rotation. that's part of the date that that we'll request from these services as they open these positions. >> 30 dies doesn't mean 30 days on the calendar, it's 30 -- later in the spring, so that's the first point, on the second point, on the timing, you have some positions which i -- ms. penrod said will be open fairly immediately in terms of normal assignment. those are the ones for exception to policy. because there's already women out there in the army and infantry doing these specialties, just they're in a different place. on the co-location, we're opening up new specialties to women. we have no women tank mechanics out there so we have to recruit them.

from the taping base, from those

new positions being recruited and training, and for sure we would on those positions bei being -- we'll go to base x, performs as an intel officer and then they'll perform there locally. so more on the data. >> time for a few more questions. >> at one point in this report you talk about the -- part of the point of the study as craig when do you hope to have some kind of answer on things like special operations and infantry positions? again, we're opening up over 1,000 positions below brigade level. individuals will have to serve in those assignments and assess how that -- the individuals perform and also the process of, you still have the privacy issues that we need to deal with, safety, welfare of the

individuals so that will take time and we cannot predict how long and how much date today we're going to have to have. so we don't have to wait for the six months, as they start this process and they find that they can move forward, we will just continue to notify congress. because every time we change or add new positions, it requires a notification of congress experie

from the last ten years, to look at and that's the information we need will use to help inform the answer. >> the last question. >> this review is mandated by congress. if congress had not mandated this, what would have happened? were you already on a track to do this on your own? you keep talking about a decade of war and lessons 1200

individualism, this is the legacy of thorough and emerson. but it turns out that we're lookingers when it comes to living alone. much more in european nations, especially in scandinavia. >> eric fienberg looks at the growing trend of american adults choosing to live alone, and what that means for the country. also this weekend on book tv, sunday at 3:00, the second cousin of former secretary of state connie rice starting a

dialogue between gang leaders and police. bonnie morris on her one-woman -- revenge of the women's study professor. every week on cspan 2. >> effective april 12, 2012, japan will lower it's -- highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. this dubious distinction will make it that much more challenging to attract business here at home where we need jobs. sometimes it's like seeing sausage made, you just don't want to see it. >> it's time to put aside our wish lists and to serve in a more coherent and equitable tax policy.

>> the ways and means took up corporate tax policy and how to encourage job growth by eliminating special tax breaks. follow the instruction jauchb lijauchb online at c spahn -- every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story, on american history tv. get our schedules and see past programs at our websites. and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> the senate judiciary committee voted on a bill that would put -- allow the justices to ban cameras in certain instances. the vote was 11-7. we're going to watch that judiciary commission session which is about 40 minutes.

a moment ago, two, three, four -- we have six in the room, a couple of others out in the anteroom, so i think we'll check, if you have no objection, we'll get started. >> usually once we get started people will show. today the committee can move forward for judicial nominees for the confirmation hearing we

held last month, three with no judicial emergency vacancies in illinois and maryland. but also on today's agenda, we have an important transparency measure. senator derbin and senator grassley have asked to proceed on their bipartisan bill to televise the united states supreme court proceedings. now we have the power to use technology to allow greater access to public proceedings of the government so all americans can witness the quality of justice in this country, not just those of us who had the opportunity to be physically at one of the hearings or which each one of us has the opportunity to do what he wants, some of us are members of the bar of the supreme court but that leaves 320-some-odd-million

americans that don't get to see it. and with technology, it would deepen americans' understanding of the workings of the supreme court. all americans and the continuing importance of the constitution. this is especially important at a time when decisions by the supreme court are greatly affecting the daily liveses of hard working americans. this important case will decide whether people's elected officials have the power under our constitution to enact legislation related to how to ensure the market to make health care more affordable. to expand coverage to all americans, to make our health care system more sustainable. so the supreme court's decision, whatever they decide will impact all americans. and because of that, there's tremendous public interest

witnessing the this. now i'm -- it can be said the supreme court proceedings are open to the public. technically that is so, but only a few dozen of the general public who can take time off from work, in this case stand in line all night long to get in, and only a small handful being allowed to see the proceedings. the court has allowed live audio streamings of its public proceedings to provide real-time public access. the american public is keenly aware of the requirement of all americans to be insured. and despite our public and private outreach, the supreme

court has yet no indication those procedures will be made widely available to the american public on the day of the argument. i believe they should. and december stit -- americans have ready access to their government and the most recent hearings of the supreme court nominees, we have made arrangements to accommodate thousands of individual spectators in that hearing room. and this is whether the hearings are broadcast live, whether we stream the proceedings on our website and these technologies welcome the american public into the senate and the role the constitution continues to play in our democracy. the senate has been televising these procedures for more than 25 years. i believe even state courts,

including state supreme courts have been televising their proceedings for years. i know that some of the justices are not having their proceedings televised. i realize two or three members of the supreme court may not be in favor. a couple of million americans may be on the other side, however. i understand they don't want to be made to -- public service all the time. it's not particularly pleasant, but it's part of our democracy and those of us who don't have lifetime positions, we try to counter misstatements by making sure the record is available to fair minded people and is not left to rely on distortions. last october, members of the senate judiciary committee held a hearings to consider justices under the constitution. we were joined by justices skal

lee -- to people who represent different philosophies of the court. i appreciate their willing participation in the hearings, i thought their discussion was informative and useful. senator blumenthal had a hearing, to quote senator blumenthal--the discussion of paul, justice briar responded, there may come a time when everything is viewed publicly and it would seem weird not to broadcast the argument. well, sometime i think that time has come. with so many cell phones are equipped with video camera, with the advent of youtube, there's very little that's not able to be viewed. so as part of the supreme court, it should open its argument to the american people, not just

those who are able to get a seat here in the hearing room. supreme court justices are in fact public officials whose decisions directly affect the lives of americans. they give speeches, they do book tours, where they make money, some even attend fund-raisers. well, i don't know how anybody has quoted the name of the first amendment to distort or election -- or super-pacs should not be accessible to the american people. four days ago, more than 11 million americans watched the super bowl. know one would have tolerated that game having been recorded and broadcast a day later, or at least it being transcribed later in the week. some of us whose team didn't do

as well as we would have liked would have probably liked that. we all can either exalt or suffer together. to have cameras in the courtroom -- it affects americans a lot more than the outcome of a football game which does get televiseded. now is the time for the supreme court to become accessible to every american. senator grassley, i know you've taken a strong position on this and i give it to you. >> before i compliment you on your remarks, i think we're pretty united on our side that when we get people here, we want to hold over the four judges who are on the agenda for the day and then of course take up the bill and i'm going to put u unless there's great dissent in this committee expressed against the bill, i'm going to first of all associate myself with your

remarks, thank you very much for the thoroughness of them, they're much more thorough than what i have in my remarks. i'm going to put my remarks in the record and i also thank senator derbin for his work on this bill. but you, mr. chairman, just laid out a very, very compelling argument for the passage of this legislation and i hope we can get it passed, i thank senator derbin as well. i would like to take some time to speak about another court issue that was just made public yesterday. judge emmett sullivan, of federal district court, issued an opinion ordering the public release of a 500-page report outlining serious misconduct by the justice department attorneys from the public integrity section during the prosecution of senator stevens. in the opinion, judge sullivan

discussed the tortured history of the stevens prosecution, specifically he noted that after a public indictment, a public trial, a must be lick conviction and a press conference celebrating the guilty verdict, the ed of prosecutorial misconduct arose. he also noted that only as the evidence of misconduct became clearer and harder to repute, did the justice department dismiss the indictments and vacate the verdict, however the justice department also stepped in to protect the prosecutors. the justice department initially sought to prevent any misconduct review by the court arguing instead of an internal review, the prosecutor's conduct via the office of professional responsibility. to his credit, judge sullivan did not allow this and instead appointed a special investigator to investigate and prosecute justice department attorneys responsible for the prosecution of senator stevens, following

the completion of this investigation, the special investigator produced a 500-page report that found, quote, the investigation of prosecution of senator stevens were permeated by the systemic procedure of excull patory evidence which would have corroborated his defense and his system and seriously damaged the testimony and credibility of government's key witnesses and vote. this is an incredible finding and one that as judge suddenly vab has put it as led to a continuing national public discourse on prosecutorial disconduct and whether and what steps should be taken to prevent, end quote. i agree with judge sullivan, the public has a right to know that the special investigator found what the special investigator found and what the misconduct was inside the integrity unit of

the justice department. the american people need to hear the truth of what happened. in addition to judge sullivan's decision to release the independent report, the justice department should call on the release of the final report issued by opr. at our oversight hearing in november, general holder stated in response to a question from senator hatch calling for release of the final report, quotes, that is up to the people at opr, what i have indicated was that i want to share as much of that as we possibly can given the very public nature of that matter and the very public decision that i made to dismiss the case, end of holder quote. despite the attorney general's desire to make this information public, his initial comment that it is, quote, up to the people at npr to make that decision,

end quote, it is unlikely we will ever see that report. the justice department has blocked the nw -- citing privacy laws and agencies guilty of misconduct. the attorney general ultimately oversees opr and if he wants that information made public he should order it released upon the conclusion of the vechlgts between the misconduct of the stevens case and the notorious operation fast and furious where the justice department knowingly gave guns to the mexican drug cartel which resulted in the death of a federal agent, it's easy to see why people have lost faith in the leader ship of the justice department. these public failures -- of a justice department where attorneys prosecuting a sitting u.s. senator under a republican administration systemically

concealed, quote, significant x exexku79ory evidence -- a department where whistle blowers are sure to face retaliation from supervisors and then are forced into bureaucratic limbo to adjudicate their cases. a department where one assistant attorney negligence doesn't allow guns to cross a border, while another assistant attorney general is in mexico the same day advocating a plan to let guns cross the border as an investigative strategy which was explicitly forbidden, something is wrong and it's size to see why the public is outraged. further the overreaching by the justice department impacts us here in congress, republican and democrat. for example, legislation addressing online infringement hits a road block on the fore,

in part because the public doesn't trust the currejustice department to do the right thing and i heard -- the american people are worried that the justice department will use power for political sensor ship in the case of that law. even though all of us here probably know that there's a need for us to do something to stop the stealing of property. that's the kind of impact the distrust has had and affects us all. the stevens prosecution and these other examples are all serious problems that i hope will be addressed. not to mention the fact that the failed prosecution costs the taxpayers threefold. the cost to investigate and prosecute the special investigators and third the dea dea deaf-defense attorneys, the cost

alone is reason enough for us to discuss the cases in the committee here in their oversight capacity and even hold hearings to get to the bottom of what's going on. the public and the -- the best thing the department can do is to be transparent and accountable, something that was promised not only by the president, but also by many confirmation hearings of people working there, the transparency promise has not yet been realizeded. >> as you know, i applaud attorney general holder for his decision to drop the prosecution of senator stevens, which he did, the prosecution which as you pointed out was begun in the last administration. i welcome judge sullivan's decision made public next month, the results of his investigation. i stated publicly i want to get these results so that our home committee can be brief.

i have expressed time and time again my concerns about the prosecutorial conduct during the stevens trial has stated so publicly. i feel that that kind of misconduct can be allowed, then everybody is in jeopardy, and once the report -- we will have a briefing of the committee about it. i don't have to yield between senator all myself and we have ten people here that there's been a request on the republicans that put over john

z. lee, john j. pop, george levi russell and christine gearhard baker. i will have them on the agenda next week because at least a couple of these judges reflect additional emergencies and we have been asked by everyone in the chief justice of the united states on -- as back on 1945 bill to televise the supreme court proceedings, sponsored by senators derbin, and schumer. i will vote for it, senator derbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman, let me say at the outset that

putting over the judicial nominees is pro forma and i had vise the committee that all the nominees are important in illinois, the two are go going to fill vacancies in some portions of the state. and i also note that the nominee john thorpe is senator kirk's judicial nominee, he and i worked closely to -- i hope that the next time we meet, maybe as soon as next week, we can send our colleague who is recovering, the good news that our nominees are moving forward. but the matter at hand is legislation as of 1945 to permit the televising of