-- bill was in vietnam. william wanted to stay. the strong obama supporter. the other thing, and i agree with you on afghanistan, michelle obama politically is just -- i mean, she is off the boards. and -- it's almost it's submerged somewhere in her psyche. they've come through as a family values portrait. and it's had an impression among voters. the jackie kennedy thing was just absolutely breath-taking. >> you said there was a fork in the road for michelle obama on how she was gone over. and she's gone to the very positive way. >> and the one word, anybody would like this word, genuine. genuine. oh. i mean, in a world where

everybody seals to be putting on errors this is a gin win person. . -- genuine person. .

>> we asked about his backbone in july. there was a lot of uncertainty about his backbone. what they did not use the word materials and some use putty and plastic and one used on land. you get the substance of strength and determination and conviction which i thought was an encouraging sign. out of all of this, i think the president would look at this and say that this is two hours of enjoyable viewing. if he is down, and in the christmas holidays, this is not a bad piece of footage to look at. it was pretty encouraging. >> going back to michelle obama that everyone said policised.

almost like she was support and everyone. >> other thoughts? what is the lead? >> i think you have to raise some doubts about the sequencing of the legislation. that is because of how dominant the economy is. they also said that there is no bill to stop this from ever happening again. at the end, someone said that if the jobs come that may be the health care will come. i think that they do the sequencing differently. of course, it is stimulus first.

there has not been a real sustained effort to keep high up in the minds of voters what they're required to do with the economy. >> for you going to write about? >> this was pretty much a 50/50 audience. that is a humongous political asset. ronald reagan tried on that in the early 1980's. we have a long way to go in his presidency. >> there is always nancy pelosi, the shield. she is catching all the darts and bullets and half of them did not even know who centre reif was -- senator reif was. >> this has just shifted to nancy pelosi and congress. >> good. what are you going to write

about? >> for the barack obama people, he is our guy, but for -- i do nothing democrats or republicans could find any solace in anything that they heard today. >> mark? >> first of all, i was astounded -- that aside, if barack obama drove a convertible with the top down to a car wash, congress would get wet. he has a teflon quality right now. i do not think it is perpetual. he has been given the benefit of the doubt and a long leash. one year from tonight, we're looking at 12% unemployment, the

willingness to blame both parties in congress rather than him, when health care goes down, no one blamed him. it was just remarkable. i think that the wall street thing is just sitting there. i cannot believe that republicans are not running against those of washington and wall street. it is unnatural. for whatever reason. >> great session. thank you guys. >> >> we did this all for you. >> come see me. >> senators are continuing their

debate on the health care bill through the weekend. our regular book tv schedule will be printed with the specials continuing after the debate. c-span2 is the only network with the full debate, and edited and commercial free. go online to the health care hub. >> as we get better at what we do, we run the risk of over confidence and arrogance. >> 4 of this author's books sit on the new york times best- seller list. he is our guest on sunday night on c-span some "q&a.

>> this is c-span's "america and the courts." next, a discussion between the supreme court and the media. the journalists talk about the public's understanding of the supreme court and the media's role in educating the public on the judicial branch of government. princeton university host to this discussion last month. >> anyway, it is so exciting to

it is so exciting to be here. what a classy group. what is thrilling to me is to see these two in the audience. she has many accomplishments, including being the dean. but more important, 23 years ago, she was the maid of honor at our wedding. it is wonderful to see you. >> i am really delighted to be with emily and adam and dahlia. i think that we do different sense, even as we do the same things. we cover the court in different forms in different ways. how much i

admire your work in particular. i mean dalia and emily have really redefined the way the court is covered in many represents with an irreverence and intelligence that hasn't been seen before. adam has brought new vigor to the supreme court beat including to a wonderful story. you really stick it to anthony kennedy. adam also has many other virtues, including the fact that he knows what east coming here, is that his -- what is coming here. is that his wife saved our dog's life when he ate a pair of my daughter's underwear. it really gets a lot worse from there. if you were to ask, the peculiar thing about the

supreme court is that it is as one -- it is at once very well known as a important institution and virtually unknown in terms of what it does and who's on it. and the justices themselves for peculiar reasons recognize this and sometimes have a little fun with it. and i'll give you an example. it's not just dalia who has a great fondness for david suitor. david suitor as he often did once not too long ago was driving from his home to new hampshire. and he stopped to get something to neat a restaurant in massachusetts. and he's sitting there. and a couple comes up to him. he said, i know you, you're on the supreme court, right? >> david sutor and david briar are frequently mixed up with each other. it happens to both of them all the time. >> and the guy says to sutor.

you're on the supreme court, right? your steven briar. so he said, yes, i'm steven briar. and they chatted for a little while. but then the guy said. now let me ask you a question, what's the best thing about being on the supreme court? he paused for a moment and said, i have to say it's the privilege of serving with david sutor. now how can you not love an institution where it's suitable. one thing they almost always say is, you know, it's too partisan. it focuses on the political differences between the justices. it focuses on who's a democratic appointee and who's a republican appointee. and it doesn't focus enough on

the law. now if you would to ask me what's wrong with supreme court coverage, i would say is that it doesn't focus enough on the politics o a situation. and it doesn't focus enough on who's a democratic appointee and who's a republican appointee. the way i see the court, much of the time. not always. i think the court historically 47 of the cases almost every year are decided unanimously. another chunk are 7-1. 8-2. if you look at the cases that are about, you know, the things we care about. does the constitution protect the the wife's choice. the effort to camouflage that into a gauze of law, i think

it's part to uncover. sewn yeah -- sonia sotomayor, as you recall in her testimony, she was asked what's her judicial philosophy. and she said, i follow the law. what an insult to our intelligence that comment is. what a cynical use of the confirmation process because you know who follows the law? anton and scalia follow the law. ruth ginsberg follow the law. because they both highly ethical. they're both skilled at the business of judging. but on the constitutional issues we care about, they see things completely differently because they have sircht judicial philosophies. and that's what matters what their philosophies are.

following the law is not a philosophy. it's a an excuse not to answer questions. and i i think what we should do as@@@@@@'4n @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ >> but, i think it is imperative that we do our best to uncover the political sources of the key decisions that the supreme court and that is what i try to do. >> [applause] >> is going to seem as though jeff and i colluded. so seamlessly am i going to segue to my remarks, but i want to say thank you very much for inviting me to participate on this distinguished panel in this

beautiful place. it has been a long time since i have been at princeton and i am wondering why. i want to suggest something a little different from what jet just proposed. i have been covering the supreme court 14 years, but there are precisely to stories that we tell about the supreme court. that is it. that is all we've got. we have story one, which is a story that job just urged upon you. a political institution. it matters whether you're a pointed by a democrat or a republicans. it matters if you are a democrat or republican. this is an ends-dritch ideological institution that at this moment is very fascinating balanced. 4-4. with anthony kennedy aligning himself with one side or the other. that's story one. then there's story two. story two is essentially not story one. story two is all the difference stories that we tell when the

court doesn't behave that way. and those are an interesting set of stories because they can be the stories that you tell when you talk about the court with individuals about the brokering that goes on, the influence. a lot of those things don't have anythinging to do with ideology. another part of it is there is this thing called the law. and there is this immutable thing called the constitution. and to the suggest that the court is simply an ood logical, political plan that really vote s in chambers it's just not accurate. i think that whenever the court sur pries us by not being 5-4. race to tell some version of story two. here's why the court didn't come down 5'4".

the reason we're so utterly schizophrenic in telling story one and story two is because they're absolutely true. the court is and it is designed to be both a political and divided institution. and it's also a lot of other thicks. it's an institution that does more than just split 5-4 based on what you had to breakfast. it's an institution that's trying to try ang goo late against something -- triangulate against something. on tuesday, i would write, oh, my god i was a hearing with that subject. three days later, they'll hear a case that has to do where the

confrontation law, some matter that hasn't nothing to do ideology. look at them triagulatting massively against the constitution. the court is by design. and sometimes reporters tell story one and story two in the same piece. we toggle back and fourth. it is burely political and not political at all. i want to just discuss that there are a lot of people who really like story one. the people bhol -- are like -- which way is he going to go? it's a great, great story. i've tilling it for years.

readers love the 5-4 political story. because they get it. it's politics. it's no different than an election story. they get that and they are very week they say. it's scalia. i think it maps very easily on to their view on how they want to look at the court. let me tell you the judicially committee really liked story one. the story is a completely political entity and all they need to do is sometimes take that nominee like a magic eight ball. and shake them this will they tell you what their logical opinions are. when you ask them, i'm not any of those things and i'm just the law. and while it seems different,

they think they're applying the law. so let me just suggest brief sli the most interesting moments for me as a report ner the 10 years i covered the stories between one and two. and the best way to goat him, where you are on guns, on abortion and where you are on affirmative action. nothing else matters. we're not going to ask story two type questions because we don't believe you do anything other than vote your ideology. the other thing i find very interesting moments between this collision is when the court does something. all of us in the media have to figure out how to tell this

story. we watched oral argument. it really looked like they were towarding it down. we start to test stair two narratives. >> here is john. and they're not necessarily political stories. so i just want to zhaugs i think the media both does a very good job with story one and also a bad one with story one because it's so easy to say this is pure undiluted politics. i really credit te new media with this. not slathe. but the the advent is fantastic. law processors are done a really good job of prope rating the conversation about the court in very scholarly ways that make it very, very clear

that this isn't just all politics every time. the new media has already done it. when anthony tamarity has the -- quoted it, the people knew him. there's a conversation between the media and the court and the public is to really think about the public is capable of understanding that story one is true. but also story two is true. and they're both true all the time. and i think we need to give the public more credit rather than having them here. i look forward to the

conversation. [applause] >> it's really a treat to be here in princeton especially with these fantastic journalists. i want to respond that ran through the class. you want them to take the cases that have divided lower court judges. it would actually be a bit surprising if you had a lot of unanimous decisions that have divided judges. it's that it's always the same four with justice kennedy being the exception. there will be nothing at all wrong with lots of and lots of cases. if you saw various different type cases. you see the liberals. lining up in lock step and that makes it har that in this since

this is a highly political court. i don't think they're political in the democratic muns sen. but there are ideologically in a judicial philosophy sense political that's inarguable. the numbers prove it. i wanted also to make the sthaugs we spend too many time thinking about the supreme court. after all, they may be decide maybe 70 classes a year. meanwhile, you know, throughout our enormous legal system, we don't give or adequate attention to say a real importance nine circuit decision. but the times will have me covers an argument in about restriction. it might be better to draw them away from the court. sometimes i think it's like the death penalty.

tethdenlt is a terrible story. meanwhile there are two that are jail. they don't have -- it is true that there are people conflicted of crimes. we'll get the pro bono lawyers and everything else. i won't press that metaphor any further. it's hard to cover the court because the usual tools of the journalistic toolbox really aren't available to you. >> there's almost no inside dope. and if i were i'm not sure how interesting it would be. >> so you don't call to it. you're trying to make sense up and explain to people what it

is the court just did and you're trying to satisfy at least two audiences at once. one of them is very fist kated and you yave their approval because you don't want thome think you are a smart guy. and then you have ordinary readers but not on sessdzed with the maul. you explain quite difficult cases to them. and to do the two things it's really hard. i remember when i started my position. i said to one of my colleagues. i started at the new york times. i said tam, what do i do? it's easy. it's easy. you call people on the phone and you write what they say. it doesn't really work for the supreme court. you're also a little bit constrained and it's easy to fall into this. the court has so much invested

in his prestige and authority. they are don't have an army. people do what they say because why? because we believe in it. they want you to take it seriously. there's nothing wrong with a little mischief. and there's nothing wrong with trying to find thems in left armer points. it's sometimes disappointing to me. there was a decision yesterday. i read my story in the washington story. i read the eblings lent story in "the wall street journal." they're pretty good stories. but i think the coverage is of very high quality. they're very little different. i'm not sure if we need four of them. it's kind of a commodity. you try to -- you know, i remember writing a few stories last year that i thought maybe start an inteelect chulling

conversation. or sometimes you write about a case and you think you understand. there's a place calledic bod. it souds like a 9/11 case. it seems that it was a case of something radical under it could be dismissed. it's hard to come back and say, that's what i told you about it a week ago. that's a hard genre. i'm leg lucky to do something that's knot complete pi pig to yesterday's developments. i echo what jeff said to son of degree -- she's got at great job. she's a good lawyer.

she's a good lawyer. she happens to have got >> it is a little hard to see how the burden of justice thomas and justice toledo are by the fact that it is a great job and there are many people that can do this job. this is a court of nine, able, distinguished lawyers and happened to get the job. what we saw at the hearings was where she purported to a teachable moment to say that here is what judges do. we are like robots. we take the law and apply it to the facts and then we do it again. it was a low point. chief justice roberts managed to go through the confirmation hearings with a sense of wit and someone who was exploring with

the senators and it seemed that you had some sense of what a first rate intellect he had. intellect that we saw. we just didn't see it now. i guess finally, i want to make the case from a slightly different direction that maybe supreme court journalism is overrated. there's -- there's a lot out there. these days you can get the decision in the same day. you can use the transcript last year. you have" slate." you the triple threat game called toobin. you have first rate and erblized log law. if you're interesting on great stenciling. mine go into oblivion.

the bad debt bureau is very important. really important. yet another supreme court story, hard to say. [applause] >> hello to all of you. it's a pleasure to be here with these folks who have already started such an interesting conversation. let me see what if anything i can add to it. i do think adam may have talked himself out of his own job. if there's anyone in the audience? i hear that the "new york times" is taking applications. i want to turn the conversation from politics to a more personal element. or to talk about the way that the political divisions intercept with the way the jusities want to be seen

personally. i have been reading in the past week, a new biography of justice's scalia that's written by joe, eskupid. >> and there are two anecdotes that jumped out at me. justice scalia is not -- is the only child. in terms of our discussion today, i was struck by a moment, i think it's in 1991 where justice scalia is talking about perpdinal university. and he said that the media is incomp dent. and this ising a, you know, a common fee sys where hear.

obviously, the president accepted. all of us practice law. i don't think that the reason that the people in this pa demole such a great job is because they are lawyers, but there are some relationships there that maybe been worth exploring. because justice caly yeah hates the prend and has for a long time. he has gone aren't the press. he is such -- so good at self-expression and on his book tours, he has done this very successfully and gotten a lot of attention. it's been true about particular cases. he was so outspoken to the pledge of allegiance case, resumeably that he recuesed himself from that decision.

he's been an explainier of bush's war. now i don't think that the other jusities share his disdain for the press. but i do think that in their own way, they are also starlting to either going around us or to talk more about their reactions to cases and to let us see who they are as people. which changes our o olympian very about stract view of the court. jisstiss briar and justice kennedy have sat with provides with jeff. justice ginsberg last week surprisingly before the case had bngke sided talked agget her distress. she -- there's something going on here which is changing the

way people see the court and making it i would argue more accessful. i'm just a big fan not just because i'm a journalists. we can understand these 7 and 15 second. if we know something about the people behind them. and however many times i have heard a judge say that to me. every time i think about the case that i need you to understand it's in the four cornererers of this season. there's always more to understand and to argue with. and to the extent that they are more likely to talk about those decision a. although one could argue otherwise and in fact the power . they don't have any cops so we have to police in their, a,

political godliness. they have to say. and i think the other thing that matters about the way in which the justices are trying to come across. is that it complidse so badly with the confirmation processed. because in that moment i have something to offer. they are put through a lot of media scrutiny. and we read about sotomayor's walks in new york city and her family. and anyone can bring up. speeches she made a long time ago. and then you try to with hold themselveses as much as possible. i agree with atcham we saw a morely reden of that from justice sotomayor.

it's in the end, he is the person we have to thank for this umpire met for. which is not understanding the court. and the real problem westbound this is that the conversation process because it happens under big lights in washington and there are these day night hearings. it could be a touchn't moment. but it completely isn't. and so there's this disconnect. on the one hand you have a amount of worming and coming down from the mountain but before you goat the demourt this moment where your -- we're talking about different threads of injured. perhaps we could get really interesting on explaining some. that's why the plit story gets told so often. we completely lose that opportunity.

i'm really ununcertain to doing that. but i'm looking forward to everybody's thoughts. thank you. [applause] >> we're going to throw this open now for questions. we've already had the beginning of a debate about the very nature of the coverage of the court. and we could continue that on the panel. but i want to open this up and -- oh. >> i am sure i could be heard. nope. [laughter] >> it's on c-span, so. >> i've lost my law professor voice. is this on? >> first of all, this is a delight. the one great thing -- not the one -- but one great thing about working with the federal

is you get federals. adam, i don't think your job's in peril. i think you need those four newspapers covering that story because i think that's part of the smith. maybe the truth that we tell ourselves as american, that one of the things you always say when you describe yourself to others. >> fosh lawyers. >> is we are a culture that >> foreign lawyers. is we are are the culture that when we have a conversation are in the front page of our major newspapers and this is a deep, deep part of who we are. i think what i like all of you to represent on -- is that because the supreme court is such a great institution and we pay so much attention to it?

or is that because the fact that we see the supreme court that way. which arrows do they run? i'd be interested to what extent you think that's true, that we really are much more law focused. and this is something really distinctive. or ising this we like to tell about ourselfs? >> starting the last part. i do think the supreme court occupies a spral role in the america y key in the way that high courts don't. largely because the court has been added for song lock. and in part because its best decisions have been so important and transformative. it really does something spornt

ex-tor nair. we care about it more often than we need to because it is in addition to that. last year they had a debate whether the supreme court must excuse themselves before they got that. their ruling only applies to a quite exceptional kates. they chose to kick it out. so it has that function as well. i think, yeah, one of my favered observation fwiss court was by one of my favorite justices robert faction. we are not final becauser infallible. we are infallible becauser final. it's been set up is this is the

supreme court and because of that structure the system has looked to the court for the last word. and there is this tremendous respect for the court as an institution. so that as much as the southerners hated the dissegregation. a massive resistance was not going to work. as futch as they were upset. there was never the remotest poss pillity that there would be this partner. dit apoying of the court's order. >> and i do think that much as i am somewhat incal about the court. i think over the past, you know, during the bush administration. here you have the country understandably terrified by.

at war in two different countries. that the president of the united states was not good enough. hamdi. uner detectived judges with no atable to the public gets to swinging to the president. you are not treating the worst of the worst to quote robert cheney. that's an amazing structure that it might work pretty well. >> just one sort of visceral glass. i sometimes flike the court court to a second dar church in this cou -- i don't know if this because we're just people, but i think

that is an amazing thing to walk into the u.s. supreme court as opposed to other supreme courts. you just do not have that sense that you are walking on holy ground. i say that as a canadian. it is not holy ground to made. it is really an astonishing nine. -- astonishing thing. theirself mystifying. the press corps is really put into this position of having to be accolades at worst. there is a sense that this is the oracular and i think it is quite deliberately constructed that way. it is causing a spiritual -- causing spiritual -- quasi spiritual. something emily says, we're

also very conflicted because we want to know the jusities as people. it's very important to understand that we know sotomayor mom's sitting there. we need to see that. this conversation here -- this was the first time where people >> calling in and crying. will >> they were so movered by this women's stair. -- but when you look at the popularity rates, the more we know them, the less we like them. the guy who is have the lowest ratings the guys talking on cnn, no offense. the people who sort of throw open their ropes an show us the person inside -- >> you know, enough about clarence thomas, ok?

really. love the guy y lone. , please. >> emily? >> i mean, the evidence for dalia's point also about the secular religion, the extra attention we give the court. it's popularity, the court is consistently much higher and it was true, you know, nine months after bush vs. cour core. . they were back up to over a -- 64%. that did not damage them as an institution. going to the point does this secular religion. it is the that one the court incorporate yourself. >> if i could just add one point that -- you know, one person who respect r --

respects the court i think is barack obama. i don't think barack obama thinks about the court a lot. i don't think he cares the way a lot of us care about the court. i think he believes change comes from the political season. are the ex-active branch and so the best thing to do is get the hell out of a way. i think he is someone who is just not -- and it's not out of ignorance. i mean he -- think he believes to political change does not come from the courts. and is not particularly hopeful or expected that the cours will ever lead the way. >> any of you who want to ask questions should come up to the fike phone phones in the front.

thank you so much. it's really a pleasure to put faces to names. i've heard a lot from all of you about the different theories about why the public cares to read about the supreme court despite maybe their irrelevance or whatever. that they're sort of our deety because of the personal answer buzz of of the politicians, only a couple of different reasons. mr. libtech you mentioned that it affects hundreds of millions of people in their decisions. so it was very little talk about the litigants and i'm curious particularly as one who cares about prisoner rights in particular, how you all incorporate the public's

interest. if you think that the public is interested through their they're concerned about value it does not just affect detainie. it affects how we prereceive ours. we just executed somebody yesterday or today -- >> yesterday. >> nobody mentioned mohammed's execution. you know, nobody's really going to care about whether you going to put more detail into the plate. so i'm curious whether the litigant story is ever -- and i've read your story. they do inform the storys that you end. but just talk about that a little bit.

>> i'll start by saying justice scalia' principle complaint is when we talk about a case that starts with "poor, old widow"." that's all we care about who's more sthitics. that's kind of delusional what the things that she said. focusing on the litigants is to the court because they want to to cuss on the group. i will say one of the ways the court has covered the court because i think adams really brought it to this coverage. i mean, they are people that are focused on telling the litigants stories. and i think it's a bit of a misnomer. and this is where i take issue with ydams. we're all writing the sametory.

and i think there are reporter out there who do a really superjob. and talk about where this is going down the line. i think that we don't all do it all the time. but compared to what i think the court used to do. i think we're doing a butch better job. the >> the struth to tell the story. but then and explain what that matters? it's going affect a lot of people. it also takes space. it's not necessarily something that is going to happen the day after a decision. it may more likely happen in the lead utch to a case. but then you can take the state your name. they will tell you part of the story. sometimes it is not esly done.

that is how a lot of pimeorvelirks you know, the written work that we all do up here, it's a deafly rare fide experience of i'm understanding the court. >> and i don't think it's an either or pop litigation. so you go visit with the 13 led student. you let her tell the story and you entrain the story how that it ins in. i get a much, much billing irreactioning to my fred sesssor wasn't create about doing. the second part of your question, know is he even larter. editors want a paragraph. what are the consequences that the new aven firefighting testing decision? >> i don't know. nobody knows. what are the consequences. and once wants to find an

opportunity to to come back at it. the rhythms there are moments in time when it's easy to write stories and it returns to something we call a pig. >> ok. the gentleman. is it a myth that justices get on the court and completely change that philosophy. or sit that predictable and the con fir station hearing is going to find out what's going to the court is so much integrated into the place cal system that -- it was always kind of a myth. there were prominent us the jiss bran ben. at least use tiss warren. both appointed byizeen-hour. david southor, there was a time

when the per lynn wall that sounded like a good guy. but the last six points to the court sotomayor, we don't aley know anything about sotomayor. but i mean olyo, briar, thomas all ex-chact as predicted. and i think sotomayor will be exactly azepe dicked. and i don't think we will see in our lifetime again a surprise. because the people who care about points, the -- corps of the president's party will immose and i think you know, -- you want to know who's going to be -- how the supreme court is? it's goinging to be tell me how your -- going to tell you

tomorrow. >> david? >> my question is about television, the most outspoken criticism and breaking tv on the court whether you're in the long term or return durn you think we'll have supreme court coverage for this is an issue that gets so much attention. i cannot g that people are really going to want to watch. most of all argument. when m.p.r. puts the radio recordings on. i do not hear excitement it's a long wavey event. it's not something that is going to suds enly turn into the latest youtube sensation. maybe like a two minute clib.

but the whole tenor of it, not so much and so you know, given that -- one i think the justices have a point that unless people really are going to sit through the whoil thing and understand it. the sound bite of it really could damageer them personally in a way that they don't want. it's hard for me to take a stance on this one as annoying as it is i public establish a quotation. and i agree with emily that it would make c-span exciting to put -- [laughter] >> coverage of the supreme. >> this may be on k upon. >> no english. i should be. it's a primary american institution that gives.

i think it's a crime that the court is not on television. i think every excuse i've heard from the jisstisses, to not put it on television or ult matly -- ultimately. the world will watch "dancing with the stars." but i think there's no jusity equation for it. and for a court that consistently de rates us for not getting what they do. the idea that they're not going to let us see them what to do is so. >> the idea that you know, -- i mean, let's. the supreme court is the government. the government is telling us

like, well, if you don't edit things in the way that we want, we won't like you watch, you know what we do. who the hell are they to tell how to do our jobs. they don't -- they don't tell us in other context. how we can do and how we can ait. let them do our job. >> danny dnd you say before that the jus dises before themselves more so you. so you want the whole court to do that. >> i want them to go down their level. >> i think the popular -- popularity issues have nothing to do with the book tour. his confirmation hearing is one

that nothing will dislodge. and i actually, i mean, i've seen those polls too. i really don't -- i@@@@@@@ h@ @ . say today, that it was very sad news that her husband john died yesterday. sandra o'connor's life has been a teachable 80 years. the way she handled her husband's alzheimer's disease was so graceful and so open and endearing, this sorry to see him go. >> most of you alluded to --

sotomayor and agreeing that her confirmation hearing is a sham. i would like to know if the press will bring that about? >> wa, wa. you know, if you all took heart what adam said you know, about all of us writing the same story when we cover the court. it was times of billion. it was so funny. because you had newspapers that had eight seats in that room. someone was podcasting. somebody was answering. you were talking about nothing for five days. i kept thinking there's got to be a p.t.a. meeting somewhere that i could be covering. or something is really

happening that's interesting. it's a debacle for all the reasons i might said. i might disagree that it was rock bottom. but i think that we've gone so far down the road of turning this into embarrassment on ice. i mean just this horrific kind of parade of off -- it plays to the worse of those who are watching and really what we're watching for is a gotcha moment where their going to embarrass themselves and we're going to feel bad for watching. my own sense of it is, all you can do is unspool it. all you can do is turn it back into a one-day process. they used to do this on paper. they used to do it in three hours. we should agree that no one comes out looking better and everybody comes out looking

worse, then we could agree to do it on half a day on paper and do it over. >> see, i have a completely different view of that. our own sector has it right. a supreme court nominee will say as little to get confirmed. >> robert borg answers the question. so the response to the boric experience has been to say nothing. but we shouldn't say -- this has happened for a reason. .

>> and in the case of someone who sat as we have for the second time in history, all

four of our federal appeals court supreme court, the other instance was directly before this one, she wrote a lot of decisions. and you can really see her mind at work. and she sat on a lot of cases. there was video of some of those cases. i think my paper did a good job to show that she turns out to be an able, boring, moderate jurist. >> i would like to go back to something that has to do with the coverage that surrounds supreme court constitutional issue, i was a member of the public advocates office in new jersey. we found an article that say fist you are going to look for certain remedies, go to state courts.

what is not being covered is how important state supreme court decisions are and how often a good state supreme court like the new jersey supreme court has the reputation in being able to structure opinions relying upon the new jersey constitution and raising issues and resolving them in ways that are different from the u.s. constitution, as you were answering to the thing about the secular religion about the supreme court, i think the general public has no idea that there is also something called the state supreme court. and the coverage for that, i would suggest, is almost zero. in new jersey i don't think the leading newspapers have a specific reporter for the new jersey supreme court. so i think the question is, as good of a job all you do, the public think there is is one court that makes all of these

issues. when the massachusetts supreme court makes a decision, it is like how do they think they docked that. i would like to hear comments about whether you can cover other courts in the way you so successfully did the supreme court. >> you know great newspapers don't have a reporter for the new jersey supreme court. great newspapers don't have a reporter for new jersey. the business is bad. there are not enough reporters. >> that is barely a joke. i completely agree. the state supreme courts do very significant work. 95% of the litigation is in this country is in the state courts. never was covered well and now it is completely hollowed out. i was talking to a federal judge who said 10 years ago i would have three reporters in my courtroom routinely.

two local papers. the a.p. would be there. now every two weeks an intern calls me up asking have you done anything news worthy. >> given those realities which are harsh and all of us up here do not approve of, i think the best hope comes not in a beat reporter way but through other directs. it is really more of a legal affairs beat or government beat or social issues. that is the best hope we have to get a broader understanding. the problem is that is not systematic. so a lot of the work of the court will fall through. if you are worried about covering these courts as

institutions, there is a problem there is what i am suggesting. >> quick comment and a question. back to the question of mystifying. it turns out that is a universal phenomenon. undemocratic insulated institutions are considerably more popular and trusted than democratic par tis pitorre ones, why one of the many institutions the one generally they are not copied by other countries, butt one that has is the constitutional review for human rights, which is very popular and spread all over the world. that, i guess, is true for daily reporting you don't make sure of that in the same way

maybe that people do. but it does strike me that jurebl reporters and particularly supreme court reporters are like regular reporters in writing books, that there are lots of books that are based on quotes and anonymous quotations. wonder if you can say something about that evolution and what it has done to people's view of the supreme court and what the experience is like getting nom nom -- >> i guess since i am the most recent book author here, one of the interesting experiences about being in a supreme court justice's chambers is noticing how rarely the phone rings.

a lot of these people actually like to talk. sometimes you only have to ask. the traditions are such that they will not talk forat tribugse by at large. i think she has gotten a little looser now that she will not be around that long. obviously a major source of mine and people who have written books are law clerks. i think i quoted a story that emily and someone wrote about how law clerks think they are a lot more important than they are, which i agree.

you know, i was able to piece together my book from those sources and the law clerks, hey. >> i have a standard jobaling they tell about the court. most supreme court reporters talk about the law as if it is alive and the justices as if they are dead. and by that a simplely mean we are really the nerdiest collective. i say that with enormous respect. this is -- these people read and they read the footnotes and blue brief and they are not really interested. for some of the reasons adam said they are not going to get a huge scoops.

go through the dumpsters out back for weeks. you are not going to find the thong. it is just not thabeet. what we tend to do, i find all of the time, is come out of argument and say did you see what happened. oh, my god. that gets us excited. a lot of us have not really gotten the scoop because it is really kind of a funny beat. so many of us are in love with the law and the constitution and the ebb and flow. >> if i can add one thing, i am a visitor to the supreme court. and when i go i always go into the press room. the supreme court has a press room which is the quietest press room in the history of journalism. i feel like a gawky adolescent because i am talking too loud.

it is a very weird place. >> they read all of the briefs. they care about the cases. i can barely tell you what it is. it is just a very strange place that i don't spend a lot of time in. >> i have a question relating to what you said about how either story one or story two might apply depending on the case. do you think that is just a function of which cases are interesting at that moment and which things are popular or is there something fundamental about a case that would make

the judges decide it either in a political lines in story one or like story two?@@@@@@@ @ @ @ argument is audiocast on npr, they do it just on the "important" cases.

the ones that they do audiocast the same day are affirmative action, guns, the things that make people crazy and tend to get the justices to say the most insane things. those are not the cases they should be audiocasting if they should try to get away from story one. >> they are grounded in the constitution. we are still arguing over what it means to have due process of law and liberty and equality and these phrases that are beautiful and important but open very, very open to interpretation. that is sort of the underpinning of the political element of these cases.

>> the comment about the supreme court as the final decision maker but the united states supreme court is not the final decision maker when state constitutional issues are questioned before the court there is a whole area that justice brening pointed out in 1977, the state courts. i just wanted to comment on that. talking about the mystification and the way people viewed the court and judges, i found that in my experience the disciplinary cases that the new jersey supreme court handled was interesting to see public reaction. people want to see judges that are better than we are.

they are deciding these issues for us. we want them to be better. it is a very different attitude, i think. finally i pose this as a question. you talked -- someone talked about the dinner table conversation in this country could be about supreme court decisions, but is that really true? i remember a survey a few years back where people surveyed across the country, i think some large number, 50%, did not know what the three branches of government are in this country.

i think you reach out to a specialized leadership that listens and wonders how you view that. you are not, i think, reaching the majority of the country. i may be wrong. >> we do what we can. one of my favorite days of the year is the last day of the term in late june or early july when all of the big cases come. usually they save the big cases for last. i am at my post at cnn. my job is to try to explain what they mean. at they are reading them at 10:00 and hand them to me. you know, i think journalism

is, as we all know an imperfect profession and rough and ready profession and we do our best. and i think as time passes, you know, first it is me on tv. then it is the bulldogs. then it is the first web newspaper reports. then it is, you know, at the end of the week. one of the great things, this is a difficult time for journalism, particularly traditional journalism, but it is also a fantastic time for journalism. there is more intelligent observation and analysis than there has ever been in my lifetime. i think that is great. >> anybody else? >> but i think coming from the

perspective of the new jersey supreme court things may look a little different. in journalism there has been more and more reporters covering fewer and fewer stories. there are the state courts that don't get any coverage. >> if you just decide a gay marriage case every day we would cover you. >> that is an issue i thought about quite a bit, whether under the federal constitution there should be a right to gay marriage and my question to you is twofold. basically let's say that a majority of the justices came down with the view that it was a violation of equal protection. in light of roe v. wade would it not be good for the court to

duck that issue or refuse, partly out of self-defense given all of the elections >> i have not come to the conclusion that it is a violation of equal protection. i have been curious, you have been following this yourself. you can tell me what you will do if you came to those conclusions. >> justice ginsburg said roe went too far, too fast and that roe v. wade created a backlash.

when it upheld, two-thirds of the public was on its side. when it struck down a similar scientist 18 years later, two-thirds of the public office its side then. the popular opinion is moving fast. >> and this goes back to the point that jeff made earlier about president obama and his philosophy about the court. if you see change as being made most effectively and lastingly by the legislature or the executive or some combination or by the voters in a state ballot, referendum, you want to hold the court off in these situations.

the count is moving quickly and we will not hold on to those in the same we as have with abortion and you can argue courts are about protecting individual rights. that is exact leija they are supposed to do and take these bold steps. but they don't do it very often. brown vs. board of education was a really big deal. i am not sure we would be well served as a country by that bold step right now. >> robert jackson said that the challenge of that decision was to explain in legal terms what was a political conclusion. they would have to do that in this case. >> they would have to enforce it, which the court did not do for years.

>> one of the issues that lurks behind so many of the questions and so much of the discussion today has to do with the authority of the court. in this case whether the court would endanger its own authority. perhaps we can finish up by anticipating what is going to be happening in the rest of this season. the court does have some major cases that it will be confronting. do you see it raising fundamental question" role of the court, authority and citizens united? >> i would say briefly that the public conversation about why the court didn't go all the way. why they did not pull the

trigger in major, you know, one case over the other to the voting rights act. so i think that is the carryover theme that we are struggling with. we have clearly five votes to reshape the revolution it is not happening as dramatically as one might expect. one of the themes, we will see how that plays out in the guns case and citizens and see that play out. but i think the theme to watch from my perspective is what is animating that slight, tentative, carefulness at the heart of this, you know, what should be the high water mark is something else that is going on.

>> in the 1930's you had this tremendous clash between an act visit moment in the executive and legislative branch and a conservative supreme court basically saying the judicial branch saying you can't do that and have a national recovery administration. ultimately time took care of it and roosevelt got his appointees. i think we are heading into a moment of greater government activism. we are heading into a moment where if president obama has two terms, which i think the odds favor that, he will do a lot of stuff. a lot of that stuff will get challenged in court. just to give you a specific example it is innocent front of the supreme court yet but the

new fcc says we will not let comcast send some packets of information faster than others. we will require them to treat everybody the same. but you don't have the power to do that. you just don't have the authority to do that. that is a classic example, i think, of a case where the limits of federal power will be tested in a liberal conservative way. and i think as the obama administration proceeds, we will see more of that. whether the conservative majority, really wants to challenge the obama administration on important issues, i think that is a big issue. >> so the voting rights case was the key moment last year.

on the other hand very much concerned with the reputation and the reputation of the court. trying to figure out the right way to the institutional resources and to get as much accomplished over time as he can but not at the expense of creating problems for the court in the short-term. i don't know anything in particular will happen in the short-term. and in other cases too, there is still a majority of the group that is quite conservative. >> i agree with all of that. because i think adam is right, i am the most interested in whether we have another

retirement at the end of this term. not because it will change the composition of the court, because presumably it won't. the 4-4-1 lineup will stay in place but i am interested because i think we will learn a lot about barack obama and the idea that he doesn't care about the court is true. or whether he thinks we need a line of the left on the court as a counter weight to just scalia. that is the detective story i am interested in watching next. >> thank you so much. please join me in thanking our guests.

. .

>> we have also come up with a resolution help desk.

>> i am confident in our people. we do give them discretions. they have to make an honest decision. they don't have the luxury of being able to pick up the phone

and ask advice. >> i am concerned with this email of knowing who was and was not going to be at this event. j the revelation of that email should get us to make an investigation.

>> we had a full vote on the floor. expectations is to recess, reconvene around 12:15. this is recess.

>> we'd like to bring in attendance ms. miller for 5:00. >> thank you for your attendance. mft questions have already been asked. i know you've answered many of them. in an investigation under review and you cannot answer some of those. i appreciate why that is the

case. in the case of its white house and other social secretaries. i would want to make an observe from the email coming from them basically saying, i know these people are unable to attend the state dinner. they mention senator harry reed and two other couples. not only did they mention the individuals not coming, they also say why they are not coming. harry reid, they have gone home early for thanksgiving. this other couple.

>> again, i with anybody wish this never occurred. however, we are going to use it to make our organization to become better than before. as far as those emails. i'm not familiar with that. i understand your concern with that. i don't know where that information came from. i'm hopeful we can determine to agree with that information and not have it out there. it's troubling. it's troubling. i am certain that would be your

answer you didn't know specifically speeshg pel owesy trying to get the invitation. in fact, the speaker and other members

>> i find that very troubling. i want to point that out. this is been an administration that talked about being more above. we asked to have the social secretary come to testify at congressional committee. they say it's a separation of powers, which i think is a far, far stretch. i would also mention several members of the service put on leave without pay.

>> i wonder if any administrative staff has been put on leave with pay? jo i don't know about that. i will tell you the reason we have taken the action we have taken is >> it seems to me it would be helpful to have the white house secretary to be available at the various check points. otherwise it would seem to be there was out sourcing at the political part of the job.

>> thank you for coming to face the music as we say. thank you. i think it's important to remember you not only do a job. if you have to. you may have to lose your life to protect any of us who happened to be there. i agree this is severe. i agree i'm concerned. i don't want to send a message

to those who are serving that the appreciation is not there. i think this is mixable. that's what i hope we will do. my questions are it is my understanding from press reports. it was quite busy that night. there may not have been enough equipment set up. how much do you normally set up of having a guest of this many people. the doors opened up a little late that night. we had one magnatometer that night. if we had two, we would have got people through faster. >> this would have been a great distance away from there. the initial check point is at

15th and alexander hamilton. the check point would be just inside the east wing. >> so had a line built up of people waiting? >> we had two different things going on that evening. we had about 35 to 40 vehicles dropping people off. we had the rest of the people arriving. i am told there was a back up of people. i'm not sure what the line was but there was a line there. how close were they to the physical check point. was it someone they had to physically call. where were these people. >> they were up by the east wing.

they would have been up at the entryway into the east wing. wouldn't that also be past where these machines were going on? >> i know they were write in the area. again, they were available. >> ok. we have to go fast. you said you feel no one else breached the system. if the officer allowed someone to pass, what makes you think they didn't let other people past. so far, our review has indicated, no other people would be able to get in. i would be more than happy to speak to you in a classified setting.

>> would that normally had been something to raise a red flag to say, hey, your name is not on the list and you are using a passport? >> i'm not sure if any other identification was -- maybe the officer would have thought, ok. your name is not on the list and you are showing a passport. >> we would accept the pass point. >> ok. my last question builds upon congress person lee's question. if someone is not on your list

and they want to gain access to a bidding, is that illegal? >> you can be charged for lying to an officer? >> are we pursuing any charges in this case. mm, we do have an ongoing investigation.

jo my question has to do now with some other prot . are you familiar with the president from the ukraine? >> yes, ma'am. the president was poisoned at a dinner. he carried with whoever poisoned

him utilized a chemical agent known as dioxin. i am concerned that we've opened up a scenario here that we need to be reassured that we closed every possible loop of harm or danger to our president. i'm sure an agent like that is not detected through an magnetometer. i look forward to the conference we would have on how to dress something like that.

were you aware that this couple entered the congressional black caucus through the kitchen. we knew that the first lady would be there. they mixed and mingled with the crowd in the same way at that events that they did at the state dinner. can you speak to that. >> i read reports of that and we are looking into that issue as well. i understand there's a whole lot of photographs of this same couple. we will have to get the facts of it of them enter evering through a kitchen facility, that represents again the types of harmful agent that can be dispursed in an environment where our president and his

guests are present. thank you for being forthright. i believe the level of consciousness that our agents have that the white house has about safety and security has to be taken to a whole new level. we will use this as unfortunately a rough, teachable moment to really get things right. there are a lot of folk that's need to question themselves. i hope we are questioning ourselves so that something like this can never happen again. i will close by saying i find it ironic that this couple was able to get in to the white house with suchese when i was basically detained by secret

service just to get into the stadium to nominate my president. there seems to be some standards about who is credible in their description of whom they are and who they are and where they belong and who does not. >> thank you very much. >> the gentle lady from arizona. >> thank you for taking responsibility and having the courage to show up today. the most important question of that evening is at any point was the president at danger? >> as i stated earlier, in my opinion, no, there was not. i appreciate you looking beyond that incident and looking at other vulnerabilities. i was concerned with the

statement of mrs. richardson recording the entry at 15th and alexander where only i.d.s are checked and weapons are not checked until the east wing. maybe weapons should be checked before they get that close to the white house. is that correct? >> for a state dinner, that is our procedure. for other types of event, it will happen further off site. it is inexcusable that these people were let through. but depending on the type of event is, we'll drive where we are going to do our screening. one other thing, i'm a former prosecutor. over the years, i have observed that we expect su superior

enforcement from our law enforcement and then don't give them adequate resources. i want you to know i'm sensitive to this. it's our committee's responsibility and oversite to make sure the security service has the resources they need to do a superior job. i am disappointed that this couple did not appear today. i am thinking perhaps they were on the invited guest list. thank you, i yield back. >> thank you. i think the record can affirm in every instance, we always ask whether or not he has the resources to do his job. when the budget comes, it's a budget from whatever

administration has been charged. his answer in most instances is i can get the job done with the money. not to put words in your mouth. >> my words are that i work with the secretary. i work with the hill to ensure we get the proper funding. i don't know of one agency head that says they need more funding. i work for the second of homeland security. i do my best to work through that process. >> i do pressure support, sir. >> gentleman from kansas, 5:00. >> thank you. as the head of the secret service, you are perhaps the less visible of the most significant agencies in federal

government. >> i am happy this occurred. it has the agency engaged in ways we can look at ways to prevent things from occurring. i only had one question. it may lead to some others. i have become a little concerned over the fact that the secret service is engaged in searching for missing and exploited children and while i think that

falls outside of what i always believed the secret service was doing. they are now expected to expand its role to include mortgage fraud. what is leading us to take what has traditionally been the responsibility of the fdic and the sec and probably the irs and place it with the secret service? >> to your point, sir. i can't say that i'm happy that this occurred. >> i'm sure you are not. >> i do a grow that there will be some good that comes from this. we are a duel mission organization. we were first founded to

discov discover counterfeit currency. we have about 3500 agents. 2200 agents are out in the field. they do support our protective mission. it's my believe what our agents learn make them that much better in our protection evaluating people and dealing with various types of situations. the investigative mission revolves around the financial times. those are access to advice or credit card fraud and as it relates to cyber related issues. we do do some work for missing and exploited children. a lot of that is because of the

cape abilities we have. that's not full time for every agent. we have a small number of agents assigned to that. we believe that our job is to make an impact on the community. we believe this is a good thing for us to do. it does not take away from our other mission. i want to be clear. i've said this in writing. i've said this in numerous meetings. i'll say our number one concern is to protect our president. it would be a disaster to this country if something were to happen to the president. nothing would take priority over our protection of the president and the other people we protect. we do have enough resources to work on these resources. >> i know. a degree with everything you've said. i guess there's a proposal now

to give secret service $20 million more to work in mortgage fraud. i guess i'm looking for some consistent tan sy. why not give the $20 million to the f.b.i. which also investigates mortgage fraud. it seems we are duplicating services with different agencies. if the f.b.i. is doing mortgage fraud, you are doing it and to some degree the fdc, treasury, why can't we have one agency that does one particular service like protective service? why do we go into all these other areas? is it seems to me that we are diluting the areas. >> we have jurisdiction into

bank fraud. this is dove taling. i'm not trying to compete with the f.b.i. when it comes to doing mortgage fraud investigations. they have more access and people i am perhaps inarticulate trying to get to where we're going. we fund the f.b.i. to get to our mortgage fraud. then we fund at this proposal responded to congress which we probably will be. then your agency is doing fraud. i don't understand why we can't have an agency doing a mortgage fraud. how do we do it. do you and the f.b.i. director say, ok.

we are going to do missouri and you do kansas or you do las vegas? we'll do ds sn >> what i would say i do believe there's mrepty of work out there for everybody. protection is the number one priority. if i believe this initiative was taking away from our act to take care of our number one priority, i wouldn't do it. sir, i would be more than happy to bring up our assistant director of investigations that is in charge of this to give you a briefing on that. i do want to make sure you are comfortable why we are working on it. the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from new jersey.

mr. sul i van. the highest compliment in secret service has been the highest quality and as professional as you have been. i am proud of the agency. like the congress, we make mistakes. you make mistakes. wouldn't you say what we are talking about today is an institutional problem? >> i think it's an isolated incident. it is due to -- i don't believe it's due to any system yik problem but due to poor judgement. >> at the beginning of this year or after the inauguration, a

newspaper reported that several security vulnerabilities were observed by some guests at the inauguration of president barak obama. they reported at an off site location that the sek occur buses could have been infill rated. a report was given to the agency after that. can i assume, can everybody in this panel assume that those were addressed and solutions implemented? >> first of all, i believe that report did not substantiate those claims? as i read the report, it was reported that we did have appropriate security procedures in that, sir, tell you that working with the inspector general, we flew out to south

california who made that report to the paper. we confronted that and spoke to all the people who made that claim. one thing we had found was that many of the people that were out there working on our behalf were not recognizable to these people. we had agents out there that weren't in uniform but had an overcoat and a hat and skafsh. we did have people out there. we did learn that for a future situation like that. it would be better to change the location of the megatometer. at no time was there any threat to having the mem on the bus. >> that was proven by that report. >> i am interested in not only the threat to the president but

the threat to your folks and the people who were at the event. this is not reality tv. apparently these two people think this is a continuation of the popular tv programs dealing with reality. after a while, can you can't separate reality tv from reality. americans have a little problem right now trying to distinguish between truth and fiction. what bothers me is that many people look at this hearing and thinking about some sensational incident. it's really about a failure that's plagued many institutions. a larger department has yet to really integrate all of the security components the

committee has talked time and time again about the low moral among some of the uniformed officers. it's fallen on deaf ears. i'm sad to say we have apre 9/11 mind set we think we are invincible. the real ugly truth is, we don't even think about the secret service because we figure they have it all covered until something happens. that is when we start asking questions. i want to be in support of you tomorrow as well as today. it bothers me that now at the date we reated the department and the threats being proactive.

this incident is a perfect example. you have been a director of the secret service almost 12 years i think. >> yes, sir. >> you started out in 1983, 1982. something like that. >> i want to ask you, do you agree we need real change right now? >> how do you define that, sir? >> we need changes. we are not only talking about this one incident. have you had full cooperation to bring about the changes you see are important to make sure agency more effective and efficient? have you received that aid? we don't know much about secret service until we go there and see all the work you do. i'm wandering now that you are here. is there something else you should be doing to make you a

more effective agency? >> i believe there's always something we can do better. >> now get me to the real answer. >> i think people are asking why are going to the department of homeland security, you are about transportation and borders. i believe we are in the right department and getting the right support from this department. our people have a really challenging job. our people made a mistake. i don't bloeb that has anything to do with any of the institutionnal procedures. i believe this is just a break down in judgement. we do some great things everyday. if we had hearings from everything we did, there wouldn't be enough hours in the day to hear about what people are doing. they are not looking for anyone to praise them. we are not looking to bring any

attention to ourself. our men and women are out there everyday working away from home, traveling. our people do a great job. i could not be more proud of them. i believe this is just a mistake. i believe it's indwik tiff of any institutionnal problem. >> can i make a clarifying point. >> i'm glad mr. sul i van is before us. when someone goes on to the campus of the white house, it's dwifrn than going into the white house. there's questions you were being asked before. you have to get on to the campus. you have to go through security. in order to get into the white house, you go through another set of securities. i'm glad you brought it out and

clarified that. >> the gentleman from texas, mr. green. thank you for listening to this hearing. it's timely. i thank you for appearing. mr. director, as you know. and i am confident that you agree. we are a country of laws. we don't allow people to change the law. we consistently follow the law. i'd like to compliment you on the job you've done today because you have indicated there are certain things you cannot talk about while an investigation is pending. i think you should be complimented or this. a thorough investigation should

take place before you come to your conclusion. my a semgs is that this is what you are doing. you want a thorough investigation before you come to your conclusion. >> yes, sir. >> the american people want what they perceive to be as interlopers, they want them treated the same way that they would be treated if they showed up without an invitation and somehow managed to get into an affair of this magnitude. that's what they want. they want you to be fair and investigate. if you find that they have breached the law, they want them prosecuted. that's what the american people want. now there is some consternation

in the minds of people that eminents from the notion that this is a real significant embarrassment for the secret service. the fear does exist in the minds of some that the cause of the level and magnitude of the embarrassment, there may not be the level of lawful prosecution after the investigation that this circumstance would merit if this were john q. citizen. my question to you is this. if the facts show that there has been a breach of the law, that there has been in some way some deceit that was unlawful. will there be a signature ross prosecution of this couple? >> as you stated. it's an embarrassment.

>> the next thing i think the american people want is this. they want not only this family properly punished but if there are other persons who conspired or who worked in some way in a fashion against the law and protocol, they want those

persons to be properly punished too. to the extent that your investigation reveals there were others involved, will you assure us all persons associated with this who may have breached the law in your opinion that they will all be properly prosecuted. >> i believe so. >> my final thought is this. i don't think your head should be boued. things happen. it's unfortunate. out of adversity, there is opportunity. you should see this as an opportunity to modify, clarify

and continue to do the outstanding job the secret service is known to do. i compliment you on what you have done. i believe you will make sure that the proper persons after the investigation if the law merits that you will ensure that they will be prosecuted. >> thank you very much. recognize the ranking member. >> mr. chairman. i ask consent to introduce into the record to the white house staff. >> i believe the chairman would see the emails have been made to me by the couple's attorneys.

>> we do intend to request a speena >> could you accept the fact that this is a law enforcement issue? >> i accept the fact that this is a jointly shared situation historically? >> i am strongly stated that historically and continually, the social secretary's office has worked with the secret servi service. >> i would suggest that any

social service secretary. addressing the law enforcement secret services before the perm traitors are not here. the two parties directly involved with access and perp frags are the one that's need to be before a homeland security committee. i respect the gentleman's inquiry and request. i would argue that muddying the waters with an administrative actor if you will. i for one am interested in finding out where the perpetrators are at this point in time. those who i believe intentionally entered into the

white house falsely. i think the questions of our dear friend from new york will be answered. even a discussion is out of point at this period. >> you made a comment. she responded. the white house staff says this we should operate i am properly.

it has been indicated that the security at the white house has no seek relt service. any individual does not remove the primary responsibility from the secret service. i'd like to thank director and members for their questions.

members of the committee weshgs will move to the executive session and clear the roam and be able to access the sections where we cannot prepare and ask and get answers from. i'll ask the clerk to prepare the witness table for the second panel of witnesses.

jo wood like to reconvene the second panel. the committee provided this couple to testify at the

hearing. we need the perspective break downs. half of that picture was just provided. we node the other half of the picture from those private citizens. the committee needs to understand all those facts for the record, we did engage the attorneys to facilitate the testimony and communicate the rule 11 of house rules grant this committee the authority to speena testimony.

once the authority is activated, if they continue to rebuck this committee's oversight request, they could be subject to the concept of congress. my door remains open. i hope they will be as willing to talk to congress as they have been to talk to the media. i now move forward with the executive session with the purpose of talk with director sul i van. >> i would ask and say this since dez ray rogers was invited the same time as we invited this

couple. we will note that theyer not here. we will proceed with a request for speena for dez ray rogers. as for the individual that's breached security pursuant to committee rule six, mr. kings a ranking member is generally entitled to identify as a minority witness. ms. rogers' role is not

security. there is a distinction here ms. rogers is not a central figure in so much as her role on the executive staff does no encompass security. moreover, the importance in light of the series of upcoming wouts season event. engaging in a fight with the white house on this matter when a testimony sought is not issue to the question.

it is clear if the ranking members are correct. i will allow you to call whatever witness you would like to. i have supported you in the

past. we look forward to clearing the room for executive session. >> today on washington journal, officer charles stevens talks about the conflicts of war. then a discussion on president barak obama's plan for sending more u.s. troops to afghanistan

with scott wilson of the "washington post." a look at the dubai economy. following that. a discussion on the debate and the senate in the healthcare legislation. that's live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here at c-span. >> as we get better and better at what we do, we run a risk of overconfidence and ar owe against. he's our guest tonight on c-span's q and a. now highlights from saturday's senate debate starting with senator john mccain. this is a little over an hour. minority now has -- the republicans now have 45 minutes for debate. mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: the senator from

utah, the senator from kentucky, the senator from new hampshire, the senator from georgia, the senator from florida, and the senator from idaho -- wyoming be included -- they all run together out there -- be included in the colloquy if that -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, very quickly, i just want to remind my colleagues that the aarp continues to be referred to as endorsing this legislation and endorsing it and supporting and opposing amendments that would have done things that they in the past have supported, so i would just urge my colleagues to look at this woaft -- one of my favorite sources of information, opinion, "the washington post," but not advertised in this lobbying campaign have been aarp's substantial earnings from insurance royalties and the potential benefits that would come its way from many other reforms. so we have been looking into that. and guess what? the aarp endorsement of more

than $400 billion in medicare savings, endorsement. according to its own financial statements from 2008 aarp generated 38% of its its $1.1 billion in revenue or more than had 14 million in -- more than $414 million in royalty fees. they also obviously will -- if we take away medicare advantage, then medigap sales will have to go up because that provides for the services that are being taken away. so we -- under the aarp, they would generate in their endorsements, they have generated $414 million, putting them in fifth place of all of the health insurance companies in america, behind united health, wellpoint, aetna, and humana. and so we have before the body a -- an amendment that would modify any health insurers

remuneration to the same salary as the level of the president of the united states. so i ask unanimous consent at this time that the aarp executives be added in as to be under the effect of this pending amendment from the senator from arkansas. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mccain: is there objection? mr. baucus: mr. president, i object. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mccain: mr. president, i also understand that wal-mart sells health insurance policies. they are based in arkansas, and i ask unanimous consent that wal-mart be included in this cushion excessive remuneration that will now be placing them under the same level as the president of the united states. mr. baucus: mr. president, reserving the right to object. to be totally candid, these are stunt amendments which we have not seen, i have never heard of the amendment. mr. mccain: it's pretty simple. it's not