the establishment clause standing case and there you had the five / four decision but there were three opinions in the majority. . . but they came out in different directions. the same thing happened throughout the storm. it is true that we have seen since the '90s when

justice stevens was the senior liberal justice but when justice stevens was in that position is certainly made a big.trying to draw them altogether. justice gainsborough tries to do the same thing is cautious and signing dissenting opinions when necessary. i they seem to exert a kind of discipline cohesion the stereotypically expect more of a conservative when he saw and the marriage case and opinion no one would mistake for having been written by anyone else. all four of the liberal justices who joined him thought exactly the same thing because none of them wrote a concurring opinion or sought a single punctuation mark being out of line. they do have that unity.

the conservatives seem to have some down significantly and sometimes minor ways of wanted to get to the same place. >> one other thing is going on. there is a generational divide the sometimes shows between the chief justice justice scalia one mostly of the fact that he sees the five votes to do something he wants to get it done now in the chief justice is not necessarily see that sense of urgency. one example from a few years ago the right to life case where justice scalia raised that the chief justice would not go far enough. a same thing happened last year where again someone here turn an angry concurrence

justice scalia complained the court was no should have known. >> he saw the justice making his.about the unity footnote where he says -- and there is some forced of this. this. the liberals who signed on the opinion had the assignment would have written it very differently and they would have been more doctrine. you might have been able to flesh out the constitutional provision level of scrutiny or equal protection fits in. they like to speak with one voice. for justice that even if he were inclined to vote pulitzer-setting a paper bag and provide the fifth vote. >> it's funny. the following

monday is hot justices burn a paperback. >> and the lethal and just -- lethal injection case the court should review the constitutionality of the death penalty. there are already a few. you think the court is likely to take up the constitutional issue? >> i guess i'm skeptical. in the case justice breyer said he very likely fill the death penalty itself was unconstitutional and that this is a product of a product of his 20 years of reviewing these cases on the bench for a variety of reasons including how long it takes to carry out sentences how any violations that have been factors. what is curious is that he is not the first justice to come late in his career to this conclusion. justice blackmun did. justice stevens did in the end of his time and is curious that it would take and reality justice breyer

20 years to come to a conclusion that was sitting there and 94. 94. he had just seen justice blackmun say those very words. in the same in the same reason that breyer is applying today has existed for some time. but the reason i don't think this is necessarily going to get a full hearing before the court is that it seems unlikely that even if the other two liberal justices were inclined to take this on they would do it without knowing. i i don't think you want to take on a case. i don't see any indication that he is willing to take that final step. he has talked the whole case about intellectual disability about the importance of the dignity

that reflects the nation. could be open to that kind of challenge challenge, but i haven't seen any indication. >> justice kennedy, a different kind of challenge which were aware litigator i would probably bring. absolutely absolutely nothing in the case involving jury selection. he invited a challenge to the constitutionality of indefinite solitary confinement. the people in that business should get on the ball. on the rogers.why breyer and ginsburg know it is their opposition to the death penalty. have a good post speculating

that it is actually one of the least fun aspects of being a supreme court justice of the and dropped it at night with a steady parade of last-minute applications. >> a a lifestyle thing. [laughter] >> breyer might say that it gives them an insight. we only execute 35 people year. why those 35 as opposed all the other murders he has scratching your head. clicks that was more true years ago there were more executions of options. something that can't be said in the process of being

nominated and confirmed. people that point. there is a certain freedom that comes with the approach of retirement. clicks if they do reach that constitutional issue the chief justice dissent complaining are looking at the states that have recently repealed how come the condemned community would not wait for the democratic process to play out. >> justice when you wrote about pres. obama's comments linking him with past presidents have the say. do you think you think it had any impact on the outcome? clicks that speaks for itself. clicks should we expect this to be a normal going forward? clicks this was interesting. hope all i had gotten attention for his comments on court cases particular before being decided as well as after where it's a bit

more typical. but it did seem interesting. he actually went as far to criticize the certain stage in june of the court should not have taken this case. so it was interesting and thus by coincidence i have i happen to have sitting in my inbox study of presidential comments. looking at the the study and seeing how rare was although not completely unheard of i don't i don't think it's going to be a very typical thing. i think out of one factor presence most likely to comment on pending cases tend to be lawyers who think they know a lot about the

law and are in a position to discuss it. and so president clinton, that on on the pending case in a signing statement where he predicted that coincide with in a sampling case. it has happened before. i don't think it is going to become. as president believes he knows a lot about the law and is in a good position to explain it. i don't i don't think he has any illusions about that. more trying to explain or layout is the positions of public either assure them that his legal position is wise unsustainable or lay the groundwork for a response should he lose. i don't think it's going to be that talent. talent. i don't think obama has planned most of these remarks. that came out of the press

conference where he is directly asked the question and immediately responded. my guess is that it will be something we see very typically although he has had more significant pieces of legislation before the court than the typical person. person. clicks okay. for any of the panelists. as we enter the presidential election cycle how do you think the supreme court will be? senator takers is proposing. do you think the court will become an important issue? quakes every four years we have this conversation. it always ends up being no accept the only time or in recent times when the court was an issue with richard nixon ran. it it only was an issue running is the court because

it fit into the law and/or line or a campaign that he ran more generally. i think to think that the court -- i can't remember the statistics. more people can identify the three stooges. the stooges. the idea that it will become a salient issue is unlikely. >> i i think that the supreme court, the holder becomes is well well-known the longer he or she serves. they they are on tv and then disappear. we found chief justice roberts is bound by fewer americans today that he was ten years ago. a recent poll. i think right now it's important for donors. this invisible part of the election. hard-core people on both the

left and right who are super concerned about the direction of the court. in this portion of those watching today. they will be making their preference no not so much of the ballot box but in which candidates that support. i think it is important to some constituencies. have the court ruled differently such as the marriage case with the healthcare case it might have been a bigger political issue. i would only happen if we end up with a a vacancy close to election day crystallizes the stakes immediately clicks i completely agree that the court will not play much of a role. as a form of matter it ought to. to. the next president will probably get to a.supreme

court justices and that is why why people will pay more attention. clicks. so. we just covered it better. abcaseven. >> the flipside of that question, do you think any of the justices will shy away from taking up any particularly controversial issue? >> we have seen no evidence of that. [laughter] clicks this question for all three of you. virtually impossible to get anything done. so kennedy was in the majority do you think roberts is increasingly going to come the typical? >> i think i wrote that just

to.out the oddity there was not one decision where both kennedy and robert horan dissent. license roy dissent. license plate case. it is only happened one time a forgettable case a few years ago when the five junior justices were majority. have said the chief justice seems like is going to play that role where questions are present the court's institutional integrity. i think he is more likely to vote graphs of those cases are ideologically split where he worries about a decision that looks too much like a decision by from republican appointed justices would damage the course reputation. >> unless i'm. >> unless i'm mistaken there are exactly two decisions

this up. >> one final question. question. is there a particular concurrence or dissent that you found striking this term >> i liked the brief parents, doesn't. many long-distance many long-distance about the vagaries of the administrative state. [laughter] but i like i like that after justice kennedy called for a look at solitary confinement justice thomas wrote back in a separate concurrence that he thought that a death row inmate in particular have much more spacious quarters the one occupied by his victims. >> i would agree that those two are a great set. quakes just the one phrase

after another. [laughter] >> with that we will open up to the audience. identify identify yourself and ask a brief question.

quakes as he pointed out the court said very little other than not negligence and i imagine people will be trying to make sense of that >> it is likely the 2016 election will continue to find the government that exists today.

the first nature to the next appointment clicks any additional questions? clicks thank you very much. just some thoughts. clicks there are three of them. this last term will be hard to be. we had the first healthcare case then liliana first goal of marriage you had

healthcare a marriage together. is going to be hard to follow. three things. that makes you think there are at least four votes in an attempt to put kennedy hellespont. never voted to uphold the program. here again the bible of the what the court means. our second case represents a very serious challenge whether nonmembers of public unions can be forced nonetheless to pay for fees that the unions use the collective bargaining activities that may be said to violate the first amendment rights.

very interesting a substantial question in the quite consequential case. in this interesting case. what does one person one vote mean? the account every single person on the count the people who were eligible to vote? in this matters. at the moment most count every single person. in their visitors you get a lot of children legally from abroad undocumented people people's right to vote has been stripped of prisoners and so you have vastly different voting power in different districts if you mean eligible voters. the court has agreed to decide which way that goes. great political consequences because at the moment urban

centers extensively in more voting power the world. the court least will recast that. quakes that doesn't include the strong likelihood of abortion this of the texas quite restrictions. >> quite surprising cannot take it. and so they are for the first time in a long time memorial look clicks and the others? clicks those are the big ones that are here right now the lesson we saw is that is because the court is willing to look does not mean that the outcome is complete which is the lesson we get particularly from the texas versus inclusive communities case of the disparate impact case. we saw the court going out

of its way to look at that issue twice on the issue twice twice having the casting hearing

>> "washington journal" continues. host: back at our table this morning, congresswoman loretta sanchez. welcome, thank you for being here again. guest: thank you, good morning. host: i want to begin with what happened yesterday. we saw these computer glitches with the new york stock exchange, the wall street journal's website, and then united airlines. your reaction to them. guest: well, certainly a little disconcerting when you have three major icons of the

american economy, in particular, get attacked at once or not work at the same time. i believe we will have to ask someone questions and really delve into it. i know that the administration and others have said that they are completely disconnected. and we hope that that would be the case. but remember, every day, we get attacked from cyber attacks in everything. in bines >> every day we get attacked in everything business, defense computers. we really need to understand that this may be just the beginning of many issues. this is a form of war torn toward us. i'm not saying yesterday was okay for someone has to take a look at it. >> when it comes to

yesterday was up on capitol hill testifying and was asked by lawmakers about the computer question. >> we want to dig into that. we have been involved in all three contracts to understand what is going on and see no indication of the suffrage. stock stock exchange to find out what's going on but it looks -- and my business you don't love coincidences. it coincidences. it does appear there is not a cyber intrusion involved. >> we have seen them before on amazon gets too busy or someone's website gets way too busy. all of a all of a sudden it goes down. i can imagine that is what happened. we definitely need to ensure that is the case.

>> you believe these cyber attacks are acts of war. what does the law say? what should the commander-in-chief be doing? clicks the commander-in-chief in this particular case is actually doing quite a bit about drilling down into attacks. there attacks. there are two separate entities and the us government. the first is military side of our senses and the second is homeland security which is to protect everything else of the defense. it happens i am one of those persons who sit on both cyber committees for both of those committees. we are doing a lot more than most people think. it i have to say and people will understand it is always after the fact. some sort of attack happens

to strengthen this. we will this. he will always react to what happened before which is difficult. but we must really are trying and trying, and the president is trying to turn it into what could possibly happen rather than what has happened in the past. these are insurgent attacks. they get to choose any time in a place how they will try to attack us. there are actually countries have places whose sole job of 10,000 people every day going to some shop plan their sole job is to try to infiltrate our defense strategy for defense blueprint for next big new fighting plane what have you it is a constant a constant

barrage of highly paid people to try to infiltrate our system. >> is the united states prepared? >> i will tell you that i feel very confident to begin with the financial institutions. we have worked to work with them. they're them. they are in private hands which is another issue also. 90% of the infrastructure that is important for thinking infrastructure is not controlled by the federal government. it's controlled an individual hands. we work hand-in-hand to ensure there is redundancy robustness so that hopefully you don't get to an atm and no money. we are working hard.

>> what about the information sharing legislation? clicks which one problem that we have, senators have their own ideas. in the house your past several pieces. i don't believe that is really strong enough. it's just were down. honestly the many resources put towards cyber security. they feel like if they have to move on lawmakers take their sweet time clicks speaking of technology in the fight and headlines in the papers that isys is using encrypted code in order to carry out their strategy against iraq, syria what are your thoughts about the us strategy right now?

>> honestly, i believe the us strategy -- we all agree on the same thing. i would say from my perspective are a direct threat now and in an international threat. they are a problem for the united states and the well-being of americans. we have to understand that we must put the resources toward making sure they don't have safe haven and toward making them ineffective. i believe most of my colleagues in the congress and lawless people in washington dc believe that is the case. it is a strategy. how can we do we get to that.? clearly you have just a look

a look at what has happened to understand our strategy is not working. the strategy we have is not working. so what would i do? well, we have a strategy on the political. state department is trying to work with iraq in particular to try to give three different groupings, syria shoot me kurds. me kurds. this has not happened. it has not happened and is not great the government control is using iranian soldiers to go after i saw them to go after others. it was a problem and does not gain confidence. so the nuclear trying to do the political. doing this for a decade and it's not working. certainly certainly we are trying to deny the laissez-faire. intelligence.

effective military campaign. economic were campaign. economic trying to cut off the financial arm. treasury is doing that. informational. department of state and our intelligence agencies trying to fight this whole web-based recruitment. incredibly important. this is a major problem, recruitment event people who cannot hurt us by going to syria and iraq in different places and could create problems here here and you saw in the long tunisia: the tunisia, the places for individuals. and homeland security ensuring people are not

getting in. what do i i think it takes to be successful? i think first and foremost is the united states has to decide if it wants to win this battle. if that is the case the current situation is not working and we have to devote more resources. i do not say that we need to put ground troops in. there are other ways in which you can turn the tide. tide. it has to be much more effective. clicks adam is up first. pacific palisades california. >> high. how are you clicks you live in a beautiful place clicks thank you. i want you. i want to talk about how increasing international affairs budget with pretty much decrease the safe and for these terrorist groups and isys specifically. we saw these conditions in world war i and after world

war i and germany leading to hitler coming to power. we saw it in afghanistan were al qaeda was able to operate freely and most recently in somalia were terrorist organization was actually to recruit friends and give them money or food in exchange for helping terrorist groups. increasing international affairs budget we would not put in troops. it would be cheaper. it would decrease the safe havens for terrorists groups clicks adam, you are very farsighted. let's think about what has happened. when we have an embassy in a country we call the mission. it used to be we had the ambassador and economic development and peace corps

in a college development all toward what animals talking about. people are comfortable it will be less poor and less of them wanted to come to the united states. if you can make a good living if your quality of life is okay you will be happy to be there. the mission is always about places we can impact. this this is what happened in the 19 years. our missions in a particular country continue to grow on the military presence and in some cases have been cut in all these other economic and educational and institutions pro-democracy and human rights in these type of things. now people in other countries when they view our embassies view it as a military compound most of the time rather than as a mission to help integrate people.

i would agree with you. it cost a lot less to do that. that. unfortunately those types of programs either stay there stagnant or have been cut. especially especially when we do some of the sequestration issues and bring in the budget we tend to favor military and decrease what is going on in the foreign relations aspect >> edgewater, maryland. you are on the air. go ahead. good morning. >> i just wanted to ask you something. getting the united states involved i am worried about military excursions because to me it does not seem like

it goes anywhere. i don't think that there is necessarily a military solution. one of the things is you are on this committee. so you guys discuss unintended consequences? for every action there is a reaction. mr. qaddafi was killed and hunted down i i remember clearly that qaddafi stated that if you tell me the floodgates will open up and all these people from the middle east and africa will come to your command that is exactly what happened. the other thing is i find that president bush has set the middle east on fire with his administration. all of these conflicts today are a direct result of involvement in trying to take our leaders and discriminatory without thinking about the long-term end result. >> first of all, thank you for your comment and your

question. the fact of the matter is you're looking at someone who voted against going into iraq. why? because i could see the future, we were future, we were not prepared for once we brought down saddam will are going to do what time when we had what can the government was going to sit there. we have been quite honest ineffective. anyone can look and understand we have not been successful. so the answer is yes there are quite a few of us try to do that. the problem was only with bush and the republican congress the majority of my democratic colleagues voted to going.

some of us some of us of the aftermath is the problem. here we sit having major problems. do we do it enough? you all think about what is going to have? the answer is no. we don't do that enough. we don't have the time and space bar we can say really? 's ability. ability. if it is the forefront colorado our plate a boat conflict about conflict most of us get as much information as possible. precedent unintended and non- discussed issues happen after the fact. we spend a lot of time trying to figure out how result was.

in some cases it is an ended up as a quagmire. >> watching. you're on the air. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. i had a question. i followed everything. ex- military. i trained for nine weeks. advanced infantry training. we go off and fight a war. we continue to put money in mentoring people for ten years. they drop their weapons. why do we keep putting get money after bad.

clicks that you are finished. >> if you look back at the history of my question in dealing with the general whether it was dempsey betray dempsey, pretorius, this whole issue of what we call the army thought was strained in colombo the military. if military. if you look back at the hundreds of thousands supposedly that would be more front. somebody somebody was just pulling a paycheck. recruitment. this was going to constitute

and here's the basic issue. the tough things that had be done we had never done. dempsey and franks and others. this whole issue of population, 60 percent shia and putting in what turned out to be basically a phenotype leader malik he was about time. the the fact that proportionally speaking monies and what should should have gone to the kurds, sunni this year, but year but only when one direction or the fact that the military is always heavily cited. the current really didn't feel like they had a

position our place and nodded in the sunnis. created and instability, lack of confidence to deal effectively with each other. and so we and so we never were able to unite and iraq because the was only one. given the fight now should the united states are directly the kurds? yes. >> they have proven -- >> well, let's go to the kurds. the only kurds. the only effective fighting force really. we have to go with those that we can win with. you know i told me for years. i've been going talking to the. people with you. before with you. you have been with you.

you. you know, we have been doing rudimentary because nothing has come from baghdad. if is going to be 20 percent send to us. there is regional conflict. the sunnis conflict. the sunnis are afraid she are afraid. right now the only true standing his ground. the kurds. this work with the body of people who actually can win these battles. >> carry in arlington. >> good morning. as you say you have been doing it for years. full disclosure, i write independently.

things are not getting better. the internet issues and for military programs that were developed. and then came eye candy. in the past two years than the proliferation of the domain names which allows anybody are in the world to be an entity or of force military program was started in 98. that is a program that allows people to be. [inaudible] these are american started programs. it is important to look back at us. it's what i

do when i look back at papers. papers. i spend a lot of time on congress. i don't see the research that needs to be done being done. i see new i see new people and old seat of the witness table. i hear people just running off of talking points. this is a very serious issue clicks yes. the answer is that within the military we have special areas that deal with these things. gps, the internet several other issues. basic research. when you do basic research whether in the military for international institute for science the national institute for health although i would say that the real cutting-edge we

would have imagine what it turned into. we did the basic research and then have a policy. with that out of the commercial world because we believe they can find application the basic research with gives us things like yahoo and google and websites. we have much less control once it goes in the commercialization. the journalist is correct. we we the government best basic research. should we have should we have held the internet only to the defense department? i i mean, i think as americans we see the positive on the answer would be of course not.

but we also to police the internet? it is not the defense department's job once it goes into a commercial space to police the internet. and so the question is who and do we and the people feel that is a privacy issue? a lot of issues fall into this realm of what do we do with the internet. every time we try to say something is not expanded charge people who want want to go super super highway far do taxation, and it has to do with the internet people are always let's hope my god. this is a free thing that allows people to move freely allows us to talk to her grandchildren. don't touch it. that is a grassroots effort. so yes, unfortunately with the good

comes as bad. grandparents who want to talk to her grandchildren and australia the free they also means the terrorists can think of and do bad things. programs will you trying to figure out what they are doing. doing. yes. is it enough? most likely not quite talking with republican loretto sanchez. talking about threats to the united states, isys strategy, etc. >> good morning. these tough things you were talking to, how about you doing this and think? get off your seat, go across the street, and get the chambers and start doing the tough things. all you do is talk about this and never solvency

problems clicks give us an example. >> give us an example. sure. they're going to jump in there. i want her to give us an example of how she can go to work and start at 8:00 in the morning and work until 5:00. don't give me the excuses that you are in committee. go to work like all democrats. clicks congresswoman. >> first of all, i don't go work at it and leave at five. i started fixing them done around ten or 11. by the way if you ask a most anyone who knows me i i work about six and a half to seven days a week. your whole premise that we are just sitting around and talking, i don't believe it's correct.

there are a lot of things we're working on the trolley assault. if you ask anyone around the chamber and in the senate they will tell you are working on a bipartisan manner of issues that are important and can.to specific things. iron things. iron dome was a project that we really pushed when others do not want to see it happen a defensive mechanism which will probably be in other countries. issues that i'm working on right now with respect to the baltics and our nato allies trying to ensure that we align correctly in order to move forward. this iran nuclear deal: the illustration is with respect to which the in the congress have a very very -- should have a limited role according to the administration that we

expanded our old because we believe it is so important to the american people. working with european allies to ensure sanctions are in place to have brought iranians of the table and should there be a deal it is acceptable how we ensure that sanctions don't come off right away, ensure that the bodies of other parliaments our allies work with us? these things just don't happen. there has to be a lot of dealmaking, pushing in order to make these things happen. clicks here is a headline. no time limit on nuclear talks. what if there is no deal but the administration keeps the talks open going? >> i believe that i believe that the congress will stand for that. clicks how would congress changes? >> congress can just say we're putting back up all sanctions.

again, it prior european allies because there has to be some lessening of the sanctions. and that is a. more money iran has we are just limping along trying to make a deal if it were me the more i would probably be moving to try to get to a better bargaining point. that means more toward having a nuclear weapon that i can actually use versus not clicks while these talks have been going on around striking deals with other countries. >> that is a problem. again what are you doing? well we can put in all the

sections we want. all that's happening is business people tell us a getting a deal. it is important his diplomatic efforts try to be significant and actually have the players that make a difference at the table with respect to this negotiation, negotiation, it's a pretty big deal. i looked. clicks go back to calls. even michigan. >> yes. good morning. on the iron dome i would like i would like to remind you that it was the israelis the jewish people to develop that iron dome for you to the rockets, shot at them, incorporated an excellent way to use it. we are the ones responsible. .number two if you do your

work and do it -- how can i say it, been officially why you let those books mark nerds that call themselves scientists was billions of our tax dollars to have rockets blown up in the face trying to get supplies to the internet space station. and station. and it took the russians to get it there because you could not keep mr. kelly brother of gabby giffords wife you could not keep him alive. his life is dependent upon vladimir putin. we cannot we cannot get them back. we have no way to get them back command we have no way to keep them alive supplies. it is the russians. >> all right. >> first of all it's a defensive system.

it was researched and developed by israel that we put the money in the manufacturing. we are manufacturing and now so it has been an effort i joint effort. a joint effort. as so many of the programs. .. other programs on the cutting edge with respect to missile defense have been. not only does it benefit israel, it will benefit the european continent and our allies in asia. it is an integral part of what we do with respect to missile defense. it takes all of us together. so yes, of course it was researched in israel, but it was actually paid for by the united

states. with respect to -- i guess upset with respect to nasa and trying to get supplies to the space station? we have cut back our whole idea of what we do with respect to space exploration. that is one of the cutbacks that has happened in the federal budget. we have decided a while back before i even came to the congress that we would do that in conjunction. but it was one of those relationship building issues with respect to the russians if we could do something up there with respect to research versus weaponize nation of spacation of space that we would build a working relationship with the russians because we need them. when we confront issues like iran getting a nuclear weapon or

chemical weapons in syria. we cannot ignore the chinese the russians -- do i think that they come to the table on each and every subject willing to work with us or without another agenda? no. we work with them where we can how we can. it was decided a while back that we would work in conjunction with them with respect to the space station. greta wodele brawner: usa today has this story. it has been reported that an iso-leader inis leader has been killed in a drone strike. diego is on the phone. caller: do you think the government would think it is hypocritical that you are trying to limit their recruitments while the u.s. recruits its own

military? and do you support the part of the ndaa that would extend the drug war money to other countries at the time when we realize that the drug war is not working in our country and mexico is using our money to kill its own people? loretta sanchez: with respect to the drug war, you are looking at somebody who has had a different attitude on how we handle that, especially within our own borders. i think it's much more complicated than most people believe. when innocent lives are taken as we have seen in some cases where entire populations have been under the thumb of narco trafficants, it's a problem for us. with respect to isis and recruitment, the united states

is a recognized country. isis is not. it is not recognized by its neighbors, by the united states, by russia, we do have a military and we recruit for the military. and oh, by the way, that military is under civilian control. it is under our commander in chief is a civilian. president obama is not a military man. he is a civilian. we have a doctrine in the unit states that our military will be under the control of civilians. isis does not have that. it is neither recognized as a state and it certainly doesn't have the doctrine of its army under control of its people. so i think you are trying to compare apples and oranges. greta wodele brawner: this story

in the new york times says, after killing a deported felon san francisco mayor is now mulling -- has strong criticism from both parties. the mayor said he would speak to federal officials about how the city could participate in a new obama administration deportation program after a mexican felon who had been deported five times with charged with murdering a woman. loretta sanchez: it's always interesting how one case always gets the news when the reality is that that is not the full breadth of what is going on with respect to people who are without documents. greta wodele brawner: and sanctuary cities. loretta sanchez: we all know that most people who are here without the right documents are not here to hurt us and they are not here to be criminals. they are here to make a better life for themselves and their children. we know that.

my parents are immigrants who came to this country with nothing. they had seven children. they educated them all here. they educated themselves. and by the way, they are the only parents ever in the history of the united states to send two daughters to the united states congress. we bleed red white and blue. so is this the case with most people that come here? because we are still the people of hope in the world. so what have we done? it has always been the policy that we deport criminals. that has been the number one issue with respect to deportation. so when we are as a country spending our resources pulling a mother off of her two children both of whom are either born here or one has a green card or

the mom has no paperwork and we as a country say, she's an illegal here, let's deport her. that's the worst thing we could be doing to those american children. they need their mom. and we know this. anyone who is about family values understands this. we have been spending our time trying to eliminate that rather than saying, let's get the money and go after the criminals. now i believe that president obama has been in maybe six years, he finally shifted away from that to criminals criminals criminals these are the people we have to get. i have not had a chance to read the full brief on this gentleman in san francisco who took the life of this beautiful young woman and i mean beautiful in all aspects from what i hear --

that he had been deported several times and had returned several times. so these are the type of people we need to say, how do we use our limited resources to ensure that these people don't get back into our country. greta wodele brawner: but you do not want to see a policy shift in san francisco. you want to see remain a sanctuary city. loretta sanchez: san francisco is going to have to decide that for themselves. there are several sanctuary cities in california, but it has always been even my local law enforcement, that the criminals are the ones we pick up and put behind bars and support. but then it comes deport. but then we send them back into countries that don't have the resources to know what to do with these criminals. if the country you are coming from is in a better place and

you believe you have a better future there, you are probably going to stay there. these people are coming back to return to their same disgusting methods. greta wodele brawner: we are coming up on a major anniversary of the vietnam war. you put out a press release saying you were against the white house hosting a vietnam leader which happened on tuesday at the white house. why? loretta sanchez: he is the head of a political party. by the way, only one party system in vietnam. think about that as americans. there's only the communist party. it was the leader of the commonest party -- communist party. what is the world leader doing hosting someone who is not a per liter at the white house -- world leader at the white house? he has no power.

why are we hosting a communist party leader at the white house? that to me is a problem. especially when it is a one party system and they are terrible on religious rights and human rights and labor rights and environmental issues. there is no freedom of the press or freedom of assembly. if you are a church leader, you are allowed to have sunday mass. as the priest inside that church that is the only time my congregation can meet. anything else is an illegal assembly. i'm not allowed to pass out anything written. i can't pass out something that

says, there will be a pancake breakfast on thursday. nothing. limitation on speech, the press the press can only be state sanctioned. it is a terrible country with respect to human rights. and yet the president would host a party leader? not even an official from the country? i think we need to push back and say, every time we have lessened constraints on you, we eliminated the embargo will lead you into the world trade organization. now we are looking at this transpacific partnership agreement. every time we have done economic positives for your country, you have told us you are going to be better about human rights. and every time, you have become worse. i have a little problem with

respect to what's going on there. greta wodele brawner: this weekend marks the 50th anniversary of the vietnam war.

ohn mccain chairs the committee. >>

>> [inaudible conversations] one some neck again morning we're considering the nomination of general dunford to the joint chiefs of staff.

general dunford is no stranger to the members of this committee. we have known him as commandants and the marine corps. a leader of the of highest quality we are grateful for his 38 years of distinguished service per komer also thank the for the sacrifices his family has made over the years and their willingness to lend to the nation in service once again. as tradition and we welcome you to introduce the members of your family from like to take this moment to express special thanks to your life we know how his absence rest on you every honor the sacrifice you make three your continued support through our nation not to mention the downgrade is in

your residence. [laughter] the next chairman will have to have the most divers complex array of a crisis since the end of world war ii from iraq hands syria army is succeeding on the battlefield to take other cager rate in iraq capturing half of the territory in syria and lack of a coherent strategy has resulted in the spread of isil around the world with egypt in nigeria through afghanistan by visited last weekend to. with a stable and democratic future by even as they threaten the future the

president is committed to a drastic reduction never presents a the end of 2016 before the afghan guerrillas and forces are fully capable to operate without armor support. this would create a security vacuum and given your experience and i newt -- of tennessee and we're interested to hear your thoughts about the appropriate u.s. coalition presence going forward. meanwhile iran through is peace and stability through a pursuit of nuclear weapons to the targets far beyond the shores. it continues the onslaught but even as they execute the campaign to undermine the

government united states has refused what it has used for its defense the asia-pacific continuing the militarization in the south china sea is a military buildup designed to counter the strength and the undeterred the cyberattacks against the united states of those with the asia-pacific to show success the especially the alliance's this is not deterred china but thank most capable but are less innovative but more vulnerable to a high-tech ones and the self-inflicted

wounds of the of budget control act have made all of these problems worse it is dropping dangerously low the navy's fleets to shrinking to pre-world war one levels. with the military capacity and readiness to compromise to accumulate danger to national security. to imperil the ability with the technological of vantage but the submarines are the armored vehicles they are important to seize the future to make vital

investments with a breakthrough technology with the data analytics. they have stated even if the defense to par receives the additional $30 billion above the budget cap of the request to remain at though low were ragged edge with the ability to execute the defense strategy. more worrisome the military service chiefs has testified with the level of defense spending puts american lives at greater risk unless we change course to return the strategy defense budgets i fear it will have depleted

readiness and deteriorating morale the matter how many dollars misspent we cannot provide our military the equipment they need it costs too much and takes too long. and then to reform the system to empower the service leaders to manage their own programs in exchange for greater accountability. general dunford we're very interested to hear your views about improving the defense acquisition system based on years of service finally the principal military adviser more than ever read honest and forthright leader to offer the best military and vice president lot zero is taken but it is my hope he always

has an appreciation of the military dimensions of the difficult problems our nation confronts. thank you for your willingness to serve with a foreword to your testimony. >> i would like to take this opportunity to thank him for 38 years of military service he has served with courage and distinction and will continue to do so as the next joint chief of staff. but may thank his family for being here today and others wanted to be here but they're serving elsewhere. last week the current chairman release the 2015

strategy and stated that the current environment is the most unpredictable he has seen some of the military vantage such a face a wide range of challenges as with the complex international issues but do encounter the security threat from isil iraq and syria as the president said earlier this week the counter isil campaign is long term and will require all elements including with the economic and if confirmed with the

campaign with the safe haven with the capacity of the forces from the coalition. the access of the efforts will depend to address the conditions of 40 your your views and with the effort on the diplomatic front. the matter what happens is the department of defense will pay it - - play a eight key role were keen to ds the late these threats. general dunford will also bring his experience of the

afghan security forces in hands the taliban attacks more needs to be done to build the capability is to deny a safe haven to play a critical role later this year and a security challenge with my european neighbors but with the defensive weapons to help the people declare sovereignty and what steps with the attacks from cry me and eastern ukraine. the men and women there your

top concern also. as we juggle the twin goals of high-quality of life with their pay and competition with the equipped military some time said means making hard choices with the budget by refiners those. that during my time as commandant we had many changes and proposals and health care with the health care for so that we could read direct the of buyback with and readiness id benefits. during consideration with a

robust debate with the defense programs this sequestration is not the approach 70 to address the fiscal challenges. the defense budget this strategy even that one-year increase in spending with a five-year budget and as a consequence to morale the troops they rely on for the best technology. the date you again for your ruling as.

>> bed there are question vince i would like to proceed with that before your testimony. it is important for the committees of bacon received as many briefings are communication or every share. you here to put complex and interest. >> i have spirit you agree to give your personal views even if they differ from the administration in power? >> i do is the mechanism under suits -- assumed any duties set up your to presume the outcome of the confirmation of process? >> i have not. >> we may share staff and here's to deadlines regarding questions and cooperate with congressional request? >> i will.

>> can be. protected for reprisal semite they will. >> du testified before the committee do you agree to provide documents including copies of electronic forms of communications in a timely manner to provide such documents. thank you very much. >> good morning than they give for the opportunity to appear before you today preparing truly honored to be nominated. think the president's secretary of defense for the coveted sidney and i also want to recognize general dempsey for the men and women and -- in uniform. my wife and son are here my a son could not be here.

i refer to for us the mvp in the family her humor and flexibility have been tested for over 30 years as a military spouse and i would not be here today without her love and support. thank you for the airmen and marines. to be well-equipped incapable military force as they appear before you this morning with a the complexity of the security environment the committee is well aware of the challenges we face said europe and africa us space and cyberspace. weld dealing with these issues to restore readiness in the context of fiscal challenges and budget uncertainty. if confirmed but i will give the best military and vice in a full range of options its four current and future

challenges to national-security. when asked i will provide the the best military advice and i will do so with candor. i will work with the joint chiefs and members to do maintain a force that is capable to secure our interest today and tomorrow and i can keep faith with those in the uniform prepare thank you for allowing me to appear this morning for i will take questions. >> good day before you should maybe receive testimony that so far, there

have been those that our trained to go into the members are less general was estimated but the feedback is attributable to some of the team it process to the of a have an opportunity to give other ground everything i know second hand. >> so we should be getting a pledge from these recruits and not against president

fair to send them into a conflict by another entity and though we need to give them the capability to be successful end that is routine now? brigade need to provide a capability in order to be successful. >> it is solar over the fourth of july for afghanistan and there is great concern among some of military and and other

afghans about the proposal embassy force by 2017 meaning that we would be giving up or turning over the basis. a force that is only based in the u.s.-embassy. great concerns concerning this plan and articulated plan by the president of the united states. as you know the taliban did not respect the non-fighting season. as you know the afghanistan casualties are higher than they have ever been.

we have isis getting ahold and the iranians providing the taliban with weapons. is this a wise decision on your part to have a calendar base of american troops rather than a condition-based with drawl given your background and experience? i think you are probably well qualified to make that judgment? >> chairman i am aware of the consequences of the mission in afghanistan and i have a degree of personal commitment having spent time there. i can assure you if i am confirmed i will provide advice to the president to allow us to reach the desired end state and that is based on the conditions on the ground. >> other than a calendar base decision? >> my experience has been sometimes the assumptions you make don't obtain particularly with regard to time and that is certainly the case in afghanistan. >> thank you.

in ukraine, it is obvious the russians continue their military build up. i was in eastern ukraine and watched the surveillance video made by the ukrainians showing the build up of russian forces inside ukraine. do you believe we should give the ukrainians counter battery system to defend themselves from mass russian artillery and rocket strikes and provide them with javelin anti-tech missile systems to defeat the russian tank grades? >> from a military perspective i think it is reasonable we provide that support to the ukrainians and without that support they will not be able to protect themselves against russian aggression.

>> i would like to thank you for your appreciation and service and i am confidant you will serve with distinguished honors. it is a unique role designed in the 1947 act, i believe. so i hope that you will keep in mind your obligation to the president and the men and women who are serving and we may have to send into harms way and make sure they are playeded with the best capabilities. and i hope in answer to some of these questions you will talk about the devastating affects of sequestration on our ability to defend the nation. >> i have dealt with the issue of sequestration as a service chief and if we go into the

sequestration we will not be able to support the service and it will suffer catastrophic consequences. >> i thank you, general dunford. senator reed? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. and once against thank you for your service and sacrifice, general. following on senator mccain's questions about sequestration. the administration and secretary carter made this clear has adopted any isis campaign with nine lines of efforts, two principle controlled by the department of defense. are you comfortable with that overall approach? >> i am comfortable with the overall approach. >> the other lines of effort are controlled and senator mccain's

effects of sequestration on department of defense. are you concerned the partners in the effort could be hand strung as much as you would be if the bca went into affect for them? >> i would not only do we represent two of the nine lines of effort but we cannot be successful in iraq syria or other endeavors without the whole government approach. >> let me just ask you since you are the expert. you were in afghanistan and we had a significant military effort but we had a significant civilian agencies effort -- state department fbi, drug enforcement administration, and all of these agencies. and i would assume you consider them to be integral parts of your effort and without them or without their ability to provide resources, you could not have accomplished what you did.

is that fair? >> i think that is absolutely fair. i think we have accomplished quite a bit over the last few years and from my perspective that is because we have been able to integrate the capabilities of those organizations and in particular i think the relationship we have with the state department and in afghanistan was absolutely critical to our success. >> one of the most difficult issues you face is building the capacity of the iraqi security forces. this has been an endeavor we have tried. do you have any idea of what we can or should be doing differently? how do we do this? we have heard colleagues from from the committee, your colleagues and suggest that there is staff of leadership at the upper levels and your perspective on the length of time and the emphasis we take to

get the deal in iran that will secure the country? >> i have been away 11 months and will go back immediately if confirmed. the intelligence, logistics, special operations and the aviation capability and the minister capacity were concerns and our estimates were this is a long term endeavor and it would take years to grow the capacity we have in this country. but the ability with the level of mission interior to support tax level organizations and i think continuing to stay the course with the plan general campbell has and recognizing that will require continued resources and patience is the way to be successful. >> focus and i know your experience is in afghanistan and other places but in iraq there is the same capability problems. your analysis of the long term

need to build up the iraq security forces admin min. >> the problem is many of the leaders that were correct were were -- incorrect were eliminated. we will good where we are with the afghanistan leaders. we have work to rebuild the iraqi forces perhaps to get them back to where they were a few years ago. >> there are many situations in iraq but one is the tension in the country and our policy is to support a unified government in baghdad and work with them so they are able to integrate their ethnic communities.

is that the approach you think makes the most sense? >> that is going to be very difficult to do. but at this point, i believe that is the best prospect for long-term success as a unified sectarian government in iraq. if confirmed and at any point i don't believe that is possible my advice will be adjusted accordingly. >> thank you very much, sir and thank you for your service again. >> thank you mr. chairman. in responding to one of the chairman's question you were talking about not having the authority to go after assad? >> that is my understanding. we don't have the legal authority at this time to go after the assad regime and it is the policy of the administration not to go after the assad regime militarily. >> for the record i would like to have you expand a little bit

on that. as to whether it is desirable to have that authority. we have been talking for a long time with you and at the hearings about the amount of risk we are at right now. you were quoted as saying your commanders face increasing risk. we talk about the risk out there. and you know risk equals lives and we talk about all of these theories but how do you define too much risk? are we there yet? >> senator, i believe today we are capable of providing adequate security to protect our national interest. i believe we are at the raise -- razors edge. if we to go below the level we would have to adjust the end of the strategy and no longer be

able to support our strategy. >> and that is a similar response whatever the general is. they are concerned about the level we are accepting that we never had to accept in the past. i was there in ukraine that resulted in no communist serving in their parliament. we talked about the obstacles and is there one we can help with or do you have the authority now? >> additional capability to the

ukrainians would help them deal the separateist and the russian aggression. >> i understand that and appreciate that. kind of the same thing with the kurds. they have a need for anti-armor and a lot of these things. i get two conflicting stories. one from the top people in charge saying by sending through baghdad you have a problem in getting it up there to the fight. and yet i heard just yesterday from someone in charge that problem has been resolved. is that really resolved? do we have a problem getting the equipment that they need up there to those fighters need to effectively fight? >> i watched carefully the hearing on tuesday and the exchange on this particular issue. i have been briefed that in fact the issues have been resolved

and the support is good to get to the kurds. iraq afghanistan and places where young men and women are in harms way, if confirmed, would be the first places i would go and i would like into this issue personally because it is so important. >> good. i appreciate that. on the hill this morning, there were quotes from general saying we could schedule an end to the road and that talks about ask and that nation's conflict but we cannot schedule an end to the there or threat from al-qaeda the islamic state or other extremist elements of the global jihad. going to zero option next year would be playing roulette with afghanistan's future. is he right? >> i think he is absolutely right with regard to the war will continue whether we are there or not. i do consume the war would be

worse were our presence not to be there. our presence ought to be based on the conditions of the ground and i will go over and check those if confirmed. >> very good. thank you very much. >> senator nelson? >> thank you mr. chairman. general, isis with regard to iraq and syria would you a scribe to the fact in iraq it will require the iraqi having the will to fight and meet isis in iraq to be successful? >> senator, our current campaign is dependant on the capabilities of the iraqi security forces to deal with isis.

how much do you think the assad regime staying in power would comp lie complicate the issue of us taking down isis in syria? >> senator, my assessment is it plays a significant role. i think assad's brutality to the people was the primary factor giving rise to isis and one of the assessments i prescribe to. and i think his remaining in power is inflaming people and gives isis the recruits and support they need to operate inside syria. >> i agree with that. then the question is when do we

press for assad to exit? any thoughts on that? >> i don't. i am not involved into the dialogue with that regard. the political resolution is one of had lines of effort that is part of the overall strategy and i don't know but i would assume today that issue is being addressed and if confirmed i expect to be part of the conversations and know a bit more than i do today. >> and general, someone of your stature is going to be very comforting to us to know those tough decisions made with regard to limiting the effectiveness and ultimately defeating isis will be made with you sitting at the table giving council. if you look at a map of who is in control of syria in the

different areas of syria it is a mess. and how you bring order to senator mccaskill has shown. this is syria and the colors representing the different entities in control in that geographic area. it is comforting to know you will be there giving your wise council. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator sessions. >> thank you. with regard to the budget control act that includes the sequester voted out spending for

the defense department. the appropriation's committee voted out that same spending level level on the floor. the commander and chief, the president of the united states is insisting on blocking that bill and encouraging democrats to filibuster it until there is an agreement to spend an equal amount on mon-defense. the fact we have a crisis doesn't require the nation spend more on non-defense. that is the difficulty we face and you will be seeing more of that as time goes by.

isn't it true we have a national security interest in seeing and blocking a takeover of iraq by this extremist group isis who chops off heads and does other extreme things? >> senator, i would agree the issue of isis is creating regional in stability and we have u.s. national interest in a stable iraq that is not a sanctuary for extremist. >> i think it is mistake saying we will mate on the iraqi army to get their act together. we have trained the iraqi army for over a decade. they have companies and organizes and they are not well-led and their morale is not good. they have an army though. the question is can we help

encourage them to be more effective in fighting back against

>> general dempsey hasn't recommended embedding a small number of forces in the iraqi army but he would do so if he thought it was a appropriate. don't you think it is time to

make a move from being in baghdad and head quarters and move out to help provide this kind of confidence and air cover and direction of giving confidence of resupply and american commitment? isn't it time for us to move forward in that direction? >> without appearing to be evasive what i would like to do if confirmed is have the opportunity to get on the ground and speak to commanders and provide a more comprehensive recommendation on how to move forward. >> i hope you will do that quickly. and one more thing, senator mccain warned yesterday that we could be facing the same situation he warned about iraq in 2011 when we pulled out prematurely and now we are facing this decision in afghanistan. i hope you are clear and firm in your recommendation to the

president if you believe this plan of date with drawl is an error. will you do so if you think it an error? >> i will. >> senator mccaskill? >> senator session and i worked on matters of accountability and trying to spend less money but y a different take on where we are in terms of inthe military budget. i cannot think of increasing the war fund instead of the base budget. i cannot think of any reason other than misleading the american people about whether or not we are balancing something. that is the only place they can put the money and not have to pay for it and shortchanged cyber security, port security,

airport security fbi, cia all of which i know you would acknowledge general dunford is a very important part of the role of keeping america safe. would you agree with that? >> senator, i would absolutely agree those organizations play a role in keeping us safe. >> let's make it clear. if we go down this pact of pretending we are balancing something by putting it in funds we don't pay for will the war funds as i like to call them, will they do anything to avoid the force structure cuts that are looming across our nation if we don't get off the path of misleading the american people? >> i think all of the service chiefs that have to balance budget would much prefer that money to be in the base budget because it provide as degree of predictability we can get after the two main issues of

modernization of force and getting back at a the levels we are comfortable with. >> the cuts are a drop in the bucket if we continue the bizarre idea of putting the money in the war fund instead of in the base budget, correct? >> if the budget level goes below what is requested in 2016 there is significant additional cuts made. >> thank you. >> you know how hard we worked on sexual assault in the military. i mind pleased insohcidentincidents are down and reports are being made and the efforts to measure victim satisfaction with command look good. it is too early to declare success. we have more work to do. but the thorny problem that remains and one i want to make sure is at the top of the list is retaliation. i know there have been

initiatives begun but i would like to see a written plan as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff with what you will do. the lower level command, unit command and peer to peer. that is the bulk of the problem. and that is a culture issue. that means from the top. i am disappointed we have not had more prosecution of retality. that is where you come in. i would like a commitment from you today that you would be willing to put a plan in writing that we could follow. >> senator, i would make that commitment commitment. i think peer retaliation is what we are trying to grapple with and i can