arrested -- let's say someone has been of arrested for an assault let's say it is a case of domestic violence assault. would that be enough to justify the search? >> i think you have to ask. i know you want me to answer the question let me be very clear. this is the rule, the respondents straw of the meaner major events like to read the resplendently reasonable suspicion. in my --

>> you see don't want to draw the line you ought to apply it to everybody and i'm asking you whether the fact that someone has been arrested for a violent defense would in your judgment be sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion to the estimate of the jail makes that judgment we would think the court wouldn't overturn that judgment we think that illustrates the contrast when someone is arrested by not paying a fine there is no justification whatsoever because the logic of their own policy is that this is a person who is inclined to violence. islamic but i take that what we are trying to do is to protect the individual dignity of the detainee, but it seems to me that you risk compromising that individual dignity if you say we have reasonable suspicion as to you. you are just setting us up and a worsening of the detainee for a classification that may be questioned at the time and will be seen as an affront based on a

person's race or what he or she said with officers coming in. so it seems to me that your rule in perils individual dignity and that in a way the blanket rule does not treat stomach a couple of points i think it is an incredibly important issue they don't have a blanket rule. remember the respondent to apply the reasonable suspicion standard they do strip everyone naked but they are going to look for contraband, that is look at the person's mouth, look at their anus, of a require reasonable suspicion standard. to your very serious concern that maybe we are inviting discrimination or at least an appearance of discrimination, remember that there rule was going to produce more of that problem than ours because in their rule that is not that they have to strip search everyone for contraband, but the rule is they can. they can make a choice. this court in the -- the -- >> i'm not sure if it is their rule or our will. ultimately it will be our role. [laughter] >> first let me say i hope not. i hope that your will is there

has to be a reasonable suspicion standard which is the world was applied almost everywhere in the week of dell versus -- >> to do what? >> you just said stripped naked? it's different from hastert search? so what is permitted? there are various things. one is shorting in the prisons of officers? >> shom urning in the presence of officers is not something that requires reasonable suspicion. they give uniformly concluded if you are just generally in an area in which you are being monitored by the officers that is not a fourth amendment search that violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. >> this can be expected without their clothes, just more than that? >> there are two different scenarios. one is the common room where everyone is standing around and for jail security purposes -- a common shom or hearing and for security purposes this is different, justice ginsburg.

you asked what is prohibited in the absence of suspicion. what's prohibited is standing 2 feet away from the person -- >> i want to know what is permitted. >> what is permitted is what is not specific to reasonable suspicion standards is anything other than looking at a close inspection of the person at arm's length. but the courts of appeals of uniformly recognized in the lower federal courts with a literature recognizes and really but i think concerned this court in the stanford case is that when you are standing so close to the person inspecting their genitals, looking directly at their most private parts of their body that is a direct intrusion on their individual -- >> are you suggesting that the three different levels, stripping naked, it's okay to stand 5 feet away but not 2 feet? >> i don't think the courts have had to confront 5 feet versus 2 feet. but they have confronted as they acknowledge that jails are places that require security so if your just observing a shower

room that does not implicate a reasonable suspicion. >> so are you taking the position that its purpose of the search? >> no. it's the closeness. there is not a problem i think with a question of-3 come four, 5 feet. they're always done the same way and that is the officer stands directly in front of you. the testimony is 2 feet away if it seems to be the common -- >> i still am unsure if it is okay to shower and have an officer watched you shower naked what is the greater intrusion is that you are standing 2 feet as opposed to 5 feet away? >> two fi two versus 10 feet or generally observing the room. >> that is a line that doesn't make much sense to me. let's go to the next line, which is that is one kind of search. the second is i think what some have called a visual cavity search. whether you are going to have the individual opened were exposed private parts.

can you make an argument that that's different than just a visual search? >> you can. let me just say, let me try to close up my answer to the question to the five versus 10 feet away and then turn immediately to this body cavity search. remember the court will recall that this is a reprise of the argument in this effort case where the schools argued that while there is an observation of the students in gym class, the shower together me get, the m dress and the court said it's quite different when you are standing right there looking over the student. so that's what implicates the fourth amendment right to privacy and the distinction to make sense. as to your question, yes there is a material difference we think that those should be covered by the rule. but a visual body cavity inspection as occurred to the facility here where you require someone to bend over and cou