in defense and the civilian sector, we have to improve this. we have to deal with additional authorities. the lieberman-collins bill addresses that. we support congress in facilitating that capability. >> we have seen the word go from distributive denial of services with websites to the incredible intellectual property and technology theft. it has happened in a few years. the cyber domain is changing rapidly. i cannot overstate my personal sense of urgency about that. i would like to pile on to the

secretary in support of the pending legislation that encourages information sharing and takes the necessary first step. on the issue of authorities, the president does have the authorities he needs. we need to develop rules of engagement. these things occur at network speed. we cannot afford to convene a study after someone has knocked out the east coast power grid. we're working on that. >> i know my time is up. you feel there is enough money for protection would give you concern is protection of dot com. it has to have a sense of urgency at developing the

framework in protecting of dot com. >> i do not have any intention -- dot com would include your personal e-mail address. i am fine with what you do in your own personal e-mail domain. i am concerned about the critical infrastructure of this country. that is where we should focus efforts. >> my time is up. i have other questions. i would not be the senator from maryland if i did not raise the ships coming into baltimore harbor. we're saying goodbye to the hospital ship comfort. i take no comfort in that. could you take a look at that? >> thank you very much. >> thank you.

mr. chairman, you recall your time in the house of representatives and time as the chairman of the house budget committee. you set the stage in deliberations for us to reach a balanced budget i am proud of that achievement and know it was not easy. i asked staff to compare spending when our budget was in balance to where it is today in three categories. using constant dollars. here is what they came up with. going back to 2001, there has been 0 increase in spending for discretionary spending. when it comes to entitlements spending, there has been a 30% increase in spending since we were in balance. with the budget we are proposing, the base budget will be a 73% increase over what we were spending and balance.

i think the sequestration and it's hard and fast -- hits hard and fast. at the end of the day, it is the same percentage of gdp as when it was in balance. perhaps you could go back to your history with the budget. what is a fair number for us when it comes to the defense of this country and security chris burrous i know we need every dollar it takes to be safe. if we are going to cut back on health care and education to provide more money on the military side, is that going to have an impact on the men and women who volunteered to serve in the military and whether they're qualified to serve? >> first and foremost with regards to the defense budget, i do believe we have to play a role.

we will be cutting half a trillion dollars from the defense budget over the next 10 years. if you add sequestration, you are looking at another chunk, $500 billion on top. defense has to play a role. at the same time, we have a responsibility to protect the strongest military in the world and defended this country. -- and to defend this country. you know this as well as i do. you are dealing with a serious deficit issue and debt issue. you cannot keep going back to the same well to resolve it. you cannot keep going back to domestic spending or the discretionary side of the budget to solve a multi-trillion dollar

problem facing this country. if you are serious about taking this on -- it is what we had to do in the reagan administration. it is what we did in the bush administration. it is what we did in the clinton administration. if you are serious, you got to put everything on the table. you have to look at mandatory spending, revenue, capping domestic discretionary. you will not solve this problem with the domestic discretionary budget. >> when we brought the experts in to talk about where we might save money, the most darling testimony came when we asked about private contractors who work for the department of defense. we ask, how many are there ' answer was we do not know. -- we ask, how many are there? the answer was we do not know.

when you look at the dollar amounts being spent in the department of defense for contractors as opposed to the civilian work force of the department of defense and those in uniform, it is substantially higher. for many, of outsourcing became a passion. people stopped asking the most basic question of whether it was serving the nation and saving money. i noticed you are bringing some jobs back into the department of defense. you said you need to reduce the service support contractors. it seems there has been documented waste when it comes to service contracts. when it comes to contracts for big ticket items, the cost overruns on the f 25 equal to 12 cylinders -- 12 solyndra as.

how much is built into your cost savings and cuts when it comes to the potential overspending on contractors and cost overruns on projects? >> on the efficiency front, this is an area of focus. we did 125 million last year -- $150 billion last year with regards to those deficiencies. we're adding another 60 billion on top. that is aimed at trying to reduce contractors to gain greater efficiencies. i would be the last to say we cannot find savings in the defense budget. we can and did. the goal is not just to baca

way -- to whack away without a strategy. as long as we can tie it to the strategy and make sense out of how we achieve savings, we can achieve the $500 billion in savings we have announced today by congress. we can achieve and be more efficient in the future. do not think defense alone will solve the bigger problem you are facing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, welcome back. >> i have two issues to cover. last november we had a short conversation about what i was hoping would be the next step in breaking down discrimination

against people with disabilities. that was allowing people with disabilities to serve in the armed forces. we had a unique case of a young man who had gone to rotc in california and had done extremely well on his chest but was denied entry to the military because he was deaf. a proposed having a pilot program of bringing people into the military who had add to the defense of the country -- could add to the defense of the country and the exemplary employees but might not be with to be chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or be a pilot, but they can do a lot of other things. since that time, we have had problems with the department of defense in moving ahead on this.

your requested a briefing on this from people below, but nothing is happening. my staff has tried to work on this from the first of the year. numerous phone calls and meetings have been canceled. we could never get responses on setting up a pilot program until a couple of days ago when they found out i was going to ask you about this. we now have a meeting set for next week. i know you were going to look at that. i think this is one place where we have to break down some barriers. there are a lot of people with disabilities who want to serve their country. they may not be able to do everything, but within their abilities they can provide a lot of support. please take a look at this and set up a pilot program. if you cannot do this, let me

know. we will try a legislative approach. >> appreciate your leadership on this issue. unum lead on this issue during your career on the hill. i respected. -- you have let on this issue during your career on the hill. i respect it and i agree with it. right now when we have wounded warriors with new legs and arms, sometimes they are back on duty and doing the job well. if we can do it for wounded warriors, i think we can do it for others as well. you have my assurance we will look at it. >> some of these young people are coming through schools who have a lot of abilities and want to serve.

that was one. the second one had to do with another issue i raised with you. in afghanistan, the department of defense has been involved in a program of spurring small businesses to get people off of the drug business. there is an afghan labor law and u.s. labor law about child labor. we ask that you work with our department of labor to incorporate and ngo -- an ngo in monitoring and setting up a third party verification system to make sure no u.s. taxpayer dollars are used to support businesses that employ children

in the worst forms of child labor. we have had some progress. as we turn this over to them, we are not setting up a mandatory and verification system. that bothers me. we were doing a good job. now that we're handing it over, we're not making an agreement to make sure that they adhere to the independent verification system. i note is a small screen. you have a lot of things on your plate. -- i know it is a small thing. you have a lot of things on your plate. it is one more area where we can do a lot of good while supporting an industry in afghanistan. i would ask you to look at the contracts we have to safecard -- safeguard the verification system in afghanistan. >> we are aware of your

concerns. let me ask bob to comment. >> i think you are referring to stability and operations. they did do some delays trying to make sure there were appropriate safeguards on child labor. it is difficult in a country with different rules and standards. >> there is a lot in afghanistan. we want them to appear to their own law. >> i hear you. they are aware of the concerns. i think they have made steps in the right direction, but i will make sure we're doing all we can. >> just give me a point person to work with in your office. my staff knows it well. we know what needs to be done in terms of the verification system. thank you. >> senator collins.

>> let me thank my colleague from maryland or bringing up the important issue of cyber security. she along with senator feinstein, senator lieberman, senator rockefeller, and i have been working very hard. we agree it is critical we set standards for critical infrastructure. it has such important consequences. i am very much appreciate the endorsement this morning. i also appreciate your urging us to act sooner rather than later to avert what would be disastrous consequences if sequestration were allowed to go into effect. i think it would be huge mistakes to wait. we need to tackle that issue now.

i think it would help if you provide more detail. i know the armed services committee has announced or that. that me turn to another issue. as i review the department of defense budget, i am concerned the shipbuilding account is significantly undervalued. shipbuilding represents 2.2% of the budget requested by the department of defense. 16 ships were eliminated or delayed outside of the five-year budget window. to put this in perspective, our country spends as much on interest payments on the national debt and three month as we do on shipbuilding in the

entire year. the executive branch as a whole spends slightly more than the equivalent of the entire shipbuilding budget, $15 billion a year, on federal agency travel and conferences. i know the administration is trying to address travel and conferences, but that says something about our priorities. i am concerned the combatant commanders at testified about the importance of the maritime do may -- domain in their responsibility. i recently returned from a conference in southeast asia. secretary, you were there as well. i heard about china's aggressiveness in the south china sea and its maritime

claims, it's harassment of vessels from the philippines for example. the importance of our navy to project power with the pivot to the asia-pacific region cannot be overstated. i am concerned the budget projects only 285 ships by 2017. every study i have seen have said we need a minimum of between 303 hundred 15 ships. while our ships are increasing in their ability, quantity still counts if you are going to project power.

, would ask you to address my concern -- i would ask you to address my concern on how the department can settle on 235 ships when virtually every city calls for 300 -- every study calls for 300. >> i appreciate the concern you have indicated. i asked the navy chief to make certain we have the ships we need to project the power we have to in the pacific, middle east, and elsewhere effectively. their recommendation was based on the number of ships in line to come on, to do this in a way that meets our needs, the 285

ship approach is a good baseline. we are ultimately going to move to 300 ships by 2020. we are maintaining 11 carriers. oure going to maintain destroyer and key fleets. we're obviously going to maintain a strong submarine force as well. i am convinced based on the navy chiefs recommendations we can do this in a way that protects a strong navy for the future. i will keep looking at the numbers to make sure we are in the right place because i share the same concern. if we're going to have a strong presence in th pacific and middle east, i have got to have

a navy that is able to project that. everybody i have talked to says we have the force we need to make that happen. >> i know we are over time. i feel obligated to comment. the budget we submitted is a joint budget. it is not the individual service budgets and bundled together. we worked this as a joint game. we were faced with the budget control act, $487 billion. every service paid a bit of that bill. the navy paid least of all because we prioritized the issue you are talking about. quantity counts at sea, in the air, and on land. >> thank you. >> welcome, mr. secretary. it is good to see you. i have known you for a long

time. your first appearance before the intelligence committee when you became director of cia, you were somewhat tentative and reserved. today i saw you at full volume totally in control. it has been quite an evolution. let me begin by thanking you for the help you gave us on afghanistan. it is very much appreciated. an unwanted to see if i might talk with you -- i wanted to see if i might talk with you on the clock subject -- glock subject. one thing that came up was the incident in november. it became clear there were mistakes made on both sides.

general allan to his credit has taken at least six or seven steps to remedy some of the problems. you raised the question of the glocks. it is my information that pakistan wants some civilian announcement that mistakes were made on our side. i think mistakes were made on their side as well, as i have looked into this. the glock problem could be solved. there was a meeting a day or so ago, unless it was canceled. they are prepared to dramatically lower the cost, but the apology is important.

i think the position is the national security of this nation is best served if we can develop a positive relationship with pakistan. yeah, hi, and others know what the road has been, and i, and others know what the road has been and that there might be an opportunity to make a change. my question of view -- you and my lack of understanding is why there cannot be a statement that says if it is believed mistakes were made on both sides, of course been on a states apologizes for any mistakes and had taken steps to see it will never happen again. >> i appreciate your concern. you understand these issues by

virtue of your chairmanship of the intelligence committee and the dealings we have with pakistan. it is a complicated relationship but it is necessary by virtue of of our security needs in that area. this is an issue still under negotiation. there are discussions that on how we can resolve this. that issue is one of those areas. united states has made. -- the united states has made clear mistakes were made on our side and on pakistan's side. we express condolences for the mistakes made. we made that clear. we have continued to make clear

the mistakes that were made. at this point, they are asking not only for that, but there are other elements of negotiation involved that have to be resolved. that is not the only issue discussed. that is not really issue that needs to be resolved to get the glocks open. >> thank you for that answer. do you believe the afghan military will be ready to take over in 2014? >> i was in afghanistan and have a chance to meet with the minister. every time i go there i get the opportunity to see the afghan army and improvements in terms

of their operations. they are about 3 ended 46,000. they're going to 3 and 52,000. -- they are at about 346,000. they are going to 352,000. they are doing an incredible job of maintaining security in the transition areas which provided. they are improving. our goal is to continue to train and assist them in their capabilities. i have to tell you i am confident we're going to be with a complete all the transitions because we have the afghan army in place but also because we continue to have ice half --

isaf in cplace. the combination of having the afghan army in place and our enduring presence, i think that combination does make clear they will be able to govern themselves at that point. >> thank you. my time is up. >> two things i would like to raise in the time i have. as cia director, you had operational control over the osama bin laden raid. a few of us on this committee also served on the senate intelligence committee that senator feinstein chairs. we have been alarmed at the recent weeks -- leaks.

we're working to address this. one area of concern is hollywood filmmakers regarding the osama bin laden raid. it has been alleged the names of one of the uniformed. to since in that has been made public. -- it has been alleged the names of one of the uniformed participants have been made public. this comes on the heels of a series of devastating leaks that compromised sensitive operations and put people's lives at risk with devastating consequences going forward. you are aware of that. my question is the role of the department of defense relative to the hollywood situation and other situation where your forces are involved.

we are looking at every possible avenue to minimize and eliminate these types of leaks. working with your department will be helpful. i am not asking you for details regarding this. we all love to go see hollywood movies. they are exciting and so forth. to the extent information is shared relative to classified operations and personnel to make the movie more exciting and realistic, it contributes to the problems we have. we want to make sure each department is aware of the fact

we need to investigate and put in place measures that will prevent this from happening in the future. whether you want to comment or not, i will leave to you. >> let me say as a former director of the cia that i abhor the disclosures of classified information. it has to be fully investigated. it has to be clear this is intolerable. if we're going to protect this country, we have to protect those involved in clandestine operations. i want to make clear no unauthorized disclosures were provided to movie producers or anybody else.

we do have an office at the pentagon that deals with people who want to do something about a movie, book, article, or something related to our defense. we want to make sure the information they uses act. -- they use is accurate. i have announced the question in this instance. no one release any information that was unauthorized. >> we want a thorough review of procedures. general dempsey, we were posted to europe during the same time frame. i agree with senator hutchison that with the rebalancing of global posture and fiscal issues, we have to be careful with taxpayer money. she raised legitimate questions

in terms of infrastructure and money going to that. cook like to take to make sure we are not rebalancing -- i would like to get your take to make sure we're not rebalancing too far. the threats in afghanistan, pakistan, israel, syria, the arab spring and all the countries involved, somalia -- there are a lot of threats out there. some of these require a rapid response. germany has always been a place where we have facilities to house and to train those who can be the rapid response for emergency situations as well as well operations. half of bluetooth lumber questions. have we gone too far?

-- have we gone too far? when you have the nato component in terms of the need to utilize and keep the organization dynamic and effective as a partner, what is your take on all of that? >> i have had 12 years to serve. i see the world through our north atlantic alliance. that is legitimate. it is the track record of this country that when we entered the conflict, the first people we turned to as members were members of the north american alliance. we should not discount the benefit of building partners and their capacity. i think building their capability makes it certain we will not always have to be in the lead, even if there is some

political reluctance that has to be overcome to do that. i mentioned a smart defense initiative. i did not mention the european phase of missile cooperation. we have just gone through a nato command structure review. we have shrunk the number of headquarters from 12 to 6. i tend to be strong on our relationship with nato notwithstanding the senator's concerns about investment. >> thank-you for your service. we have a vote. i will try to cover as much ground as possible. if we do not change the sequestration dilemma and is something about it before the election, when can we expect the layoff notices to hit? >> industries make that decision. under the law, i think they have

60 days. 60 to 90 days before it takes effect. >> will you lay off civilian employees as a result of sequestration? >> i suspect it takes effect, we will have to do the same thing. >> will you do the same thing 60 to 90 days before? i would urge you to do it sooner rather than later. i want you to make it real to us. it seems the biggest bipartisan accomplishment in recent memory is to destroy the defense department, not something i am proud of. the sooner you can tell us about the number of jobs being lost and how it will affect our defense base, the better for the congress as a whole. you are telling us to have a budget problem. when is the last time to try care premiums were adjusted --

tricare premiums were adjusted? >> 1993. >> is it unsustainable if we do not bring this program into a sustainable footprint? you are having to compete with retiring health care against modernization, benefits for today's force, against the ability to fight and win wars. is that correct? >> we are paying $50 billion in health care. if we do not control those costs, it will eat up other areas. >> you are telling congress it is unsustainable. you are having to make choices between the retired health care costs and fighting this war and future work. >> correct. >> i hope we can find a way to be fair to the retired force but also maintain a sustainable military budget. you are talking about reshaping retirement benefits in the

future and not for those that exist today. >> correct. if you retire at 38 and at half pay for the rest of your life, maybe that is something we need to revisit. i want to be generous but i want to be sustainable. that is the message to congress. your message about sequestration is you are doing your best to handle $500 billion and if you want to double that, you will destroy the best military we have ever had. >> yes. >> what has been the historical average for the last 45 years of gdp spent on the military? >> in the last 20 years, 4% or 5%. >> today it ranges up to 5.70%. in the korean war, it was a point to 5% to 18%.

-- it was 8.5% 18%. we will not get out of that by lowering military spending alone. i am all in for reforming the way we spend money. cost plus contracts seem to be a bad idea. do you agree? >> correct. >> the more it costs, the longer it takes for the contract, the more they make. you are looking at doing a fixed-price contract where everybody has skin in the game. i applaud you for doing that. aid to pakistan, do you consider the foreign office budget -- the foreign operations account a benefit? >> yes. >> would you recommend stopping aid to pakistan now? >> i would be careful about shutting it down. i would look at conditions for

what we expect them to do. >> what egypt? >> i would not. >> could you and general dempsey write me a letter recommending to congress what we should do about our aid programs to the pakistani military and government and the egyptian military and government? >> yes. >> the last thing i want to talk to you about briefly is, you said something that went over everybody's head. there is a pearl harbor in the making. you are talking about shutting down financial systems, releasing chemicals from chemical plants, releasing water from dams, shutting down power systems. what is the likelihood in the next five years one of these major events will occur?

>> all i can tell you is technologically, the capability to paralyze this country is there now. >> is there are growing will to use that capability by our enemies? >> the board of technology develops, the more the will to use it -- the more the technology develops, the more the will to use it will develop. i think there is a high risk. >> thank you both for your service. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will be brief. secretary panetta, you mentioned the budget needs to relate to the pro-defense strategy. we understand that with attention to asia and pacific. we think alaska plays a significant role. we think going into the future, the role accelerates. there has been a proposal by the

air force to move the f-16 squadrons. we have raised many questions. it seems there are more questions being raised after we receive information from the air force. we just got the task force review assigned to look at the feasibility of this move. the concerned we have -- the concern we have is that you have a situation where other forces are impacted. you mentioned in this budget needs to be a balance between all forces. we are looking at the impact to the guard that has the refueling wing and how it will be impacted if the hours are reduced. we look at the trading ranges of north that could be compromised. we have serious housing issues

that need to be assessed. we are in a situation where we are trying aggressively to get concrete answers from the air force on this. we have determined this proposal is going to cost $$5.6 million. it does not fall in line with the president's budget. the direct question i have to you is whether or not you will encourage the air force to abandon this plan for the air force base in 2013. take this back to the drawing board. give it the comprehensive that tint it must have -- venting it must have to ensure we are operating with the vision towards the asia-pacific and that is truly does reflect the

new defense strategy. >> i will have general dempsey respond as well. let me make clear, the air force was looking for ways to save money because of the responsibility to respond to the budget control act. there are f-15's in different locations. they felt it was better to unify those. i want you to know that we have no intention of closing down isleson. is an important base in terms of refueling and the role we want to play with regards to the pacific. nothing's been recommended is intended -- nothing being

recommended is intended to infringe on that is the future base for the air force. >> i know you are in contact with the air force. i will not commit to going back to them and talking to them. i will commit to you that i make sure i understand a planner. then i will engage with you personally on it. >> what appreciate that. i recognize part of the proposed savings the air force is looking to is demolishing several buildings. the replacement value of these is about $150 million. it would appear to be a back door brockens. i look forward to your conversation. thank you. i will conclude my comments with a direct appeal.

the focus on infrastructure is keen. it always comes down to human assets. i remain troubled with the high level of suicides rear seeing with our military -- suicides we are seeing with our military and veteran population. most are staggered to learn we're seeing more deaths from suicide than in theater in afghanistan. how we deal with this reflects on who we are as a nation and our commitment to those who have served us. i know you are focused on that, but i felt compelled to raise that. >> thank you for pointing that out. i am very concerned by the high rate of suicides. the service chiefs share the concern. they highlighted the fact they were seeing higher rates of suicide than in the past. i have asked all of them to immediately call look at that

situation and determine what is causing it and what we can do to make sure it does not happen. >> thank you very much. we will be leaving because there is a vote. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i want to continue the thought process. i am alarmed by the suicide rate among our service members and veterans. new analysis is showing us every day in 2012, one of our service members committed suicide. you just commented it is outpacing combat deaths. we know a veteran commits suicide every 80 minutes. i think we can agree on two things. our service members and families have risen to the challenge. they have done everything this country has asked. we are all internally grateful. the pentagon and va are losing

the battle on mental and behavioral health conditions confronting our service members resulting in extreme things such as suicide. secretary panetta, our service members and veterans cannot get access to needed services without correct diagnostics. this has been a major problem for soldiers in my home state of washington. over 100 soldiers and counting have had their correct lying and accused of shirking its duty. understandably, a lot of our service members trust in the evaluation system has been seriously shaken. as you know, i have continually raised concerns about consistency and accuracy of

behavioral health the valuations and a diagnosis within the entire disability of valuation system, and i have offered my recommendations on how to improve the system. as you also know, the army has taken critically important steps forward in beginning to address these concerns. the secretary has announced a comprehensive army-wide review of a valuation and guidances'. since 2001 to maintain -- to ensure that our service members get the care and services they need and deserve. but i wanted to ask you today, this is not just an army system. this is a joint department of defense and the va program that covers all of the services. i wanted to ask you why the department has not taken the lead in evaluating and making improvements to the entire system. >> senator, i have asked the other service chiefs to implement the same approach that

the army is taking. >> to go back to 2001 and review all cases? >> that is correct. >> so they are all following that and we will be told the progress of that. who is heading that up? >> bair undersecretary for -- our under secretary for personnel and health care. that is the individual that you need to contact. >> i would very much like to be kept informed, as i am sure all of our members of congress would. this needs to be transparent and clear. we need to make sure people are accessing the system. the only way to do that is to be clear and open with everyone. i would like more information to be given on that as soon as possible about how that is taking place and what the timetable is and how that will occur. >> i appreciate your leadership

on this, senator. i am not satisfied either. i think the the misdiagnoses that took place -- what is happening in this area, we are doing everything we can to try to build a better system between the pentagon, the department of defense, -- department of defense, and va. but there are still huge gaps in terms of how they diagnose and deal with these cases. frankly, that is a whole area we have to do better on. >> one soldier had pst, his family is working with him, and he was told he was a liar or a malingerer. then he went out in the civilian world not being treated. that is a horrendous defense. i recently held a hearing on the the joint disability of

valuation system. i am really troubled about what i am hearing. the number of service members with help -- being helped is unacceptably low. the amount of time it takes to help a service member has risen each year. in response to these problems, we heard from the departments of defense and veterans affairs about how five years after the walter reed scandal they are just now beginning to map out process is to find room for improvement. that is unacceptable. at the public aliment believe -- believed that this was being taken five--- head-on. these are unacceptable numbers we are seeing. i want to ask you what you are doing at your level to deal with this program.

we are still hearing statements from army leaders about how the disability system is fundamentally flawed, adversarial, and disjointed. tell me what you are going to do. >> secretary and i have been meeting on a regular basis to try to implement improvements. we are not satisfied either by progress being made. part of it is bureaucratic, part of it is systems, part of it is the complicated -- >> bureaucratic -- if your in the system, that is the word you hear. >> i see it everyday. i am in charge of a very big bureaucracy. the fact is that sometimes the bureaucratic nature of large departments prevents it from being agile enough to respond and do what needs to be done. so in large part of this is making sure that people are willing to operate out of the

box and do what needs to be done in order to improve the systems. what i would offer to you is to let the secretary and i sit down and walk through the steps we are taking to try -- >> i really appreciate that commitment. i know you have not been here the entire five years, but we have been told that they are sitting down on a regular basis addressing this. i am talking to soldiers stuck in this system. there are bureaucratic delays. the people supposed to help them, their training them. they have been in the system longer than the people supposed to be helping them. their families are facing horrendous challenge is trying to figure out what the future will bring. that is what people in it are saying. i totally appreciate you saying that to me today, but sitting down and talking to secretary

shinseki is something we have been hearing for a long time. we need recommendations. we need to look forward. we need this to be a top priority at the pentagon as we transition out of afghanistan. this will not give more simple. there'll be more complete -- add to that the ongoing complexities of reviewing all of these cases -- you have people who are in the system right now who are saying, what will happen to me when you review all these people? are we putting in more personnel to deal with this, or will i have to take another back seat? this is complex. it is hard. it is, -- problematic. but it needs every single effort we talked about. >> i share all of your frustrations. my job is to make sure that we do not come here with more excuses, but that we come here with action. >> i truly appreciate that comment. i want to work with you. all my efforts are at your

disposal. we do a fantastic job of training our men and women to go into the service. we still today have not gotten this right after this work to help their transition back come. with families, soldiers, airmen throughout the service who are stuck in the process. we have got to do this right. we need every effort at it. i will sit down with you the minute you tell me you are available, but i want more than a meeting. >> ok. >> i believe senator shelby -- center shelby the is on his way. we have a second vote. i need to get back to that. i would appreciate to put the committee into recess until center shall be arrives. >> we are not going anyplace.

[laughter] thank you burn much. with that, the committee is in recess until senator shelby arrives. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [conversation]

>> senator john mccain has criticized president obama for being too passive in his response to violence in syria. he is called for u.s.-led air strikes. on monday, the armed services committee member will discuss his position on syria. you'll be joined by syrian activists, the senior editor of "the weekly standard," and others. that is live at 1:00 eastern on c-span 3. >> supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg mentioned the courts upcoming ruling on health care on friday. she talks about the atmosphere surrounding the court, including press conferences, prayer circles, and protests.

also the speculation of the media on when a decision may happen. justice ginsburg spoke about some of the cases that the colleagues several on this term. they included cases involving police automobile tracking devices. this is about 40 minutes. >> thank you. i know you are very excited about what is to come. i am very excited looking at this packed room. how fabulous. we know the place to be on friday night in a d.c.. [applause] here we are. so i have -- it is a fabulous job i have. i have a special privilege. i get to introduce peter rubin, who many of us consider to be the father of acs. i feel a bit of sibling

rivalry, -- we should congratulate peter. [applause] peter, as we know, is now an eminent member of the massachusetts appeals court. back in 2001, he was a distinguished constitutional law professor at georgetown university. it was there that he led a group of law students, scholars, and lawyers in founding acs and beginning to build a fiber network of progressives to counter the right-wing legal movement. i hope you will extend a very warm welcome to our founding father, just as peter rubin. [applause]

>> i hope you'll join me in thanking caroline and all of the staff for everything they have done to make this such a great venture. [applause] it is not often that one gets to introduce a living legend. among those in our shared profession, the law, there's no legend greater than that of our next speaker. i have a wonderful experience of serving for many years on the georgetown faculty with justice ginsburg's late husband. it's a pleasure to introduce her, both because of her friendship and her long-standing support of a theacs. she spoke at our first convention, right here in this room. she also spoke at our 10th annual convention. we have no better friend.

i know that all our members and friends are grateful. even before she took the bench, justice ginsburg had a profound impact on the shape of american law. she was the first woman to become a tenured law professor at columbia, and as the director of the women's rights for -- project, she won landmark cases. she fought sex -- the sex discrimination programs she fought before the supreme court. this altered the course of american constitutional law and opened the path to the recognition of the equality of women under our fundamental charter. appointed in 1980 by president jimmy carter to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit, she was elevated to her seat on the supreme court by president william jefferson clinton in 1993. she has served with distinction for almost two decades now.

on the high court she's written significant decisions, like united states vs. virginia, requiring the virginia military institute to admit women, and another case that held that impoverished individuals could not be denied the right to appeal the termination of their parental right. justice ginsburg has written important defenses in cases such as ledbetter, versus goodyear. in that case, they fought the discriminatory -- a discriminatory wage that she received. that result in the lily ledbetter pay act of 2009. the theme of this convention is democracy at stake.

perhaps most significantly, justice ginsburg dissented from the court's decision in pushed the door, which stopped the -- bush v. gore, which determined who won the presidential election in florida, and thus the nation. she was also a dissenter in a case of -- the case of citizens united, which allows corporate independent expenditures in elections based on a conclusion that such expenditures "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." in a recent statement addressing a stay of the montana supreme court's decision which presents a challenge to citizens united, justice ginsburg wrote, in a sentiment that all of you will agree on, that the court showed "in light of the huge sums

deployed, citizens united should continue to hold sway." as americans, we all except the truth of dr. king's words, of which senator harkin reminded us this morning. the art of the moral universe bends towards justice. the work of bending that arc requires a concerted effort, human hands working together. no stronger hands have been devoted to this tasks than those of our next speaker. because of her, we live in a better, fairer, and more just america than we otherwise would. ladies and gentlemen, just as ruth bader ginsburg. -- justice ruth bader ginsburg. [applause] [applause]

>> please be seated. that was a splendid introduction, but the truth is that i have had more than a little bet of luck in my life to be born when i was, to be a lawyer when the women's movement came alive in the late 1960's to lendy 1970's, and whatever skills i had as a lawyer to help them along. i think that many of you know that it is now flood season at the court. [laughter] so all i can offer this evening

is an impressionistic view of what life has been like at the court in this 2011 to 2012 term. in doing that, i will borrow heavily from the annual report i made to my circuit, the second circuit, at its judicial conference last week. some years ago, a former l clerk turned -- who is perhaps in this audience tonight -- turned law professor, of who is perhaps in this audience tonight, ranked justices by the number of laughs they provoke at oral arguments. she -- he rated the the least funny justice of all. [laughter] i remained in last place this term, with only two laugh lines. a public tally for which i do not bouse -- avouch rated

justice scalia first, with 63 last. the chief was a distant third with 26. it may be a promising sign that "the new york times" picked up my best laugh line this serve. it was in the case against clinton. it concerned an act congress passed permitting u.s. citizens born in jerusalem to designate israel as their birthplace on their passport. the president resisted the law, urging that it intruded unconstitutionally on his foreign affairs prerogatives. in defense of the legislation, the defendant argued that the statute did not infringe on presidential -- residential grounds, it only gives parents a choice. your argument would be

stronger, justice taken suggested, if you had citizens born in -- if u.s. citizens born in jerusalem could similarly choose to this palestine on their passport. >> they can, they responded, if it were born before 1948. well, just as kerrigan said, -- just as k dan said,kagen said, you have to be very old. i intervened on behalf of citizens 64 years and older because next year i will turn 80, god willing. not all that old. [applause] in the past years, lawyers and journalists have paid rapt

attention to events concerning our workload, which some misguided commentators think is too light. stay with me this weekend and you will see. justice briar quick to defensively, "i am not trying to get out of work." justice scalia volunteered, "i would like to get out of the work, to tell the truth." arguments proceed at a clip rate, so rapid that it is sometimes hard to get a word in edgewise. justice kagan takes great care not to step on the comments of her colleagues. at one time, she tried to enter the fray, only to be silenced by louder voices at last, a justice briar instructed them to

go back to justice kagan. she smiled and said that, i have forgotten my question. the term has been more than usually taxing. some have called it the term of the century. perhaps that explains why the funniest justice called the argument "extraordinary" no fewer than 10 times. some of us believe that justice scalia's extraordinary is perhaps becoming ordinary. the argued cases this term numbered 80. that is a decrease of six from last term. but the decline was offset by the decisions issued in cases decided without full briefing or

any oral argument. summary disposition of that kind already numbered 10, more than twice the number at this time last year. too many? i leave that for you to judge. to date, opinions have been released in 58 of the 80 argued cases. one petition was dismissed as improvident granted. 21 cases remain to be announced before the judges scatter for the summer. the court split 5-4 or 5-3 in nine of 58 cases so far handed down. in comparison to that, close to 16% disagreement record, we agreed unanimously in 26, or

45% of the cases, and and 20 of the 26 opinions were noon -- were unanimous. as one may expect, many of the most controversial cases remained pending, so it is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after. i want now describe -- we'll at now describe quickly some of the cases. first, united states against jones, which presented its 21st century fourth amendment question. if the police attach a gps tracking device to your car and then use it to track the cars movements on public streets for several weeks, have you been

searched within the meaning of the fourth amendment? unanimous answer, yes. justice scalia observed that the framers would have been aghast at the thought of a constable hidden beneath a coach, recording every turn the course made. [laughter] the tracking device physically invaded private property for the purpose of obtaining information, he explained. in do believe this is search within the meaning of the fourth amendment. physical invasion of private property was not a motive, justice of ito said that the--- long-term monitoring of its car

treaded on his reasonable expectation of privacy. the ninth circuit was on the losing side of the split. chief judge alex kosinski got to the heart of the matter. he said there is something creepy and american about such behavior. -- un-american about such behavior. for those of us who have lived under a totalitarian regime, there is an eerie feeling of deja vu. the meaning of the fourth amendment was again in issue florence vs burlington county. this concern the practice in new jersey jails of subjecting all arrestees to strip searches before admitting them into the jails.

florence was arrested for not paying a fine -- it turns said he had paid it. he was stripped searched twice. after all charges against him were dropped, florence sued the jails in which searches occurred, seeking damages under section 1983. by the time the case reached the supreme court, a court of appeals had held that strip searches of persons arrested for minor offenses were permit -- in permissible absent reason to suspect the person arrested was carrying contraband. in florence, the third circuit disagreed and of how the practice. justice kennedy, writing for the court, affirmed the third circuit's decision. the strips circuits at issues -- at issue held a reasonable balance between privacy and

safety on the other. justicebreyer --breyerr dissented, joined by some -- justices kagan, sotomayor, and me. in our opinion, strip searches are an affront to personal privacy and degrading. unless they were suspected of carrying drugs or any other security risk, legal fees were unconstitutional. a third case, sec against fox television, asked whether the fcc's current indecency policies violate the first amendment. the paris hiltons of this world

eagerly await the decision. [laughter] it is beyond my comprehension, i told my clerk, how the fcc can claim jurisdiction to ban words spoken in a hotel on french soil. [laughter] [applause] the case came to us on a return trip. we held that the fcc did not violate the administrative procedure act by regulating the broadcast of expletives. the we did not include me. i dissented and was joined by justices stevens and briar. the court remanded the case to consider in the first instance the constitutionality of the newly minted leading expletive

policy. the court of appeals struck down of the fcc's indecency policy in its entirety, not simply as applied to leading expletives. the policy, they concluded -- we accepted the government's petition for review. during the argument in folks one, speculation abounded rather -- weather stations across television would speak the f and s words before the court. he did not. this time, the council for abc television one up to the ante. abc television reported there had been at nine seasons of unsanctioned "nypd blue episodes" that had fleetingly

displayed their but talks. -- buttocks. he then pointed to all the bare bottoms in the freezes that adorned the court room walls. [laughter] what a gesture. perhaps worth a thousand words. one case will be -- two cases will be reed argued next term. -- re-argued next term. the second circuit held that corporations cannot be held under the alien tort statute. another case, mohammed verses palestinian authority, we held that the torture victim protection act is not amenable

to suit. the respondent raise another ground for affirmance -- the aliens -- alien tort statute should not apply to conduct occurring in a foreign nation. some of the justices show a keen interest in pursuing that theory. soon after argument, we ordered the parties to discuss under what cases the alien store -- alien tort statute offers opportunities for relief for instance happening outside of the state. next, a pair of cases. both presented this question -- does the sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel extend to the negotiating and consideration of plea offers?

justice kennedy writing for the majority the majority held that the sixth amendment right does attached. fry had been charged with driving with a revoked license. the prosecution offered a choice of two plea-bargain is. one was a recommended three- year suspended sentence plus 10 days in the county jail. the other, 90 days to be served on a lesser charge. fry's attorney did not tell him that the offers had been made by the prosecution and so both of them left. he played -- he pled guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison. when ineffective assistance of counsel caused him to accept a plea offer, further proceedings

lead to an outcome less favorable than the plea-bargain and the defendant may be titled to a remedy. justice scalia pointed out that many countries do not do american plea-bargaining and adhere to the belief that the lot is the law and those who break it should provide -- should pay the penalty provided. justice scalia is not colored to foreign policy advisory. -- is not allergic to foreign policy advisory. [laughter] [applause] next, a pair of cases prompted by the 2010 opinion in ram against florida. -- graham against florida. he held that the eighth

amendment bars life without parole for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicide crime. miller and jackson present these further questions. first, does life without parole, can it be imposed on a 14-year- old who is convicted of homicide? does that violate the eighth amendment? and if such a sentence can be imposed on a juvenile, does it violate the eighth amendment when the sentence is decreed under a mandatory sentencing scheme that allows no consideration of the child's age? finally, two cases attracted the terms "largest headlines" and "knee-high amaechi briefs."

in april of 2010, arizona enacted legislation entitled "support our law enforcement and saved neighborhoods -- save our neighborhoods act." it was designed to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the united states. arizona describe its policy as implementing attrition through enforcement. before law took effect, the united states sued arizona, alleging that the federal immigration and nationality act pre-empts sb1070.

the district court, finding that the united states was likely to succeed on the merits, not enjoyed enforcement of 4 provisions of the act. the ninth circuit affirmed and the state's petition for review, urging that arizona's law complement's and does not conflict with federal law. one indication of the importance of the case -- five states have passed similar legislation and bills modeled on the arizona scheme have been introduced in most other states. last but surely not least, the affordable health care case. no contest since the court provided new briefs and arguments has attracted more attention in the press, the academy, the ticket line outside the supreme court.

airline that forms three days before oral arguments commence. some have described the controversy as unprecedented and they might be right if they mean the number of press conferences, prayer circles, protests, counter-protests going on outside the court while oral arguments were under way inside. arguments consumed more than six hours, spanning 3 days. remarkable in modern times, but recall that in one of the cases prominently cited in the health care briefs, oral argument in 1819 ran on for nine days over the course of two months. the three cases challenging the constitutionality of the health care act present for questions. first, does congress have the

authority through the commerce clause or the power to tax and spend for the general welfare? to enact this individual mandate? second, is the individual mandate requiring the purchase of insurance, if that is unconstitutional, must the entire act fall? or made a mandate the chopped like a head of broccoli -- [laughter] [applause] third, does the expansion of medicaid exceed the spending power of congress? fourth, the big question in writing the answer everyone is waiting for. the federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain a pre-enforced challenge to the individual mandate in light of the injunction act of 1867?

that act presents -- prevents anyone from suing the federal government to restrain the collection of any taxes. to accommodate an audience enormously larger than our core room would hold, we made same- day recordings of the arguments. and though our deliberations are private, that has not dissuaded the media from publishing a steady stream of rumors.. my favorite among press pieces widely observed -- "at the supreme court, those who know do not talk and those who talk do not know." nevertheless, a rumor circulated that an opinion hand down session would reveal the outcome of the health-care cases. rumor followers attended the

session, anticipating the announcement of the momentous decision. they got their just deserts. they learned from the only decision announced from the bench that day that section beebe of the real estate settlement procedures act only bars unearned fees split between two or more people. [laughter] i have spoken on more than one occasion about the utility of dissenting opinions. noting in particular that they can reach audiences outside the court and propel legislative or executive change. peter mentioned a most fit example. i summarized from the bench in 2007, as he said and most of you know, the case involved a woman who worked at an area manager at a goodyear tire plant

in alabama. her starting salary was in line with the salaries but, over time, for pay slips so that by the end of 1997, there was a 15-40% disparity between her pay and the salaries of her 15 male counterparts. she filed charges of discrimination with the eeoc. eventually, a jury result her suit, favorably awarding her back pay and damages. the supreme court nullified the verdict, that she filed her claim to late. it was incumbent upon her to file charges of discrimination each time she failed to file suit each time goodyear discriminated against her. it became grandfathered beyond

the province of title 7 to repair. the court's ruling ignored real world employment practices, the practice is title 7 was meant to govern. sue early on was the majority's council when he may not know that men are receiving more for the same work. the defense had nothing to do with her gender. she just did not do the job as well. a case that cannot be made when somebody has been on the job, getting good performance ratings for 20 years. if you wait until a case is fully based, when the disparity is steady and large enough to enable you to mount a winnable

case, you will be cut off for suing too late. that situation, i urge, could not have been what congress intended. the legislature may act to correct the court's reading of title 7. 19 months later, the court passed the act, overruling the court's decision caught a decision by considered entirely out of touch with the real world of work for it -- the real world of work. [applause] and the court's first opinion of the current term did not receive similar notice. there i addressed my descent to a different audience.

smith, abysmally represented at her trial, was convicted of shaking her 7-week-old grandson to her death. -- to his death. the ninth circuit held there was no convincing support for the state's theory that the infant died of shaking baby syndrome. the supreme court twice remanded the case to the board of appeals, admonishing the ninth circuit each time to heat input. the third time around, the court of appeals struck out. the supreme court summarily reversed the circuits grant of her relief and told the court of appeals not to tamper with the state court's conviction. justices brier and some or joined my dissenting decision. -- breyer and sotomayor joined my dissenting decision.

what is now known about shaken baby syndrome and evidence showed she possessed no danger to her family or anyone else in society. in december of last year, smith filed an application with california governor jerry brown. the application borrowed some words from the dissenting opinion in the court. on april 6, i governor brown commuted her sentence to time served, noting significant doubt about her guilt. [applause] that was the governor's first grant of clemency in his current term.

justice, at last, prevailed. don't you agree? [applause] thank you. thank you. [applause] >> what was really exceptionally inspiring is that you realize the magnitude of difference you can make in public life.

>> someone from the white house came and set a quota. he said that those who think they are crazy enough to change the world are the ones who do. >> mr. bryan said to choose carefully and execute relentlessly. that meant a lot to me. too many times we take too many things on and not focusing on that one thing that should be a top priority. >> every year, the u.s. senate youth program been students to washington for a week of education. this week, brian kamoie made an impact. >> i started with a mindset of what is it like to do this? -- be then? now that i'm in this role, what can i share with them? what will they remember when they leave washington week, which is a very intense in -- experience. if you leave a few key

encouraging messages when you know it is easy to be cynical about politics, it is a good thing to encourage young people to pursue public service. >> more, tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> on friday, president obama introduced a new immigration policy, stopping the deportation of some illegal immigrants who came to the united states as children. according to the department of homeland security, a legal immigrants seeking to the country under age 16 and under age 30 may qualify. the president said congress's failure to pass legislation emigrate -- immigration legislation was the main reason for his statement. he was interrupted twice by a reporter from "the daily collar." this is about 10 minutes.

>> good afternoon, everybody. this morning, secretary nepal a tunnel announced new actions my administration will take -- secretary napolitano announced steps will take to make immigration more fair and more just, specifically for young people sometimes called dreamers. these are young people who studied in our schools, played in our neighborhoods, our friends with our kids. they pledge allegiance to our flag. they are americans in their heart and their minds, in every single way but one, on paper. they were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants, and often have no idea that they are

undocumented until they apply for a job or a driver's license or a college scholarship. put yourself in their shoes. imagine you have got everything right york -- done everything light -- write your entire life. maybe even graduated on the top of your class. only to suddenly faced the threat of deportation to a country you know nothing about. with a language you may not even speak. that is what gave rise to the dream act. if your parents brought you here as a child, you have been here for five years and are willing to go to college or serve in our military, you can one day earn your citizenship. i said time and time again to congress, send me the dream act,

put it on my desk and i will sign it right away. both parties wrote this legislation. a year and a half ago, democrats passed it in the house but some -- republicans walked away from it. it got 55 votes in the senate. the bill has not really changed. at the need has not changed. it is still the right thing to do, the only thing that has changed, apparently, was the politics. as i said in my speech, it makes no sense that talented young people, who for all intents and purposes are americans and -- it makes no sense to expel these young people who want to start our businesses or defend our country simply because of the actions of their parents. or because of the inaction of

politicians. in the absence of any immigration action from congress to fix our broken immigration system, we try to focus on immigration enforcement resources in the right places. we tightened border security, put more berths on the southern border than at any time in our history. today there are fewer illegal crossings than at any time in the past 40 years. we focused and use discretion about who to prosecute, focusing on criminals to endanger our communities rather than students who are earning their education. today, deportation of criminals is up 80%. we have improved on that discretion carefully and thoughtfully. today we are improving it again. effective immediately, the department of homeland security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people.

over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization. let's be clear. this is not amnesty, this is not an unity. this is not a path to citizenship. it is not a permanent fix. this is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus on resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. it is the right thing to do. excuse me, sir. it is not time for questions. not while i am speaking. precisely because this is temporary, congress needs to

act. there is still time for congress to pass the dream act this year, because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments. we still need to pass comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our 21st century economic and security needs. one that gives our farmers and ranchers certainty about the workers that they will have. that is our science and technology sectors certainty that the young people who come here to earn their ph.d. is will not be forced to leave and start businesses in other countries. that continues to improve our border security and lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. six years ago, john mccain, ted kennedy, and president bush came together to champion this kind of reform. i was proud to join 23

republicans in voting for it. there is no reason that we cannot come together and get this done. as long as i'm president i will not give up on this issue, not only because it is the right thing to do for our economy -- and ceos agree with me -- not just because it is the right thing to do with my security, but because it is the right to do, period. eventually, enough republicans in congress will come around as well. i believe is the right thing to do because i have been with groups of young people who work so hard and speak with so much chart about what is best for america, even though i knew some of them must have lived under the fear of desperation. -- deportation. i know some can afford at great risk for themselves and their futures to drop to stir the rest of us to live up to our own cherished values. i have seen the stories of

americans, schools, churches, communities across the country who stood up for them and rally behind them and pushed us to give a better path and freedom from fear. because we're a better nation than one that expels innocent young kids. the answer to your question, sir, and next time i prefer you let me finish my segment before you ask that question, is that this is the right thing to do for the american people. i did not ask for argument. i am answering your question. it is the right thing to do for the american people, and here is why. these young people are going to make extraordinary contributions and are already making contributions. i have a young person who is serving in our military, protecting us and our freedom -- the notion that in some ways we would treat them as

expendable makes no sense. if there is a young person here who has grown up here and wants to contribute to this society, once and maybe start a business that will create jobs for other folks looking for work, that is the right thing to do. giving certainty to our farmers and ranchers, making sure that, in addition to border security, we are creating a comprehensive framework for legal immigration -- these are all the right things to do. we have always drawn strength from being a nation of immigrants as well as a nation of laws. that will continue. my hope is that congress will recognize that and get behind this. thank you very much, everybody. >> what about american workers who are unemployed?

>> senator john mccain has criticized president obama for being too passive to violence in syria. syria. he has called for