but i think this, as i've said -- as he's said many times before, remain as persistent problems. it ebbs and flows in terms of his severity by the fact that we still see instances in which there are insurjants in iraq who have clearly been trained, supplied, funded. in some way tracing back to the iranian government. and that is a a real concern, and as the secretary said yesterday, speaking to the chiefs of defense throughout the middle east and the gulf region, we will continue to conduct counterterrorism products undermine the peace and security that the iraqi people are trying to develop in their country. and we are committed to that with the iraqi security forces. >> you cannot say who are those insurgents from -- >> well, they have

traditionally been, is "she" a special groups? well, i mean there are many "she" special groups, but i'm not going to get into name-calling. i mean, historically there were ties with sadr's militia and so forth. but we've seen problems beyond sod rey and shiah extremist groups in iraq but frankly we have seen problems with the other side of the perspective. it lent to support to al qaeda and terrorists and will go after them just as vigorously, we want to make sure this government in iraq be given opportunity to develop and provide peace and security for its people. >> so you can -- >> barbra? >> well, the secretary yesterday said he chose to make them in the development of the

contact between secretary clinton and president obama. is to that's the concerns about what the head of security challenges in the region, security threats, does it pose a medical tear concern for you? they are now conducting air exercises, and that's been so well to get that other key? he made these comments put on like a global spotlight until what are his concerns? >> i don't know this he views, frankly, this elections and the fallout and the unarest of the crack down that is followed as pout a business reality -- obviously you heard from the president yesterday, he said we deplore the crackdown and the crackdown of treatments of iranians who are desperately

seeking a dword and how the election. and how it was handled, but obviously the government must sake d -- in dealing with the turmoil and its midst, so i don't know that we have seen any tournl threat that's been exposed as -- it does seem externally that either one, east and west border, that the afghans on the east and the iraqis on the west are do seem to be paying close attention to this it. and they have elections in the not too distant future in august in afghanistan and january in iraq, and i think it obviously puts more pressure on those governments and us and the international which community to make sure they hold free and fair elections in their governments. >> sometimes you and i have a difficult time figuring out

what we are and are not answering. >> i was wondering if you heard the secretary ar tick late what he's watching for? >> i think he spoke to what was last week. he's obviously not paying as close attention to this as everyone else in the government is. you asked him about the social networking part of this. but i think he views this as most people do, as the biggest development that has taken place internal to iraq. or iran since the is ram i can and we are all waiting to see how it turns out. the president was very forceful in how their government has been handling the situation, but it's fundamentally that the point not so much a whipping for people like me, to get to

our first my first answer to you, a threat that would requiretous do anything out of the ordinary. you saw his admonition, i think that was him taking precautions and it's totally differently from the way he perceived long before the election situation, and the turmoil that's followeled he made it clear to commanders in iraq that they should be mindful of the borders, very miners of air space and naval demarcations, because we don't want to give the iranians an operate i don't want the do something stupid, so we are going to be very responsible about how we behave so as not to find ourselves in a situation where they do something that is not wise. >> you must have --

>> i a couple more and brian's already nervous that i've been here in long. >> is there a report chinese and reasonen twearnt use as you're getting here. >> do you see any iranian hand in afghanistan? >> do i see similar to joe's question about joe's, -- to a much smaller degree. much smaller degree and then, just as it is in iraq an attempt to play both sides of this. so not all of their behavior is unproductive. some of it is designed to help these governments. but unfortunately, there's two sides to this coin, and they are also doing things that are designed to destabilize the same governments they are awe stensably trying to help. >> regarding the air strikes

yesterday in waziristan. >> she just elbowed you. >> you didn't answer the warning. >> i didn't hear it. it's her question now. >> we are hearing that the u.s. was responsible for this air strike and there were more than 60 casualties. >> i have nothing for you on that. i'm not aware of anything that took plafmentse >> yep me? >> louie, no. you've already been done. louie? >> i know the answer to this but is the secretary tied in on the story for the tank center >> not yet. >> can we anticipate something forth coming? >> i don't think so, lieuy, but hopefully soon. ly talk about it. i don't know how to announce it. >> ok. >> what's that? >> all right. let's do you, you, around you, and that's it. these three, done, go.

>> north korea, threats in north korea, nothing new as you're going to let this one the series after generateing the ocean and secretary's actions in the, in hawaii? >> it was atired, nuclear test coupled with a launch. >> is the department giving away any second thoughts about increasing the number of troops to take on a company tour in korea or is there any thought about slowing down that movement? >> no. i think jeff asked it last time. i thought you were asking are we going to increase troops on the peninsula? no. there are no plans to do that that the time. are we moving towards more and more accompanies towards? i think you heard about how -- which would warrantytous that the point reevaluate this position. like the pacific command, or

commander are all supportive of the notion of normalizing towards in korea. frankly, a lot of troops stationed in korea end up going to do tours in iraq and afghanistan and then return to the republic of korea and are still separated from their families back in the united states. and we're trying to normalize that and less onus if they can return to south korea and be with their families, so that's what we're working towards. kevin? >> yesterday in the house oversight committee the chairman said based on pending data. what chairman? >> the chairman of the joint chiefs? we've got a lot of chairman chairmen around here. >> i'm already senseing this question is out of my league but go ahead. >> he said they have serious concerns about the iraq and the

supply chain a whole list of things. >> kevin, i frankly have not heard that. anecdotally, as you know, within the last couple of months we've flown on one and it was a great ride. i know the commandant is a huge fan and thoacht get to afghanistan where they have better utility where they can cover a long range at high speeds, but i know of no issues that have risen to the secretary's attention like that. >> dan with the grand finale. >> could you just confirm the disagreement is in place to resume use of that air base and the u.s. has agreed to pay a much, much higher rent and also that there's going to be some restrictions on how it's going to be used as opposed to how it was used previously? >> well, we obviously are

pleased that the carry employee government may have taken it to their parliament, so to be ratified, we anticipate that happening in the next couple of days. and we are very pleased with those developments. we think it's to our mutual benefit. they obviously have a great stake in what's happening in that region as do we, and we look forward to working with them to supply our troops in afghanistan so that we can help with the overall security situation in the region. as for what the agreement calls for in terms of particular situations, i'm not going to get into that. offensely there was a negotiation, and there's give and take in any negotiation and i think we arrived at place where we both felt comfortable

to the point where they are presenting this to their parliament, and hopefully their parliament will endorse it, but we are not counting our chickens before they are hatched. there's obviously a legislative process in kyrgyzstan, and we thrapt process and anxiously await the outcome to that. but we look forward to working with the carry employees airfield to provide for the overall security in the region through our operations in afghanistan. ok? thanks, guys. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> this morning on "washington journal" we'll talk to the congressman about climate change. and we'll talk about the republican congressional agenda and tom ridge and journalist david frost. "washington journal" begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. and on c-span 3 we'll continue our live coverage of the senate health committee as they continue work on health care legislation. you can watch it live beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> conservation in the beginning of the year was a battle. j u.s. like there are now on land issues. >> historian douglas brinkley on teddy roosevelt and his leading role in the conservation movement. >> he would not be called by modern alternative a holistic,

he believed in hunting, but he wanted -- he did not believe in hunt sog you make a species extinct, so yes he cared about snail guards and butter flies and wildflowers. he wanted to make sure we had a place for that in modern society. >> sunday on q & a. part two with douglas brinkley on the wilderness warrior, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span or listen on xm satellite radio. download the c-span pod cast and watch part one of our interview with douglas bringly at c-span.org. >> now republican senators on supreme court nominee judge sonia sotomayor. they are members of the senate judiciary committee scheduled to hold ore confirmation hearing on july 13. from the u.s. capital, this is 20 minutes.

>> good afternoon, it's good to be with you. we thought we'd share a few thoughts about the sotomayor nomination. i think judge sotomayor deserves fair treatment. and we're going to ensure that that happens. the nomination to the supreme court always raises quite a number of important questions, and some of those questions have been discussed in recent days. i think it's quite appropriate that senators who have concerns, who want to or who are concerned about matters that they come to the floor and raise those before the hearing even. it gives the nominee a chance to be ready for the expressed concerns of senators. and also i think advance as national discussion on issues of great importance. today we talked about the

second amendment, the -- i would just say a lot of people think the he willa case was a defining, decisive decision that i guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms, and it was. however, it explicitly applied only to the federal law, and federal government of the district of columbia. and so in a footnote they note that had they were not deciding on the second, incorporated through the 14th and would actually apply to states. that being the case, you could have a non-federal city, a new york or richland or philadelphia bar hand guns completely if the second amendment does not incorporate it. so that remain as tremendous issue, and in her decisionmaking process, in cases that she decided judge

sotomayor earlier this year rendered an opinion on that -- on how that second amendment is not a fundamental right. that is a decisive and important question in whether the second amendment should apply to the cities and the states. so this fundamental right question is a matter of some real significance. in truth, there's a supreme court decision in 1800's i believe, that is consistent with that. and she says, and her panel did that they were acting consistent with that opinion and the seventh circuit agreed with her on that opinion than to issue, and was the ninth seen it concludes that the second amendment does apply to the states and cities. there's your difference of opinion. i would just say first of all, this is a very significant case.

lit come before the supreme court and earlier this year she renders an opinion, if it were to become law, it would eadvice rate the second amendment in me parts of this country, because a lot of cities are hostile to weapons and guns of any kind, and like the district of columbia are likely to vote on their severe reductions if not on the ban and right to keep and bare arms. so i would say that's what we discussed today. the nominee i know would be willing to talk about that, i'm not sure in individual meetings, i'm sure some senators have. senator hatch is senior republican, a fabulous senator, a constitutional scoler, a man whose been through confirmations time and again, and i know he made a very

eloquent speech earlier today it, and i would like to can we have your leadership on the judiciary committee? i think it's important for us to raise them in advance so that sotomayor at least has some idea of what some of the questions will be. and this was a very important deal to us. finally decided the second amendment is a personal right. and i think the distinguished senator from alabama has explained it quite adequately. the senate has to look at judge sotomayor's entire record to evaluate her judicial philosophy, including her speeches as well as the cases. now her second amendment decisions, minimized around confined to the scope and vie

thety, and even after the sprinkler invaded the truck, individual rights and preexisting rights. the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental right and did so when it was not necessary to decide the case before her. this appears to be an approach, focused on politically correct results rather than just additional, process. other circuits looking at the issue is the distinguished member from alabama gave it much more attention and analysis. judge sotomayor, around they did -- you know, they did not address the unnecessary issues. and yet, i'll just put it this way. i wish sotomayor had been similarly restrained on some of these issues. these are among some of the

most important issues and questions her record raises and which must be eardsed that we're hearing for her. >> i think the majority of the senators in the united states senate and the majority of people in this country and we'll expect her to tell us what her real feelings are on this, and really what she believes the laurel should say. -- what she believes the law really should say. and bring us up to speed on what her feelings really are and what her view of the law is in this particular area. >> thank you. >> the questions here about the second amendment really bring up the question of whether the constitution still applies to all americans. president obama, before he was president, suggested in

interviews that he saw the constitution as incomplete. as a charter of negative liberties. that it told the government what it couldn't do, but it didn't tell the government what it had to do on behalf of the people. >> the president apparently doesn't see thal constitution as a document that limits of government and we've seen and many areas of his administration an attempt to expand the government to many areas of our society into our economy. and that brings us to the discussion about his supreme court nominee who also appears to be part of this pattern. when i had a chance to meet with judge sotomayor, and ask her if the second amendment applied to every american, i was not asking her to prejudge any particular case, but just to give me her interpretation of the second amendment, which is pretty clear that the right of the people, it says people,

to keep and bear arms should not be in france. if this does not apply to every american, then the question is clear whether or not the constitution still applies. that's my concern with this nominee. it appears to reflect a pat erin of this president that he does not respect the limits of our constitution and intends to have himself, his administration and his judges reinterpretted on our behalf. if a second amendment does not apply to every american as it very clearly does, then the constitution no longer has any bearing on controling the role of the federal government. it's a very important question that goes much beyond the question of bearing arms, but whether or not we are still a constitutional republic. >> well, 200-plus years ago, we had a debate in this country

about what the constitution should consist of. and you remember the fight between the federalists and anti-federalists and as a result of that fight a compromise was achieved where the first 10 amendments of the constitution, the bill of rights was adopted. and that includes some of the rights as jim said, basic freedoms against the government constraints and control that americans now believe constitutes their most fundamental rights, the right to free speech in the first amendment, and then we hinted at questions about her minimumth. freedom of political speech and activity, the second amendment, which again, is part of the bill of rights. the 14th amendment which deals with equal protection of the laws, all of these are going to be areas of concern, but this is the first time that i know of in our nation's history

where a supreme court nomination will really focus on and in many ways resolve around the nominees commitment to the bill of rights and most particularly to the -- and the stakes are high own though supreme court of the united states decided in the heller case that the right to keep and bear arms of individuals in the district of columbia, there are other cases, as i believe senator hatch and senator sessions, i believe that are on their way to the united states supreme court, so this is not a fanciful or made up issue. it's an issue that will be dressed. and if judge sotomayor is confirmed with her than to court in part of that court. the concern i have is that when given the opportunity interpret the second amendment of the constitution, she essentially denied that the right to keep

and bear arms under second amendment was an individual right and was a fundamental right of all americans, and that was in the case that perhaps you're similar with the maloney versus cuomo case, where she was basically healed and that the right to keep and bear arms that the constitution did not apply to cities and states but merely to the federal government. >> really that in a way that shows you as i mean plausible. much less they show the judge to take that kind of cramped and restricted view of the basic civil liberty in our heights. it is trouble indeed. again, i agree with senator hatch that in fairness to the nominee, we are highlighting issues of concern to us to give her the time to prepare for the questions we expect to ask her, and we look forward to that hearing on the 14th, and her

candid responses to these important issues. >> on the maloney case, what does that opinion -- by any individual judge -- proposition , did not overtruly 1890's case, which the amendment didn't feel that. >> how are they? specifically said they weren't doing it? >> ok! >>i would just say that if in fact the rights of the second amendment apply to each and every american and guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, then her decision was inconsistent with that prop sligs. we can talk with d -- with that proposition. we can talk about her 19th century precedent after the supreme court of the united

states had just decided the heller case, and i would say it takes as i mentioned, an unnecessarily cramped and view of an individual counselors. >> thank you. >> senator, we mentioned this has come up in three circuits. how can she towards question if it's likely to come before her? how did she answer that question men? >> i think that's a good question, and i'm not sure that we thought that through yet in what the right answer would be. >> kevin late can be asked about the case she decided as you know judge robinson and toledo were asked about casey and decided and their reasonning was examined anywhere there but i don't think it's appropriate for us to try that in fit she stated how she might ruin for a case of the future, but that might well be an improperer act by

the congress. but -- and i would also suggest that there may be a question of whether or not she should sit on a case in the future. if it's one that she's personally already ruled on, her case could be perhaps one coming up. who knows? >> but she could with the heller case did say this was an individual right. and i think she should have to respond to the question, do you believe it's an individual right. because that should have not a heck of a lot to do with your case, although, in my eyes, it will have a lot to do with this. i think i can croach it with more -- >> after that question you or senator -- did you answer it? >> i did not. >> senator,