earlier this shoot. this challenge obviously took on great urgency on august 21 president obama and dozens of the partners believe that that action is unacceptable and have in no uncertain terms made it clear that we cannot allow that to happen again. in light of what has happened, the world wonders and watches closely whether or not the assad

regime will live up to commitments it has made to give up chemical weapons and whether the world's two most powerful nations can together take a critical step forward in order to hold the regime to the stated promises. i have seen reports the syrian regime has suggested as part of the standard process they ought to have 30 days to submit data on the chemical weapons stockpile. we believe there is nothing standard about this process of this moment, because of the way the regime has behaved. the words of this regime, in our judgment, are simply not enough, which is why we have come here. that is why we have worked with the russians and his delegation

in order to make certain this can in fact be achieved. the united states and russia have and continue to have disagreements about the situation in serious, including the difference as to the judgment we just offered what is important is there is much we agree on. we agree on august 21, theory and men, women and children died grotesque death due to chemical weapons. we agreed nowhere at any time should employ chemical weapons. we agree that our joining

together with the international community to eliminate stock piles of the weapons in serious would be a historic moment for the multilateral nonproliferation efforts. we agree on those things. we agree it would help to save lives if we can accomplish this. but it would reduce the risk of threat to the region. that it would uphold the norms established in geneva almost a century ago and would achieve the best of all of our aspirations for curbing weapons of mass destruction. we have come to geneva today to begin to test these propositions, not just on behalf of each of our countries, but on behalf of everyone interested in a peaceful resolution.

so i welcome the disc anguished russian delegation and am proud that president obama's direction we have a delegation here, which i lead, of some of the nation's foremost chemical weapons expert. people who dedicate their lives every day for the proliferation of the weapons and to bringing about their eventual elimination from this earth. the russian delegation has put ideas forward, and we are grateful for that and respect it. we have prepared our own principle that any plan to accomplish this needs to

encompass. expectations are high. they are high for the united states. perhaps even more so for russia to deliver on the promise of this moment. this is not a game, and i have said that to my friend serge when we talked about it initially. it has to be real. it has to be comprehensive. it has to be verifiable. it has to be credible. that has to be timely and implemented in a timely fashion. finally, there ought to be consequences if it does not take waste. diplomacy is and always has been president obama's and this administration's first resort. in achieving a peaceful resolution is clearly preferable to military action. president obama has said that again and again. it is too early to tell whether or not these efforts will succeed, but the technical challenges of trying to do this in the context of the civil war are obviously immense. despite how difficult this is, with the collaboration of our experts, and only with the compliance from the assad regime, we do believe there is a way to get this done. we have come here to define a potential path forward that we can share with our international partners. together we will test the regime

commitment to follow through on promises. we are serious. we are serious, as you are, about engaging in substantive, meaningful negotiations, even as the military maintains its current posture to keep up the pressure on the regime. only the threat of credible force and the intervention of president putin and russia based on that has rocked the assad regime to acknowledge for the first time that it even has chemical weapons and an arsenal and is now prepared to relinquish it. president obama has made clear

that should diplomacy fail, force might be necessary to deter and degrade the capacity to deliver these weapons. it will not get rid of them, but could change his willingness to use them. the best thing to do, we agree, is to remove them altogether. the challenge here in geneva is to test the viability of placing assad's chemical weapons under international control and destroying them forever. the united states has also made clear that the deaths of more than 100 thousand syrian's and the displacement of millions, either internally or as refugees remains a stain on the world conscious. we all need to keep that in mind india with that. that is why we continue to work with the joint special envoy and ourselves under the geneva communiqué. we share those hopes that could foster a political solution to a

civil war that undermines the stability of the region, threatens our own national security interests and compels us to act. that is our hope and what we fervently hope can come out of this meeting in these negotiations. thank you very much. >> i am not prepared with the political statements because our approaches are clear and stated in the statement and the president statement and article that all of you read this article and decided not to lay out the book out of -- the intent to find compromises.

i am sure during the presentation of the american vision, they would like to find mutual consensus. >> can you give me the last part of the translation, please? [laughter] >> you want me to take your word for it? >> a little late for that. >> officials in the government should instead stand trial at the international criminal court.

government has been accused of using chemical weapons in an attack that took place outside damascus on not just -- august 21. president obama met with his cabinet today before john kerry. he told reporters he was hopeful that meetings with russia would produce concrete results. we talked about the budget and health care. -- he also talked about the budgeted health care. obviously, we are missing a few members of our cabin in here today. meetingry is overseas on a topic that we have been spending a lot of time on over the last several weeks. the situation in syria. that theful

hasussions the secretary with the foreign minister as well as some of the other players can yield a concrete result. i know he will be working very hard over the next several days to see what the possibilities are there. even as we have been spending a lot of time on the syria issue and making sure international attention is focused on the horrible tragedy that occurred, it is important to recognize we have a lot more stuff to do in this government. the american people are interested in making sure our kids are getting the kind of education they deserve. we are dealing properly with the federal budget, that bills are , and theaid on time iseral government itself

running the way it should and making sure our constituents on the american people are getting a good deal. we will spend some time here today talking about all of the efforts that up and made by many of these cabinet secretaries to streamline operations, to cut performance,prove improve customer satisfaction and we will focus on specific issues, including managing some of the budget debates that will be taking place over the next several weeks. we will be talking about the rollout of the affordable care act, were we have seen some tremendous progress over the last several months and are confident people will be able to start signing up for health care for the first time. time talking some

about issues like comprehensive immigration reform that are still of enormous importance. i appreciate all of the great work people have done. some of the cabinet members are still relatively new. thanks to their confirmations and the great teams, they are hitting the ground running. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. >> thank you. >> john boehner was asked for his reaction to the russian president op-ed article in the new york times concerning cereal. you can link to the article on -- concerning syria. you can link to the article on our website.

this new normal of slow growth, high unemployment, and stagnant wages. we have got more americans leaving the workforce than we have finding jobs, and that is unacceptable. that is why republicans are focused on jobs, strengthening our economy, with our plan for economic growth and jobs. this week we are taking steps to dismantle the president's health care law, which is driving up the cost of health care and making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. today we passed a bill, a proposal that has received support to protect taxpayers and prevent massive fraud in the health care law.

for the sake of our economy, we will continue to do everything we can to repeal this obamacare. another important part of our plan for jobs is raining in the massive deficits that is hurting our economy and jeopardizing the dream for our kids and grandkids. yesterday i met with jack lew, the treasury secretary, and this morning with leaders reid, pelosi, and mcconnell. i reminded that for decades the white house and congress has used the debt limit to find bipartisan solutions on the deficit and debt. these types of changes were signed into law by presidents reagan, bush, clinton, and president obama himself two years ago. president obama -- uh -- is going to have to do with this as well. it is no different. you cannot talk about increasing the debt limit unless you are

willing to make changes and reforms that begin to solve a spending problem that washington has. unless we deal with our spending problem honestly and forthrightly, the american dream will be out of the reach for our kids and grandkids. i think our members are ready to solve this problem. we show leadership and we passed the balanced budget. it is time for the president to work with us to truly solve this problem. on syria, i believe we have national security interests in stopping the use of chemical weapons in syria and around the world. as i said earlier, we have doubts about the motives of the russians and president assad in offering this current path. now that the president has made the decision to delay any authorization vote, i hope they do that -- i hope a diplomatic solution can be found. questions? >> [indiscernible] concerns about russian, do you have more concerns after reading putin's op-ed? >> a lot of ways i could describe this, but i have doubts

about the motives of the russians and of assad. >> with obamacare -- >> whoa, whoa. >> thank you. speaker boehner, your conference rejected your latest proposal to fund the government to the end of the month. >> not quite yet. there are a lot of discussions going on about how to deal with the c.r. and the issues of obamacare. >> if you cannot get this funding measure to the end of september, which is fairly routine, how can you get the debt limit extended, and will we have a replay of 2011 --

>> there's all this speculation about these deadlines for coming up. i am well aware of the deadlines. so are my colleagues. we are working with our colleagues to work through these issues. i think there is a way to get there. i will continue to work with my fellow leaders and our members to address those concerns. >> [indiscernible] >> no, i'm fine. >> [indiscernible] a one-year c.r. -- [indiscernible] >> there are a million options being discussed. when we have something to report, we will let you know. >> [indiscernible] divided government has produced

[indiscernible] there are also lots of occasions when there is an impasse on the budget and congress simply increase the debt limit, like in 2002 when george bush was sent a clean debt ceiling. why are you willing to give him one and not president obama? >> if you recall, that was on the heels of 9/11 and the economy faltering in a big way. we have spent more than what we have brought in for 55 of the last 60 years. this year the federal government will bring in more revenue than any year in the history of our government, and we still have a $700 billion budget deficit. we have a spending problem. it must be addressed, period. yes, sir. >> [indiscernible] what is your blunt reaction when you read that op-ed today? do you think america needs to respond more forcefully to his comments?

do you think he is playing the president here? what was your blunt reaction when you read that? >> i was insulted. >> why? >> [indiscernible] the democrats make the point in january you guys essentially gave an effective $300 billion increase to the debt ceiling by agreeing to concessions. you guys went ahead and raise that without extracting concessions. why should they be more fearful now of you guys not raising it? >> it is time for us to deal with the problem. he have an opportunity to do with it. we know what the problem is. we have baby boomers retiring at the rate of 10,000 a day, 70,000 this week, 3.5 million this year. this is only the third year of baby boomers beginning to

retire. it is not like there is money in social security or medicare. it has already been spent. the system has to be addressed. these programs are important to tens of millions of americans. they are not going to be there if we do not begin to solve these problems. >> a full one-year delay of obamacare brought an extension or increase to get rid of the sequester and would raise the deficit, not lower the deficit. is that an alternative, given that what you need to do is address the deficit? >> there are a lot of members with a lot of ideas. we will continue to talk with all of them. >> [indiscernible] >> i think the president is in charge with foreign policy and i believe while we have opinions, i have already said more than i should have. >> nancygot the truth.

pelosi was also asked about syria. other topics include federal spending and cuts. >> good afternoon. as some of you know, earlier today there was a bipartisan leadership house and senate meeting in the speaker's office. as i said coming out, i thought it was constructive and productive that we came together, that we listened to each other, and i think candor saves time, so i think in that respect we have made some progress in understanding where we all are as we go forward with the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling. i think i referenced it as more

than one manifestation of the budget debate. kind of losing my voice. without going into what we discussed at the meeting, beyond that, i want to say that thecrae always been clear. we are focused on creating jobs, growing the economy to create jobs, and any approach to a continuing resolution or a debt ceiling lift has to be about creating jobs. we are prepared to find common ground to keep the government open and not default on the debt. that is really important for job creation, and democrats know we have to get rid of sequester him up because it will cost, according to the cbo, as low as 900,000 jobs and as high as 1.6 million jobs this time next year. say, it is around a million jobs, taking the lower side of it. that is a job loss that not only

our country cannot afford, but america's families cannot afford. and here we are, out of session, before lunch on thursday, because yesterday republican leaders were forced to pull from consideration their continuing resolution. that would be their own solution to keep government open. we know house republicans want to defund the affordable care act and continue the very destructive sequester, again, costing a million jobs this next year. i think it is important to note you know it is a job killer, you know what they are trying to do, what it would do, but here are some other things. their c.r. proposal would put a cap on medicare. it is important to note this because i do not think much has been said about it. no longer would we be able to find services to millions of

seniors. it just will not work, what they are doing just will not work. it would end fraud in the medicare system, and the primary care physician payments would end, and that is important. if we are going to provide services to people on medicaid, we have to have primary physicians who will do so, and those payments would end. this is nasty. it has tentacles that affect in a negative way many aspects of american life. now americans face the prospect of another republican- manufactured crisis to shut down the government. it is interesting to note that proposals to republicans are putting forward are not proposals, continuing resolutions, to keep government open. they are proposals to shut down

government. they know that. they know that what they are proposing is not going to pass the senate or be signed by the president. so why don't we just save time, be constructive, and respect the time they have with a democratic majority. they need the president's signature, so everybody has to respect the role that everyone plays in this. the most important thing we have to know and consider is that we are here to do a job for the american people, and just because you are an anti- government ideologue who as landed in congress does not mean you should be shutting down government. we have democratic alternatives. we have tried seven times. we will try and eighth time to have it considered, and that is what you have heard proposed by our ranking democrat, chris van hollen, on the budget committee. it replaces the destructive sequester, it creates jobs and accelerates economic growth,

investing in infrastructure and making it in america, etc., and reduces the deficit in a balanced way. just think again, getting back to the sequester -- up to 1.6 million jobs fewer this late next year. thousands, tens of thousands of kids forced out of head start, seniors kicked out of meals on wheels to the tunes of millions of meals on wheels, and investment slashed in research and technology. about $6 billion slashed from the national institutes of health? that is devastating. we're asking for a vote for our positive agenda. balanced, jobs creating, make it in america, reduce the deficit, we are hoping that we have that opportunity.

instead of getting us a chance to do that, yesterday for the 41st time the republicans voted to defund the affordable care act. in any event, on the timing, my understanding is that the republican leader has said that members should be prepared to be in the week after next. mind you we just came in a few days ago. we are already out of session by noon on thursday. you come in next week and we are scheduled to be out the following week, which is the week before the end of the fiscal year. again, i am calling upon the republican leadership to keep the house in session so we can get our work done. that is not just the work about the c.r. and the rest. it is work about immigration, we have to pass comprehensive immigration reform. it is about a farm bill. you need to pass a farm bill for the american consumer, for america's farmers, and for those

who depend on nutrition programs that are contained in it. the path they are taking by slashing 50% of a nutrition program -- it speaks for itself in terms of how mean-spirited it is. however, that is their path to perhaps -- if it passes -- to the conference table. it will be getting to the conference table, 50% of the nutrition program. i bring up these subjects because we are working of all of these subjects and have been. the issue of the moment is syria. i am very proud of the president. on tuesday night he laid out in very clear terms how the assad regime's use of chemical weapons impacts our national security,

and holding the regime responsible for gassing thousands of people. one thing is clear -- undeniable the president's credible threat of military action has brought parties to the table to seek a viable diplomatic solution. it is a tribute i think to the strength of the president, to his strong leadership, that he was willing to make the strike and strong enough to say no to the strike if there is a viable the automatic solution. we all hope for that solution in the crisis, and the president rightly keeps the threat of

military action on the table. we must pursue every avenue available to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction. that is a pillar of our national security and our military is something we do as a last resort. so in that spirit, i command the president for protecting us, and with that i will be pleased to take your questions. >> i was wondering what you made of putin's op-ed, saying the opposite of that, that the use of force would be horrific, arguing that the rebels, not the syrian regime, used the chemical weapons. it really was a slap in the face to the president. >> it is what it is. putin is not from a strong institutional democracy, where people have their say. he comes here and has his say, but it has to have some fidelity >> [indiscernible] >> you know what? it is who it is. assad is a part of the negotiation, too, and he is clearly a monster who would gas

children in his country. let me say this about the putin thing. he has made several points in there, and it is interesting -- i guess -- but when he talks he does not want the united nations to turn into another league of nations, not the effective -- i thought that was interesting because one of the reasons the united nations has not been effective in syria is because of the fear of a russian veto. even in initiatives that others have tried to propose that would say -- condemn the use of chemical weapons -- they have not been willing to sign on to. part of the strengths of the u.n. is the fact is has a strong security council. part of the lack of success is that russia, china too frequently use that veto power.

what i found interesting was the closing. he said, when we pray to god, he judges us all. i do not exactly what his words are. we are all god's children. i think that is great. i hope it applies to gays and lesbians in russia as well. another point i would make is that while he has a right to his opinion on these subjects, of course, i totally disagree with him when he disagrees with the president, that america is an exceptional country. yes, ma'am. >> [indiscernible] will be arming the opposition with lethal armaments out there, and that being said, with the recent anniversary of the benghazi attacks, were you ever

briefed by the administration regarding the fact that there was a cia annex in benghazi -- did they ever brief you as to what was going on in that particular annex? >> a lot of questions there. first, you start about talking about arming the syrians, correct? that is an old story. it is resurrected and has nothing to do with the current debate and balance in terms of being new. i cannot tell you what i was briefed on in terms of -- >> did you know that an annex existed in benghazi? >> i am not going to answer that question. i have been to libya. i was to tripoli. i did not go to benghazi, but had some idea of what was going on there.

>> did you know the annex was there? >> i am not confirming or denying anything there. yes. >> on the meeting today, it sounds as though you guys kept more of a broad discussion rather than specifics. is that the case, and was there any agreement to meet again or was this a process in trying to figure out the best of what is coming? >> i know you heard me when i said i would not talk more about the meeting, but i have been reading your pressing request. what is next is what the republicans will come up with. clearly, they had to pull their proposal that was supposed to come to the floor this week, which was some combination of defunding or undermining the

affordable care act, or what i find be unexpected and inconsistent with the budget control act, which was a bipartisan agreement, that they would've put forth. as bad as old on that was, it was not add enough for those on the republican caucus that they had to go make matters worse, and when they bring that forward, we will see what it is and make a judgment how to go forward. if it looks anything like what they are considering now, a strong negative vote on the parts of democrats. that does not mean there is not a place where we can find common ground. if they have -- if it gets bad enough that they can get all of their votes, that is one thing. it does not look like a path to a signature, though. >> do you expect there will be another meeting? >> i hope so. i think we are efficient when we speak to each other with recognition they are all busy,

that we speak for our respective caucuses, and there is no arguing that. in other words, you may not like what each of us has to say, but it is a reduction of our caucus, and that again moves us forward in saving time and certain portions of action that are not worth pursuing. >> can you talk about how you wanted to replace the sequester? do you want to replace it with other spending cuts? what sort of package can you come up with? >> we have had it seven times. we will try an eight time to have it proposed and see what we can get, particularly. probably they are online. as i mentioned, chris van hollen on more than one occasion to talk about the budget, it

creates a jobs proposal, yes, it would have cuts. some of them relate to the farm bill, some of them relate to special interests, special tax breaks for big oil that are part of the current situation. it reduces the deficit in a balanced way. again, this is written down. it has existed for a while. i will get you a copy of it, because it does say we have to, in a balanced way, reduce spending. you have to make judgments. when you make a judgment you are going to throw kids out of head start, you are not saving any money. economists will tell you nothing brings more money to the treasury than investments in education, from earliest childhood, k-12, higher

education, post grad, and lifetime learning. this is a missed opportunity for them. we have a slogan in california. when children learning, parents earning. kids are engaged in that way, learning, so parents can be earning. you cut off the funding for head start, not only are the kids deprived, the parents do not have that option of kids learning at the same time, and you lose the jobs as the people who have been teaching the children. again, i am always amazed how the republicans can say you do not have to, as they have said to me, you do not have to cut $30 billion in subsidies to big oil in order to reduce the deficit. you can say that same amount of

money by cutting pell grants. they are proud of that. i think it is a complete opposite set of values, but, again, with stiff competition, this is one of the dumbest ideas that you could advance -- cut education to reduce the deficit. no. invest in education to bring money into the treasury. >> it seems the republican leadership is working on the nutrition bill. are you going to be urging democrats to vote one way or another on this? >> absolutely. i do not know we have to encourage anybody. we had 100% vote that came up

with a smaller package, even than that, of cuts. yeah, we would most certainly -- the momentum is springing from our members. i am very proud that marcia fudge, a member of the agriculture committee, the chair of the congressional black caucus, she will be managing our side of the bill for that, and that means in opposition. you can imagine that they would cut -- and why -- why would we cut half the people of children and seniors, off of nutrition? because they do not want to touch one hair on the head of the wealthiest people in america. a bad idea. >> i know you want to get rid of the sequester, but for a short- term c.r., can you support the level that speaker boehner is supporting? >> we will see what they did. it would have to be a short time, and that is part of our discussion, what is the timing, and what -- would there be an omnibus, minibuses that come

next? what comes next? i think we have agreed -- i am speaking for myself -- we have agreed to a bipartisan budget control act. that called for 1.57 billion. this sequester proposal is $9.88 billion, and if we can split the difference, it would ease the pain for a lot of people in our country. again, reduce the impact on job creation. the thought about sequester was that it is so cataclysmic, so unreasonable that no one would ever allow that to go forward.

but even defense was not enough argument for publicans to protect tax advantages of the wealthy at the expense of our national security. that is why we are where we are. we are concerned about the domestic cuts and concerned about the defense cuts him and i think the american people do not really have a full idea about sequestration. do any of you? perhaps you do. but they do know that we should not be shutting down government, and they do know -- and we do think we have to make a case that says we have cut $1.57 billion, we have cut over $1 trillion. we have agreed to over a trillion dollars in cuts. now we are getting into the bones, and those bones are important to the strength of our country.

it will be an interesting time, because eyes always say to new members, know the budget, no it back and forwards and sideways. it should be a statement of values as a country, as to what is important to us, how we allocate our resources. you have to make -- we have to do so in a balanced way. we must curb the deficit, and we have to do so in a way that invests in the future and creates great. to cut education to reduce the deficit -- first of all, you're not publishing your goal, and second, you're undermining the president obama said when he became president that he was going to reduce the deficit by 50% in four years. well, he did it in four years and four months. he cut the deficit by 50%, so the cuts are being made, and as we go forward we have to continue to reduce the deficits

come up that we have to do so in a way that does not wreak havoc on medicare, does not undermine the education of our children, does not destroy job creation as we go forward, and having said that, i look forward to working with my republican colleagues to find a solution. if your goal is to shut down government, they are on that path. if you do not believe in government, then you would make the choices that would shut it down. we do not want any more government than we need, but we have to have the government that we do need, and that is -- that has been a fight in a country from the beginning. one fight is about security and liberty. but balance that to create another, which is the role of government, no more than we need, but what we need for public-private partnerships to

grow our country, to honor entrepreneurship, to get the job done for the american people, and honor life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, because our founders saw it that way. thank you, all, very much. >> jay carney to questions about meetings on syria between secretary of state and the russian foreign minister. topic was thed new york times op-ed written by russian president vladimir putin . you can link to that article on www.c-span.org. >> i wanted to ask you about two

issues. on syria, i wonder what the president's reactions were to president putin's op-ed. >> let me say this. both in his op-ed and in the statements and actions we have seen from president putin and the foreign minister, it is clear president clinton has invested his credibility in transferring of assad's chemical weapons to international control and ultimately destroying them.

unlike russia, the united states stands up for human rights in our own country around the world. we believe our global security is advanced when children are not gassed to death by a dictator. it is worth noting russia is isolated and alone in blaming the opposition for the chemical weapons attack on august 21. there is no credible reporting that the opposition has used chemical weapons in syria. we have been joined by 34 countries in declaring the assad regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on that night. even iran, fighting on assad's behalf in syria, publicly blamed the assad regime for the attack. in addition to the intelligence pertaining to the preparations for the attack, it is common sense the opposition does not have the capability to have carried out such a large scale

targeting. i think it is also worth pointing out there is a great irony in the placement of an op- ed like this. it reflects the truly wonderful tradition in this country of freedom of expression not shared in russia. that has been on a decrease in the past seven or so years in russia. having said that, the point i made is the most important point. russia, as we saw just now in geneva, has put its prestige and credibility on the line in backing the proposal to have syria, the assad regime, give up chemical weapons that, until two days ago, he claimed to did not

have. turn it over to international supervision with the purpose of eventually destroying them. we are going to work with the russians to see if this diplomatic avenue to solving the problem can bear fruit. that is worthwhile and the right thing to do. >> you mentioned secretary kerry. these talks he is conducting in geneva are occurring on the same day the reports increased the u.s. military systems to the opposition forces. do those two tracks cancel each other out? is there a chance the additional military support undermines the diplomatic track? >> without confirming specific reports, we have said for quite some time that we have been stepping up our assistance to the syrian military opposition. no question. in june, following credible evidence the assad regime had used chemical weapons against

the people, the president had authorized the expansion of of our assistance to the military council in syria. the expansion of the systems had been aimed at the effectiveness on the ground. as well as assisting their efforts to defend themselves against a regime that has shown no boundaries in its willingness to kill civilians. it is an important distinction to make, in the wake of the august 21 attacks and our response to them, that the issue of assad's chemical weapons is distinctly problematic and separate from, although it is part of the civil war, it is separate from our policy response to the civil war in syria. that response is built around

humanitarian support for the syrian people, us to stand to the opposition, including assistance to the supreme military council, as well as an effort with a broad range of allies and partners including russia to bring about a resolution of the civil war through a political settlement. that is the only way to end the war. these are distinct tracks. the problem that confronts us by the use of chemical weapons needs to be addressed. we are addressing that. the president has spoken clearly about his views on it. we are exploring diplomatic avenues and opportunities that exist potentially to resolve this by removing from assad's possession chemical weapons. we will continue our policy of supporting opposition in an effort to bring about a political settlement in the syrian conflict. >> jay carney talking about the

-- was asked about data collection by his agency. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. roomlcome to the committee . i want to focus on data. i want to go back to that conversation and give you an op or to tell the committee how many americans you are collecting third financial data. -- collecting their financial data. i am looking for a number. >> it is not the way the answer -- the question can be answered. >> to you have a number? -- do you have a number?

we do not collect directly from many americans. we go to institutions and we work with the institutions. >> how many institutions? we oversee approximately 110 large banks and a few credit unions. >> how many americans. >> that is not the way the work is done. me, what colorng is the song? actual credit cards are you collecting on americans? one would be they may come to us with a consumer complaint. >> america wants to know a number of how many you are

collect thing. do youy credit cards collect data on? data do not collect any from individuals on their credit card accounts. make sure they are complying with the law and we need to look at their institutions and their practices. >> do you monitor credit card accounts? >> that is the third bucket. consumer complaints, arctic monitoring.- market we are gathering sample data. incident banking, you were

asked these questions. -- in senate ranking, you are asked. and now you come today ill- prepared. what i think america deserves is the transparency that you promised. the time belongs to the gentleman of wisconsin. let's talk about financial institutions. will you give me the names of the financial institutions for which you collect financial data on americans? i need to correct the premise of the question. >> will you give me the names of those banks?

--there are 110 >> the transparency is not being met. at anotherook agency, it is called nsa. said, i am outraged when the federal government takes that information from you. you are here to protect consumers and you are taking and you areal data taking it and not giving them any transparency about the information they are taking, how much you are taking. that is incredibly frustrating. why don't you level with us? you stonewall. never did we get answers.

you want to make a speech and i understand that. comparison.lse >> do you have numbers for me? names of banks or numbers of consumers. we are looking at credit card matters at bank of america, capital one, discover, american express. >> the time has expired. continue the discussion on syria on our next "washington journal." -- divide on the military the divide the republican party

on military strikes. guest is from salon.com. everygton journal is live day at 7:00 eastern. >> it was different than earlier presidential hills because it was never a commercial venture. they did not try to be self- sufficient. it was to offset the expense of living there. hay. did raise horsesthe cost of having . they did have a lovely garden and that produced everything from corn to strawberries. the idea was both to feed the

family and also reduce the cost of maintaining a property like this. >> watch our program on edith roosevelt on our website, c- span.org. series live next monday as we look at first lady helen taft. ago, book tv made its debut on c-span2. love, death and money. these are the three main human concerns. we are all keen students of love. we are fascinated by every aspect of the matter in theory and in practice. to be not quite as much as can start is, but fascinated nonetheless. since then, we have brought you the top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. more than 9000 authors have appeared on book tv, including presidents -- >> on to give the reader the chance to understand

the process by which i made the decisions and the environment by which i made decisions, the people i listen to sma decisions . this is not an attempt to rewrite history. it is not an attempt to fashion a legacy, it is an attempt to the a part of the historical narrative. >> also supreme court justices. >> every single justice on the court has a passion and a love for the constitution and our mine,y that is equal to acceptu know that if you that as an operating truth which yous, you understand that can disagree. >> and nobel winners. >> that for me was interesting was the negotiating for moral position. do no harm. love somebody. and respect yourself.

all of that is reduced, simplified notions. the philosophers have spent their lifetime trying to imagine what it is like to live a moral is, whatt morality existence is, what responsibility is. >> we visited book fairs and festivals around the country. >> and book tv is live at the annual l.a. times festival of books on the campus of ucla in west los angeles. >> there is our signature programming, in-depth each month. >> and if you say to a child ,lmost anywhere in this country once upon a time, a child. and paused to listen. now you better cash the check. you better have more to say after that. but that phrase is still magical. >> and every week, afterwards. his job has been to be press attache in belgrade.

my mom had wanted me to be born in progress her mother was. my father was recalled in 1938 and he went in to czechoslovakia when the nazis marched in on march 15, 1930 nine. >> since 1998, book tv has shown over 40 thousand hours of programming and it is the only national television network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books every weekend. the route the fall, we are marking 15 years of book tv. on c-span2. now, house intelligence committee chairman rogers andruppersberg talk about cybersecurity. >> good morning, everyone.

to the inaugural i see summit. our mission is to serve as a catalyst for public, private and academic art and airships in order to identify and promote the national security challenges confronting the intelligence community. i think we can all agree that we have achieved the first part of that mission here at the i see summit.- at theic we have 500 professionals from across the public and private sectors. as well as an impressive list of more than 40 panelists and moderators from those same sectors. i want to thank you all for

being with us today. i want to extend a special thank sponsors, in our particular i would like to recognize our to host sponsors, northrop grumman and raytheon for their continued support of our efforts. in addition to our host sponsors, i would like to thank man tech for sponsoring the breakfast. deloitte for sponsoring the registration, pwc for sponsoring our speakers lounge dae systems for sponsoring our lunch and social intelligence and eagle ray for sponsoring the morning and afternoon coffee breaks. , we wouldur support not be able to put on events such as this one today. i would also like to thank our media partner defense one for

their support. we all please join me in a round of applause for our sponsors? [applause] we have a full agenda today. we have over 40 panelists participating across eight breakout sessions, each on a topic of critical importance to the intelligence community. we have four key intelligence community leaders in the persons , chairman mike rogers ranking member dutchruppers dia director mike flynn. them will share their

vision for the future of our community and its mission. i encourage each of you to visit the innovation forum throughout the day where companies doing great work within our community will be showing their innovative solutions and services. we have brought these key leaders together to facilitate this conversation, but it is through your participation and insight that progress will be insa's ictoday at summit. when you registered you receive a copy of two light papers is proud to be rolling out this morning. the first, operational levels of cyber intelligence, seeks to explore cyber intelligence as a disciplined methodology with understandable frames of reference in the form of operational levels.

i'm going to go back and analyze that sentence later on today. [applause] [laughter] to combat actual threats by adversaries. , a preliminary examination of insider threat oh grams inside the u.s. private sector, is an initial review and summary of current practices for cyber inside threat programs from across the entire private sector. obviously, this is a timely topic. i think you will find the paper's conclusion is very interesting. to thank alllike of the volunteer members and leaders of insa counsel of leaders and task forces.

you have provided the momentum for this and other insa policy focused events. given recent events, it is no surprise that we have received a large amount of interest from the media. i would like to thank all of them for attending today as we believe the american public should be well-informed about faces andnges theic the solutions that will be discussed here today. with that said, and let me add panel,i do introduce our the events in syria, of course, and the whole issue surrounding and theiferation instability in the middle east and south asia and sub-saharan africa is again a poignant reminder, especially as

america's military posture lowers its profile around the world as it has been doing for the last several years. intelligence becomes that much more critical to the national security of the united states. that is yet another reason that i believe this is a very timely conference indeed. i know that we will all look forward to the insights of our panelists is morning. -- of our panelists this morning. the view from a hill, featuring congressman mike rogers, chairman of the house permanent select committee on intelligence and congressman dutch ruppe rsberger. moderating the townsend, cnnfran

andonal security analyst executive vice president of macandrews and forbes holdings third as many of you remember, fran was my predecessor as untilrson ofin insa last december. prior to her time she has served our government in many high profile positions culminating in her tenure as assistant to the president from homeland security and counterterrorism. much of the groundwork for today's summit originated from france time as chairwoman and today's success is in large measure owed to her. with those initial remarks, please join me in welcoming the members of our first panel this morning. you.nk [applause]

, thank you very much for that kind introduction. having served for three years as the chairwoman of insa, i am very proud to be here. , i amt of you who know me a zealot for time. i'm going to try to get us closer to schedule. i'm going to skip introductions. you know who the chairman of the intelligence committee is. both are long experienced hands in the intelligence community. i'm going to turn it over to each of them to make some introductory remarks. there is a lot to try and cover here. open. got my twitter feed we are going to take questions from the audience. there has been news that has becomeovernight as has

typical, unfortunately, in world intelligence. , congressmanstart rogers, with you? >> thanks for having us. there are significant challenges around the world. there are a lot of things that keep dutch and i up at night. the rapid changes, things that we talked about a lot, some things don't get much attention at all. a country that just a few months ago threatened a nuclear .xchange there certainly watching the events of the day. you have the russian military starting to reinvest in its technology. it has launched some pretty sophisticated submarines in the last year or so. certainly routine is eager to

is ready to get back in the game of influence around the world. i don't know if you read his "new york times" editorial. thank you, chinese cyber espionage is breathtaking and only getting worse. cyber military style cyber planning is now a part of the framework of every neighbor -- of every major nationstate. and even others who are not major are getting engaged in cyber planning. one -- china's number one priority is to steal tor intellect show property compete illegally against u.s. companies. they are also very good on their

cyber attack planning. they have it as part of their mainstay. a couple of interesting things china has done recently under the radar, they have announced their oil platforms are now strategic assets in that they will defend the militarily. it changes the dynamic in the discussions in the south china seas significantly. you're seeing the tension with china and japan has got one notch hotter recently. as they havens told us before his they didn't want the u.s. navy to be sailing in the south china sea, a place we have been since we have been a country. 40% of the world trade goes through there. this is a wrinkle we are going to have to work through. they have named their financial institutions all the way down to strategic as outposts. al qaeda is on the rise. clearly we see what is a huge

destabilizing and growing more stabilizing event in syria. many call it a civil war. i think that is not accurate or it i think this is a proxy war that has bled into the region in a significant way. if we look at it as a civil war we are going to make a lot of mistakes and decisions that we make. those are just a couple of the things that we worry about at night. there is more than that and the fact that we are working aggressively to publicly dismantle the national security agency that provides us information we need to keep america safe. it is mind-boggling to me. hopefully we will get a chance to talk about that as well. with that i will turn it over to my friend dutch and we will get to the rest of this. >> it is great to see everyone here involved in the intelligence community in some way. what do we do in intelligence? i believe strongly that intelligence is the best defense against terrorism and cyber

attacks. what the intelligence community is made up of people who are so important people people in this community are smart, focused and -- i think i would like to talk about the committee. i would like to race of the issues. we have the senate and the house intelligence committees as you know. for years our committee just wasn't doing the job that they needed to do. there's a lot of partisan politics. david iglesias from "the -- we havepost," decided the stakes are too high and we are going to work together as a team. that is what we have done. i have told this joke 100 times, but mike is a former fbi agent. i was a former fbi prosecutor.

we were the minority. i always remind him of that. i think a lot of it has to do with respect, relationships and trust. that is how you should live your life. we have a lot of issues that we are dealing with, things that are evolving. we are very concerned about the cyber issue. mike and i pulled together and decided we have to do something about cyber attacks and we brought in different groups. we brought the aclu and the white house and the business community to try to find a way to deal with the issue of cyber. it is very important. we are getting attacked every .ingle day cyber command estimated in the last three years we have lost about 400 billion dollars of trade secrets and information that basically china and other countries are getting. -- we have to

continue to use the best tools to do it legally and find these individuals. i call it a needle in a haystack. the individuals we are going after are the needle. we have to make sure we stop them before they attack us. it is our highest priority in the united states and secondly our allies. we have to be diligent in that regard. you have the china and russia threat, the cyber attacks. these are things that are evolving. i can go on and on. mike raised some issues. i think it is better if i stop talking and listens to you also we can start answering your questions. >> thank you both. with your permission i am going to use first names. are you kidding me? that is why they call me dutch. >> let's start with what is the news of the day. mike, you referred to it as a proxy war.

i say that syria has become the vietnam of our generation for very good reasons. you see china and russia playing out a larger political game at the expense of the syrian people. talk to us, both of you, about what is the likelihood that the russians proposal goes a, anywhere. is it credible? canbe, can it be -- and there be any threat of military force if it fails? >> clearly, let's try to understand the problem. the russians have been on the ground since the beginning. they have long-term military contracts there. they have been supplying weapons before, during and they want to do it after whatever happens to syria. they really need that port. they need to keep a strategic

military interest with their footprint in syria. we should try to eliminate pretty quickly some benevolent interest in being the peacemaker in the region. they are concerned about losing a strategic asset. that is their number one primary concern. by the way, they have been on the ground, providing advisories and intelligence packages and it is in their interest to make sure that the first people who might show up at a chemical storage facility, the russians want to be the first ones in the door. something inre is there that might cause them some concern. just guessing. andproblem with syria now why it can work, but are interests align. i believe you need a credible military threat in order to continue to have a negotiation

success. i really do believe that. that is exactly why the russians said that they would not allow that to happen in the united nations. chapter seven would allow a united nations military threat if we couldn't get a threat -- couldn't get a handle on these chemical weapons. they got exactly what they wanted and they want, which was time. they needed a side to have -- to have more time to dig in and didn't -- and engage in denial. provide armsm to and financing. it sends a pretty dangerous message to the opposition that he is going to be there for a length of time. i am skeptical. i hope it works. i just don't think it will work if we don't have some real credible threat to say, guess what? if this negotiation doesn't go well we have a whole other set of options and you are not going

to like any of them. thisry that without that becomes a game of taking four months to decide when to meet, four months to decide after that who gets to meet, another six months to decide who gets to go into syria and that i don't think is helpful to what is happening on the ground. >> touch, do you agree that there needs to be a credible threat of military force? >> without a doubt heard we are -- if you look at the history when all this started, when the opposition was starting to gain momentum, that is when russia basically wanted us to come to the table and see what we could resolve. why does russia do this? first, will only do what is good for him and next russia. they are on the wrong side of the issue when it comes to chemical weapons and also their interest in syria and the middle east. that is the only jurisdiction that really works with russia.

at that point, they said we don't need, we are winning. that is why we decided to courtney. no boots on the ground, but be the quarterback that helps the opposition and their other allies to help them change the tide. our whole goal then was to get russia back to the table. we are in the position now, we know where we are. i think the president made the right decision because the only leverage we have now with the players that are there. of course killed 100,000 of his .wn people he was a low-key ophthalmologist who is trained in britain. it is all about maintaining that kind of power. trustk we have to verify, and verify. this is a stalling tactic could we have to continue on with the threat of force.

when nothing is going to happen. that is our leverage. we have to verify with the people that are going into the country. that is going to be a tough situation. the country is still a war. are they going to be safe? these are the things that we have to deal with. of ust night, while most were sleeping, "the guardian" published only the most recently published document by edward snowden. this report alleges that the united states is passing u.s. person data to israel. we have seen a hue and cry publicly about privacy issues and an ongoing public debate in this country. this is only going to fuel -- can you each talk about what you think if you have read the article and to

the issue of leaks and privacy. how do we get the american people comfortable and supportive of what the intelligence community really needs to be able to accomplish? >> great question. oh, look at the time. [laughter] where do we go first? the first thing. there is no question that this debate on proxy has to be out there. these things we are doing with cyber laws and those issues. it is very difficult. in the intelligence community we really learn how to let the public know what is going on because it is classified. we are going to move forward, not only with the public but with other members of congress. we have to somehow change some

laws to be more flexible on the issue of what we are going to do and how we are going to deal with classified information. dedicated people who get up every morning, work hard, they think they're helping their country, and they're getting hit hard or it it has nothing to do with them. we in politics have to deal with the issue of perception, even though it is not reality. mike and i have to work closely with general alexander and other people to try to find ways that we can get out more information that will be after the fact and won't violate sources and methods to educate the people. people are concerned that someone is listing to them every day. eventually there could be unintended consequences with congress making laws that affect our national security. i'm going to say something now that my staff will be very upset with. i think it is important that we raise this issue.

this is about the media. i want to make it really clear that i believe that the first amendment is one of the most important things that we have. we have to stand behind it and support the media's ability to write and raise issues. and they are doing it now. i don't have a problem with this debate and printing all these issues that are out there. but i do think is the media itself. the media itself need to come together and see how far did we go when we are getting beyond the debate on privacy. printing sources and methods .hat will eventually cause it is a very sensitive issue. i am knackered to be there, because i don't think we should. point where to the article after article talks about sources and methods and gives al qaeda the ability to

digest so we won't be able to find out where they are or how they are. i throw that out there. we are not doing anything about it but i think the media itself -- i remember as a former prosecutor 10 years ago, you would never see the information out there about sources and methods. literally giving al qaeda and other groups the data on what we are trying to do to attacked us. what is intelligence all about? what are the millions of dollars we spend about? it is about trying to protect us. laws.e to have the we have more checks and balances than any other country in the world on what we do. leave me, mike and i both make sure that the nsa and intelligence community also laws. if there's something wrong we will try to fix it. i better stop there. staff, don't give me a hard time. i just wanted to raise those issues.

>> this has been the most .rustrating series of weeks candidly, the damage is growing by the day. there are certain things that the newspapers are publishing that has nothing to do with privacy issues. our are providing adversaries valuable information. by the way, we have already seen one al qaeda affiliate completely change the way it does business, which means we now have a gap in our ability to try to stop something bad from happening. as has been described by senior intelligence officials, significant and irreversible heard we have just elton now, because we think it is fun to put this in the newspaper. i think irresponsibly on some of these issues, we have a gap. what is frustrating to us is our job was to try to find ways to

close the gaps working with our intelligence communities, that we knew existed rider to an 11 -- prior to 9/11. these programs we talk about fill those gaps. guess what? those gaps are back. if we think for one minute that people don't perceive when there is a gap that they won't take advantage of it we are absolutely fooling ourselves. al qaeda is on the rise in the reb.grab -- in the mahg they are financing through kidnapping and ransom. peninsula the arabian causing us great concern. t stabilization efforts are underway. you also have new affiliates that are growing in interest and external operations, meaning u.s. targets or western targets along the pakistani afghan border. you have new safe havens

developing as the troop drawdown happens in afghanistan in the northeast. aboute al qaeda talking safe havens in syria along the iraq/syrian border. you have to put it in context when we have these conversations about what we are disclosing first. -- the reportpent secondly are reported as they have found them doing something wrong. we have found this horrible thing that nobody knows about and we are printing it. was of what snowden stole slide decks of -- that describe what was going wrong and the mitigation. he knew about it, these are management tools to fix problems that we have found in the system. which means the court has found some, the intelligence committee found some, and these are not -- here's the other problem.

we used such specific language in describing these events. out peoplehe came said that as a privacy violation. they said is a violation. no come absolutely wrong. they went privacy violations. some of them are technical violations. when i use the word violation that is even wrong. it is just the technology changes. everybody knows about internet protocols. when something changes, there's going to be a glitch in the system to catch up. that is a technical problem, not a privacy problem. the newspaper takes it and says, a hawk, let's described this as a privacy violation. 2796. i get my blood pressure up on this rate americans should be mad about this for all the wrong reasons that they're mad about it now. most of those violations that were because there

was lawful intercept of bad guys overseas. they were legitimately identified, reasonable suspicion, all of that was found. in the modern day of communication you really don't know where that person is with that particular device at any .ime, right yucca guess what that is a confusing thing for a guy who's trying to catch a bad guy. we all have legal implications if someone uses a u.s. network him even if they are a foreign person in a foreign place. he put a lot of pressure on these guys to make sure they do it right heard we are the only intelligence service in the world that really does this the way we do. i can guarantee that putin isn't having this conversation. the get on the phone, the guy goes from pakistan to , catches a to dubai

flight to new york city. if we know this is a bad guy doing better things, they are trying to figure out what this person is up to. they get to the united states, the person's phone has been off. they make a phone call, now the analyst goes oh, they are now in the united states. this ought to offend everybody in this room. guess what we have to do by law? turn it off. congratulations page you're in the united states, you are plotting a terrorist attack. we have to turn it off and try to find another system by handing it over to the fbi to develop the same kind of reasonable suspicion to turn it back on. so that is considered a violation. i have bad news for you. i don't think we ought to turn it off, right? but that is what our job is. we have to make sure that that law is followed. againste working ourselves every day. when a newspaper picks it up there calling these violations. if you are not familiar with

this, doesn't it sound like a horrible terrible thing that these people must be doing about violating somebody's privacy in the united states? that is what people believe and we are working against ourselves . we are going to have a public outcry on an organization that follows the law they self-report when they violate. the core challenges them frequently. what you saw in their with that terse court exchange was the court working on technical corrections. you want that to happen. it shows you the oversight works . instead it is being portrayed as an agency out of control doing horrible things. i am telling you, it is costing us significantly in our ability collect against our adversaries and they know it. decideda reason putin to put an op ed in "the new york times." he knows the u.s. is on a feeding frenzy against itself and he would love to join in.

i'm going to ask you all to be skeptical. this notion that the agency is collecting on u.s. persons and giving it to any foreign intelligence agency in the way it was described is completely wrong. that is not what is happening. i can't go into more detail, but i can guarantee you that the privacy of americans is protect it in the way we operate. part of the problem was, we are actually too aggressive in our oversight and we documented it and we talk about it with leadership in order to try to fix it and they stole that slide deck and put it out there and said oh my god, we caught them doing something horribly wrong. we should dismantle the nsa. i am really at about where we are going and this growing sense of isolationism is concerning to me. if we don't get ourselves right and stop beating americans up for being americans, we are going to be in a lot of trouble when it comes to providing our intelligence services with the tools that they need to protect this country.

i got all worked up about that. outs just getting the facts . >> we oversee the intelligence community and we hold them accountable and to the budget. we make sure they follow the law. we also have to put the facts on the table. when you get these allegations like the metadata program that we are listening to somebody without a court order. is not the case, but we have to deal with the perception. make sure thato we can declassify more information so that we can get people more information so that they know that we are always following the law. we are going to have more attacks. thatead of al qaeda says they are going to target more in the united states. ofieve me, we are more

vulnerable because of the leaks. we are going to lose lives because of them did we have a lot to do. we ask you all to be there with us. let's get the facts out. we have a lot more to do to communicate with the american public. i hope we can do more in the declassification that will not affect sources. >> you raised my next question. thank you. was the 12th anniversary of the horrific attack on september 11. commissioner ray kelly gave a series of interviews, one of which on cnn where he said more than once that he believes the threat to the homeland from al qaeda is as great, if not than previous to 9/11. you can imagine from my perspective that got my attention. agree or disagree and what do you think is the greatest threat?

really, al qaeda is looking for victory. the greatest victory they can have. what is concerning is that in the past they were very eager to have big events, big 9/11 style events and it would take a long time to plan those big, impactful events. unfortunately, they learned a lot from the boston bombing. attitudeee a change in . with the changing of the guard , you can see a change in the kind of things that they are doing for targeting and other things. now their definition of what they think might be a successful attack has changed. that is very concerning to us. our concern is, are we engaged

fully in all those counterterrorism programs that we know what impact full with disruption in their leadership, the planning and financing. we have had some changes, right? we have had this public debate and have thought maybe these things are bad thing so we will slow down, we will pull them back to it but they are not pulling back. we thinkare finding is about what is happening in syria with almost or a -- in syria withal nusra. you have more than 10,000 members subscribing to al qaeda and they are talking a safe haven.off where have we seen a pulling of a large number of fighters? they are coming from all over the world including the united states of america. they think they are winning the fight over on the east side. that is dangerous. now you have folks with european

papers, folks with american .apers who are trained they have been further radicalized. yes what, when this is over, whatever it looks like when it is over, they are going home. al qaeda knows who they are, they know that they are a new avenue for providing data. you don't have to look for the big event flying a plane into a building, they would like to do that, too. but we also have to not worry about those smaller knockoff of -- smaller knockoff events. i think the threat is greater in that regard trade >> i agree with mike. we need to be able to find a major attack. more out of yemen than any other area, focusing on the united states and having individuals

who are under the radar not using phones, not doing things where we can pick things up. that is why it is so important for the intelligence community to work with states and local also. get as much information as you can. anything that looks unusual. this is what i'm concerned about. we have had a couple attempts and were lucky that some of those did not occur. it is a serious world. you can't misjudge how many andle are helping al qaeda funding them. you have very smart people as part of the organization. there are doctors that are trying research and putting plastic bombs in individuals so that they can go through the airports and not be detected trade is is very serious. we have been talking a lot today about syria and terrorism. let's not lose sight of the cyber attacks and how serious it andot only to our country

what is being lost in money but more importantly how these attacks can affect us in this country. destructive attacks. alleged, i can't say directly, but i know where it is, that iran has knocked out russia went to attack georgia. the cyber attack and shut down the communications systems. this is very serious and it concerns -- people say you and mike are members of the gang of eight. what keeps you awake at night? i say spicy mexican food and weapons of mass destruction. we have a long way to go dealing with the cyber issue. not only in the united states. we have a bipartisan bill passed. thenk it was288-127. president was against our bill but we were able to get white parson support to get our bill passed.

we had a bill passed the session before that and it didn't have as many votes. i said we've got to get the white house behind this. we have to make changes. changes andt of mike didn't like it, but he knew the endgame was getting the bill passed because a lot of people on my side of the aisle felt very focused on the issue of privacy. we got this bill passed and it is in the senate now. we are trying to work on that, too. let's not lose sight of that issue of cyber. it is there and it is not going away. i would not be surprised if a country like iran that is not that sophisticated is attempting to attack us with wall street or anything they can do to disrupt. >> i'm going to start taking the questions from the audience and from twitter. alliance or@fera

what is the policy and legal framework with which gocould defeat, deter or back at them. what will it take to get the legislation through the senate so we have legislation in this country? thing is then misperception it created around all of this. it is shocking just how wrong 90% of it is. it is shocking to -- just how wrong 98% of it is. at the threatk matrix on what we're going through on cyber in this country. any member that went through it -- despite the misgivings, it was because of the sheer volume and level and sophistication and

growing danger of the cyber threats. that are public reports iran is already attacking our financial institutions. by lower leveld-dos attacks that are concerning. they are probing, looking for weaknesses. they are not a rational actor. they think they have a right to attack us on cyber. that threat is growing. army, we believe that israel has more than just iran providing data on how a cyber attack would look good they are not bashful about doing it. i don't think our policies are exactly right yet. our defensive capability is a problem here. most governments run the internet. here it is a rare as it should be. i would say if you're going to

punch your neighbor and a nose, better to hit the weight room for a couple of months first. you have seen my neighbor, having you? if we go over with an offense of strike, they are not going to come back and government targets, they probably will, but they are going to come at private sector targets. there is still huge vulnerability in our private sector system. without some opportunity, we think we have found that way by threat in real time source code information. it has to be in real time, hundreds of millions of times a second, that we can at least give our private sector the ability to protect themselves from what might be coming. that is artistic vantage and that is why it is so important that we get it right very it is so frustrating that with this -- this is the largest single threat that we know exists and it is happening today, that we are doing nothing about. going to continue

talking. we have had great conversations with the senate heard they haven't given up on it. we think that they will make a few changes and maybe hopefully by the end of this year get a bill sent to the president's desk. that is our hope and our: we haven't given up. >> we have to educate the 80% of theblic trade network in the united states is controlled by the private sector. the private sector has to be very much involved in this partnership. with the intelligence community and the government to make sure that the proper protocols are there to protect us. we also have to deal with the issue of privacy. in lawd i both were enforcement and we know that you must follow the law. we put this book together and brought the aclu and other groups to the table. changesht a lot of the made on a second bill were based on the recommendations. we still have some pushback heard so we have more work to do. it is one of the most serious threats that we have to deal with. we have a 1947 law that says we

cannot give classified information to the other side. our is why right now intelligence community can't really communicate. they can't see these attacks unless there is some kind of classified program that is there. we are trying to change this and make sure that it is information sharing that we can go back and forth. believe me, it is all voluntary and we are not violating privacy. please help us. i can say this, the business community have really stood up and made a lot of concessions to try to get the bill passed because they know how serious it is. 400 -- we not only have to deal with the cyber issue, but we have to get china you can't keep stealing this. it has to be a global issue and

global standards as it relates to cyber if we want to protect ourselves. >> you're going to be really happy for the next one. that on twitter reminds me yesterday was also the one-year anniversary of the tragedy of the attack on the benghazi compound. is, when are him the american people going to hear from those people who were at the benghazi conflict. this is to congressman rogers. when are we going to hear from them? in our committee we have done the investigation. -- next week will be our 10th hearing. we have talked to all but three .n the ground

we are still working through those issues. we tracked down every lead that we have heard. every story you read a newspaper about something bad that the like guns done running, we ran almost to ground thoroughly with our investigators. our goal was to find out exactly what happened. we have it narrowed down at least in our lane, there are some indicating that the time their headquarters is giving might be different from the timeframe that the folks on the ground are giving. we are trying to reconcile that. we need to do a lot of this in a classified setting mainly because the folks are still employed. most of them are still under cover and their great patriots. they went through it pretty difficult circumstance and dusted themselves off and redeployed around the world.

is not to disrupt their ability to continue to protect america and do this investigation in a way that , who areose folks candidly patriots, with the respect that they deserve. we are working it as an old fbi guy can tell you, these things always take longer than you think they do. i think the state department is where you will get the first set of more public hearings on the investigation from the lower end as it works up to the senior ranks. those are where the decisions were made not to provide extra security. those were the decisions made and i saw an article the other day that said that the agency was supposed to vet the security services. i can tell you that in our itestigation -- let me put this way. the agency wouldn't hire the people that they hired. the agency would not co-locate on the facility as later that

august because they believed it was not supportable and a defensible position. somebody took that information and made some really dangerous decisions. that is where the problem was on what happened on benghazi -- in benghazi that day. >> we're a question from the audience. you spoke for a highly about your esteem for the people in the intelligence community. we are going through a. remembertration, we budget cuts in the intelligence , what do in the 1990s you see as the impact of sequestration on the intelligence community? what is the committee in its oversight role going to do to protect the capability? is a slow burn. it makes us weaker as a country whether it is military or intelligence. a lot of what we do in intelligence -- we have satellites and equipment and resources, but it is about

people. what we are trying to do on the committee right now, mike and i had an amendment and we're trying to work with his leadership on the issue of sequestration. it is related to the intelligence community that with this across-the-board cut with everything, it is disastrous. budgeting is about priorities. yourting is about putting priorities. some programs you like that you cannot afford. what mike and i are trying to do was get there to give us a waiver in intelligence mike we have done in some areas in the armed services area. to get that waiver so that we won't be majorly impacted. as it turned out, we couldn't get it past rules committee. it is a serious issue. enough is enough. there's no question that we have to deal with the deficit. but you have to pursue it to a plan.

what we have to do is leadership has to get together or it republican and democratic leaders have to get together to talk about how to deal with sequestration. the messages out that we have to deal with a deficit, but let's deal with at the right way and pursuant to a plan. i can tell you that speaker but youis working hard just can't get the votes. what happened when you and we voted on the debt ceiling? the debt ceiling is money that we have authorized in congress. to use that as a leverage can't be done. i would think that with all of the issues that are out there, the serial issue, the al qaeda issue, the russia-china issue, all the things we're dealing with as a country, i would think this might help bring us together. i can say this, mike and i have a very unique relationship. we are probably the only bipartisan committee on the hill and people know it. they tell us that we do that. cut $1d i are able to

billion because we all have to do our thing. the way we did it is reluctant each program, went to the heads of the different agencies and said we have got to cut, like everyone else. that's negotiated. let's look at it and not come across the board. so it is working where we are now, but we are ok for this year. at the next budget round, if this continues, we are going to be in deep trouble. we will be weaker as a nation, we won't be able to protect our citizens. let's not forget about education issues and medical issues and those type of things also. >> this is an audience question to mike rogers. given the dispersal of serious chemical weapons, is it feasible to be able to get them under international control? u.s.ou do that without boots on the ground? >> the decisions if we would make it 24 months ago, the

options look a lot better 24 months ago. they look a little less good 18 months ago, they look pretty awful today. i do think that you are going to here's the problem. it all depends on how aggressive the russians aren't helping. also, has blood is there in pretty significant numbers heard they also want to get their hands on these chemical weapons. there's going to be some dispersal of the chemical weapons. i do think you can get a good percentage of them because the assad regime is also worried that these things fall into the wrong hands and will be used against his regime. -- ourhave a lot of interests are aligned maybe not for all the right reasons. i think it can happen. we can get rid of sarah and gas now. complicated more process. new technology would mean you

could get in and do a lot of destruction in a short. of time in a way that is safe , especially on certain gas. mustard gas and other things will take longer. you have to build incinerators to burn them. i think it can happen. i don't think we need u.s. boots on the ground. here is the one option that we have left on the table. dutch and i travel there frequently and meet with our arab league hardness. they are frustrated, but they are willing to provide the support that we would need, in andng troops, to go help secure those weapons systems because they now proliferate is to around the love aunt. levant. date do want -- i kind of hope we shake ourselves out of this malaise and the administration regroups about

how we can impact that with a plan that is meaningful, which embraces our arab league are nice to her eager to do it. turkey is also interested in participating. i think that is the best way to do it i keep hearing these plans about 70,000 troops on the ground. if you're going for a hostile takeover of those weapons facilities and hold them, yes, it takes 70,000 people. i don't know anyone on our committee, republican or democrat or in any of the national security committees, that has ever talked about the real feasibility or even the interest in trying to have it 70,000 u.s. troops. that is nuts. it is a horrible decision and i think people who are trying to change the narrative are trying to say this is going to require big troops. there are lots of other options a surgicalding

strike that could degrade their ability if we needed it.

>> good afternoon. i almost said good morning. it is afternoon now. many of you spent the morning at the supreme court. a wonderful opportunity. you got to meet megan jones, a programs manager. and the counselor to the chief justice of the united states. this afternoon, a wonderful panel. i have given you a handout with their bios so we can save a little bit of time. they want to get right to it. i am sure you want to get right to listening to it. before i turn this over to them, can i please ask you to turn off your cell phones if you have them on? you might notice some of the names have changed on the bios. there are schedules attorneys are not always in charge of.

still an excellent panel here. just as a follow-up for a lot of you who are supreme court aficionados, we have a justice coming here in january. you might want to look for that in our its catalog. i will turn this over to tom. he will take it from there and enjoyed the session. thank you all for coming. >> thank you. also, on behalf of all of the panelists, we really want to thank the smithsonian associates, an amazing organization, for putting on this program for those of you who got to see the building and meet people there. i will do a super brief introduction and then we will turn to the summit. when we do, we will potentially split it into two parts. the first part is getting water.

we will look backwards and forwards. we do think the best part of this program might be telling you what the supreme court will be thinking about, rather than what has already been done. you have already read about last term the decisions. some are so momentous, the voting rights act, for to back -- affirmative action, that they really do bear spending a few minutes on. we will talk about that first and then the upcoming term, that will take us about an hour and a half. at 3:15, we will stop and take your questions. if you hold those until then, we will be grateful. we have the great good fortune to have c-span today and we want to make sure everybody out there as well here's your questions. my name is tom goldstein. a lawyer. i run a website about the supreme court. to my right, jeff, who covers the supreme court and has done

so for many years for the wall street journal, and unbelievable reporter. you should go yet his book. a fan -- get his book. a fantastic description about how detainees have been handled n the war on terror. the nests -- next suggestion, an organization you should donate to after you donate to the smithsonian associates. a huge amount of public interest work. a huge amount of work outside he supreme court, as well. next to allison is don, a general of the united states. it is our incredible pleasure and good fortune he is able to be with us today. he is responsible for principally representing the united states in the supreme

court but has other responsibilities, as well. and unbelievable public servant. the only thing worth mentioning is that, while he knows more about the supreme court and what is going on than anyone, he also has the greatest restraint than any of us. we can joke and make things up. the constitution requires that he ask responsibly. -- acts responsibly. specially on c-span. his expansiveness is because of his very special role. we will start by looking backward and start with same-sex marriage and we will talk about that. >> thank you for the gracious introduction. it is great to be back. i had a terrific time on this program last year.

i look forward to our discussion and your questions at the end. as tom suggested, we thought, given the momentous character of the end of terms decisions last june that would -- it would be worth a backward look at those. i will talk about the gay marriage cases. windsor, you remember the basics. the supreme court held that a provision of the defense of marriage act, a statute congress enacted in 1996, was unconstitutional. that barred the federal government from recognizing for any federal law purpose the validity of marriage between persons of the same gender, even if the persons were lawfully married under state law. one significant numbers of states have started recognizing same-sex marriages, the federal law started to pose very serious consequences on lawfully married couples.

edith herself, a plaintiff in the case who brought constitutional challenge in the law was unable to be treated for federal income tax purposes. she had to pay a tax that she would not have had to pay if the federal government had recognized her marriage. a lot of other serious things follow from the law. a whole range of benefits and privileges. one unusual feature of the case was that the united states was not defending the law. we were arguing it was not constitutional. that is because in 2011, the president and the attorney general made a judgment that the law discriminates against gays and lesbians ought to be sus -- subject to heightens -- heightened scrutiny and the defense of marriage act provision, section three, could not meet the standard. let me stop for a minute and talk about what it means to say something is subject to heightened scrutiny.

under the 14th amendment law, it provides that no person shall be denied equal protection under the law. laws treat people unequally all the time for reasons that are legitimate. the law needs a device to decide which kinds of discriminations between people and groups are legitimate, like treating optometrists different than ophthalmologists, and what kinds of things in the law are otentially illegitimate. what the president decided is that differences of treatment in the law that are based on sexual orientation ought to be treated as presumptively illegitimate under the status of equal protection doctrine because of the characteristic of being a gay or lesbian is an inherent personal characteristic and the discrimination based on that, generally, do not bear any relationship to legitimate

governmental objectives. and that you could rely on the political process to ensure no discrimination occurs amongst gays and lesbians. based on that analysis, they decided section three was unconstitutional and ought not be defended by the federal government. so we did not defend it. as a result, the house of representatives stepped in and its leadership decided that they would hire a lawyer to defend the law. you could go to the supreme court in a somewhat unusual posture. the court in a 5-4 decision concluded the treatment did violate the fundamental constitutional guarantees. justice kennedy's opinion for the majority did not express and adopt the heightened scrutiny argument that we in the united states advocated for. it did focus on the characteristic of the defense of marriage act that the court

found particularly troublesome. he viewed it as an expression of animus against gays and lesbians. it was not motivated by legitimate public policy concern. a desire of discriminating for discriminations sake. he struck the law down principally on that basis. there was a fair amount of discussion and oral argument in the case about whether really the problem with the law was not the discrimination problem so much as a federalism problem. justice kennedy asked quite a few questions saying, gee, is it not usual for the federal government to decide what is a valid marriage and what is not? that is usually the states. not the federal government. at the end of the day, the opinion for the court did not rely on the federalism

ground. it was an equal protection and fundamental rights kind of analysis. he did use the federalism rationale that federalism otion as a red flag. the opinion that, precisely because the federal government is not very often in the business of deciding what is a lawful and valid marriage and what is not, the fact that the prior -- federal government in this statute got involved in trying to answer that question and answered it not for any one particular federal program but for every single federal program across the board, from taxation to military service to social security benefits, that was a red flag that raised suspicion about whether there was any legitimate motivation for supporting the law. the other big case in this area was perry. that was a case about california's proposition eight,

which was a constitutional amendment passed in california that band marriage between persons of the same gender, subjected to a constitutional challenge under equal protection grounds and fed -- in a federal district court in california and it struck it down. something important procedurally happened during those proceedings is that the state government of california decided that he believed the law was unconstitutional, the amendment was a violation of federal constitution and they stopped defending it. because they would not defended anymore, the group that was a strong proponent of the initiative stepped in, hired a awyer to defend the law. so the district court found it unconstitutional then the lawyers who intervened then

took an appeal to the ninth circuit court of appeals where they lost, then they took the case to the supreme court and asked for review. what the supreme court ended up doing was deciding that in that situation the party that -- because the state of california had dropped out and this other group had come in, that there wasn't standing to pursue the appeal. now, standing is a technical legal doctrine and in order to bring a case in federal court under article 3 of the constitution limits it. it has to be a genuine case or controversy in order for the constitution to allow the federal court to hear a case. and one element of that idea of a case or controversy is that you have to have real opposing parties who actually have a personal concrete stake in what is being fought over in court. and what -- and that the supreme court held that applies not only when you're at the initial trial but when

on appeal as well. if you want to take an appeal from a lower court to a higher court and then take an appeal to the supreme court, that you have got to have that kind of personal stake. and a majority of the court ended up concluding that the proponents of proposition 8 didn't have that kind of personal stake in the law that allowed them to qualify as somebody who could have standing to take an appeal and pursue the case, that they really weren't any different from any other citizen in the state of california, essentially, that any citizen might have an interest in seeing a law or constitutional provision of the state enforced but that kind of undifferentiated interest is one that isn't enough to get you standing to come in and pursue a case in court. one interesting thing of the consequence of the court deciding there was no standing is that it wouldn't itself reach the question of whether there is a constitutional right to gay marriage and whether

prop 8 isen couns tuitional. they said we can't hear that case and the court of appeals couldn't hear that case either because the appeal was brought by the prop 8 proponents twho didn't have standing. but you had a district court judgment in place that declared prop 8 unconstitutional. so what do you do in that circumstance? nd the upshot is that the prop 8 proponents then went to california state court and tried to get the district court judgment undone on the theory that this isn't right because the you have a district court judgment and it couldn't be appealed and yet it's going to have the effect if left undisturbed of wiping out prop 8 and making same sex marriage available and lawful in california. the supreme court declined to intervene. as a consequence, even though the court didn't reach the merits of the issue, it is the case now that prop 8 is

inoperatives in california and the opportunity for same sex couples to marry in california is now available even though the supreme court didn't reach the merits of the case. so that's a summary of the gay rights decision, part of what made last term quite a consequential term. >> i think it may be difficult for you to owe pine on what comes -- oh pine on what comes next because the united states will have to take a position on the next generation of same sex marriage and gay rights cases. but i am interested in you or don to the extent that you're able to think about what it is that windsor, the domea case, tells us about what the supreme court will do when it does confront the perry question. that is, the foundational question of whether there's a constitutional right to same sex marriage. so i wonder, because it seems to me that case is coming on a rocket ship. so i wonder what lessons we might derive from what the supreme court says. >> i haven't thought about -- i

have thoughts about that but why don't you chime in. >> i agree that is of course the next question, because the reasoning of the windsor case leads one down as well, is it is unfair to discriminate between lawfuly married couples, same sex couples and opposite sex couples, why is it lawful under the u.s. constitution for some states to deny same sex couples the right to get married anyway? but i had before that just a precursor question. which is this, and this is a puzzling element of the way those two cases were decided. essentially, both the state and federal government did the same thing. the attorney general of california and the governor of california did the same thing that the obama administration did when it came to defending this law. they like the obama administration concluded that the state law under attack was not constitutional, they kept enforcing it but they didn't defend it in court.

which is exactly what you did here in washington. maybe you could explain. how can the supreme court find that they can reach the merits when the federal government stops defending a statute it considers unconstitutional but they can't reach the merits when the state of california stops defending a statue or in their case,, for the exact same reason? >> well, the supreme court explained that in its opinion and it's a really good question. but there are a couple of differences that allowed one case to go forward with the other not going forward. in california, in the prop 8 case, the state stopped defending the statute but also stopped participating in the case. they just, the layiers weren't there. they were just gone. in this case, in windsor where the united states was a party to the case, we stopped defending the statute but we didn't stop participating in the case.

we stayed in the case and one reason we did that is because part of the decision that the president and the attorney general made when they decide that had they wouldn't defend the statute any longer is they would continue to enforce it until there had been a defensetive ruling from the courts that it was unconstitutional. and the reason they did that was because, as they expressed in their explanation, was because of a belief that in our system that the judicial branch auth to get the last word on the constitutionality of the law, that not ought to be up to the executive branch on its own and the way to maximize the prospect of the judicial branch getting the last word is to enforce the law while the law is still effect and there is the prospect of a true case or controversy that can be decided. then we were in a different position than the state of california was in prop 8 in

that there actually were concrete consequences that would flow to the federal government if the statute were declared unconstitutional. and one of them most obviously with edie windsor was the federal government was fighting with her over $300,000 in tax payments. and if the statute was upheld as constitutional, that would stay in the federal treasury and if it was struck down there would be a check to go to edie windsor. so even though the united states government ft believed that the statute was unconstitutional, we would suffer an adverse consequence from the statute being struck down. a majority of the court decided that was enough of a concrete dispute to justify the case continuing forward consistent with the article 3 requirements, and that -- and that concrete dispute of similar kind just wasn't there in the california case.

so that's i think the best translation i can give of the supreme court's decision. >> not to throw any doubt on the infallible reasoning of the supreme court. but of course, for the state of california, they would have the exact same stake. because if there can be same sex married couples, tax laws and many other laws make similar differences. so the state of california would also have a big financial and policy stake in whether or not same sex couples can get married. >> understanding that the half of you that are -- are now sasheyated me go to the few of you who are interested. so do you have any thoughts on what follows? >> i certainly agree with you that case is coming. i think that twill be more -- it will be more controversial to say that states have to recognize same sex marriage

than to say that the government doesn't have to honor states' choices. i have a hard time seeing how they can write an opinion completely consistent with windsor that doesn't lead to that result that states have to . i am more often than not wrong about how the supreme court will rule. but it seems to me that that has to be the result. and it's possible that if they can come up with some distinction for the next case it won't happen in the next case. but it will happen. >> just one word on that from the perspective of the united states. as i described earlier, we took this position as a matter of legal doctrine that heightened scrutiny ought to apply to laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. and the court in windsor, as i said, didn't adopt that rationale as the reason to

strike down section 3 ofdoma. they adopted a somewhat different rationale but at the same time they didn't reject that rationale. the united states also participated in the perry case and argued that same principle of heightened scrutiny ought to apply to state laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation with respect to marriage itself because they reached that standing ruling we've been discussing they didn't grapple with that issue one way or another. so i think the most i can say is that it remains open to the supreme court to go that heightened scrutiny route and find that state laws that discriminate, that deny the ability for same sex couples to marry are a violation of the equal protection. it's open to the supreme court to craft a different rationale and decide that such laws violate equal protection. but it's also i think after windsor clearly opened to the

supreme court to decide that this is principally a situation in which you would defer to the states. because, as i said, there was that strain of reasoning in the windsor opinion of justice kennedy that gave a lot of deference to states' judgments about who should be entitled to get married under state law. so i think the case is coming fast i think tom is right about that. but you look at the legal options available after the windsor and perry decisions and i think they're all available to the court in the future. and i wouldn't predict what would happen. >> i think that's sort of someone on that. that may be justice kennedy. he seemed uncomfortable that he had the case before him. he wasn't quite ready i think to go as far as petitioner windsor wanted him to go.

and that's why i say it might not come in the next case but it will come. it's a matter of when he is ready to get there. but the federalism angle, the deference to the states, is one way that he might decide that -- at least for now -- that the states can do what they want. >> let's turn to keep moving orward to the vote rights act. >> one thing, in which the court held that a provision of the voting rights act was unconstitutional. i will go through a quick primer of the voting rights act to make sure we're all on the same page. it was enacted in 1965 to combat measures used to restrict minority access to the polls. it was the reaction to a range of discriminatory measures, things like literacy tests and

moralities, affidavits, and to the murders of voting right activists in mississippi and , voting pers practices or procedures that have a discriminatory effect on voting. it's enforcible in federal court by private litigants and the government and showing of intent to discriminate is not required. section 5 imposes a preclearance requirement on any changes that certain jurisdictions want to make to the voting practices or procedures. the jurisdictions covered are primarily in the south and with some additional counties and stathes elsewhere, such as alaska. so those jurisdictions can affect any change that affects voting without the clearance of

the united states attorney general or the federal district court in d.c., which is three-judge court in d.c. the covered jurs direction based on a formula that's set forth in section 4 of the act. the formula has been changed a bit since the 60s to add some requirements but that might have been taken away. and every so often, although parts of the act continue on like section 2. every so often section 5 has to be reauthorized or reenacted by congress. and it has done so several times most recently in 2006 when congress extended it to 20 31 for 25 years. and kept the existing formula for determining which jurisdictions are covered and therefore require preclearance

of voting changes. at that time both the house and the senate held extensive hearings and undertook what the chair of the house judiciary committee described as one of the most extensive conversations of any piece of legislation that the united states congress has dealt with in the 27-1/2 years that he had served in the house. the goal was passed almost unanimously in both houses. so four years ago, the -- maybe five now -- the court accept add case that challenged section 5 preclearance requirement. the petitioner argued that it was unconstitutional. the court decide that had case on a different grounds. it didn't have to reach the constitutional question but the decision of the court noted that things had changed since the 60s and that congress needed to justify preclearance based on current needs. that brings us to shebley

county, the case that was decided last june. shelby county, alabama is or was until last june, a jurisdiction covered by section 5 so that any changes to voting practices or procedures had to be precleared by the u.s. attorney or u.s. attorney general or the district court in d.c. they sued the attorney general seeking delecktri judgment, seeking a statement of pronouncement that the formula under section 4 and the pre-clearance requirement under section 5 were unconstitutional. and they sought to permanently enjoin their enforcement. the district court and the court of appeals both rejected that challenge and held in favor of the government -- of the voting rights act. and then the case went to the supreme court where by a 5-4

decision the court held otherwise. the court did not hold the pre-clearance requirement was unconstitutional. instead, it held that the section 4 formula for determining what is pre-cleared is unconstitutional. the court held that continuing the prior formula for determining pre-clearance wasn't based on current conditions. the court said it was based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day. and that congress, if it is to divide the states, must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. it was a 5-4 decision. the dissentors discussed the massive legislative record on which the renewal in 2006 was justice ginsburg explained that first generation barriers to access like

literacy test were dealt with now but they had been replaced by second generation barriers like racial jerry mannedering, large voting in places like w sizeable black minority populations and things like that. she said that the voting rights act had been effective in supporting such efforts in the past and that the majority's decision was going to or did thwart the country's commitment to justice. in a separate opinion, justice thomas, who joined the majority called for the court to strike down section 5, the pre-clearance requirement, itself, saying the majority opinion had left that result -- had made that result inevitable, that really was all its unstated conclusion. the supreme court has repeatedly upheld the pre-clearance requirement in earlier cases. but -- so the outcome of that, although the procedure for

preclearance has survived, the jurisdictions are no longer covered. it's an empty set. they're no longer covered. no coverage of jurisdiction to apply the pre-clearance requirement to. states such as texas and south carolina formerly covered by section 5 have already reacted by enacting or putting into effect laws that they could under preclearance almost certainly not have gone forward with. and although the bill authorizing the 2006 renull of the voting rights act passed overwhelmingly, it's generally thought that the current congress will not pass new legislation or do so any time soon. you may have noticed the current congress has trouble legislating. so while we weigh the federal government is using other

tools, other sections of the voting rights act to try to protect minority access to the ballot. ection 2, which is the after the fact, which allows an individual or government to after the fact, after a change as been implemented to challenge the fact, that was not challenged in the case. so the government has sued texas under section 2 to challenge a voter id law that would otherwise have gone through pre-clearance. it has also filed a suit seeking an order from a federal court that would bring texas within the pre-clearance requirement based on evidence of intentional voting discrimination because although there are no covered jurisdictions under the section for formula, there is a procedure in the act where a

federal court to determine that a jurisdiction should be subject to pre-clearance because of evidence of intentional discrimination. so the government is trying both those tact 86 in specific cases -- tactics in specific cases. and while the ability to challenge specific new laws remains, the decision is still extremely significant because section 5 as the court explained in one of its earlier cases is in some ways more effective than case by case litigation. the court has said in 1966 that case by case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting because the inordinate amount of time and energy to overcome the obstructionist tactics encounterrd in these lawsuits. and although the tactics have certainly changed it is certainly more time consuming

and less efficient for the government to be looking at each change after the fact rather than clearing it in advance before a discrimination has occurred. so i think i've tried to describe this fairly objectively but i'll confess that i agree with the dissent, at it was a decision that is egregious in the way that it overrides congress' decision based on a really massive legislative record and puts an egregious barrier in front of the government's ability to prevent discriminatory practices. i think that's what makes shelby county one of the most significant cases of last term. >> so maybe i can draw a couple paralels to the voting acts case and the gay marriages cases and then try to draw back to the case i'm going to talk

about, the affirmative action case. two things to note. one is in the same sex marriage windsor case the supreme court strikes down section 3 of the defense of marriage act. that passed by an overwhelming majority. and in the same week it struck down section 4 of the voting rights act. and the dissentors in both cases claim bitterly that it is outrageous for the majority to override the considered judgment of why -- wide majorities of the congress. and the two majorities are almost exactly the opposite. justice kennedy is the person shared in the majorities. and it is really interesting how, if you believe that it's a constitutional violation, then you think it's obviously important to strike down the law. if you don't think it's a violation you think it's an outrageous overreaching by the court. and there's no real way of saying who is right or wrong in that. the second paralevel i would draw is that you don't really know as we were discussing how

to read the windsor decision. do you read it that it is a step forward toward same sex marriage because it is essentially reaknigs that statutes banning it are a form of discrimination? or do you read it as a green light to states to make a judgment about how it is that they want to have marriage in their states? so too in the voting rights act case you can look at it in one of two ways. what the supreme court was saying, congress, you go back and come up with a more updated list that's more tailored and circumstance scribed to discrimination going on today or read it as essentially a decision that you can't impose on the states. again, the kind of federalism theme. you can't impose on the states the burden of pre-clearance and they're just going to wink and nod an do an opinion because they know congress will never come up with a new list. so we have to wait for the next generation of cases to figure it out. so the pralell i would draw is between two cases related to the voting right acts. there was a case about four

years ago where everybody thought the supreme court was going to strike down section 5 and they didn't. they came back to it. they sort of had a shot across the bow, congress came and did it this term. something similar may be happening with respect to affirmative action. so this term the supreme court tackled whether the university of texas program has a preference on the basis of race is constitutional. the back off of that were a pair of opinions decided when justice o'connor was the center seat. she has been replaced by justice alito who is more conservative. justice o'connor center right conservative but you never really knew exactly where she was going to come down. she would look at each case on its fact. and the court had upheld the university of michigan law school and struck down the

undergraduate program. but the bottom line was that you could have some form of racial preference. and the university of texas took from that a green light to add a preference to its own admissions program. and there were essentially two parts to how the university of texas was admitting students. part number one when it comes to diversity. part number one is this. they took the top 10% of all the graduating students in the state and admitted them to the ut system. and that produced a fair amount of diversity because a lot of high schools in texas are in areas of the state that through segregated housing patterns inevitably have huge minority populations. so it was the case that the top 10% of the class might be overwhelmingly hispanic for example. and then they add add preference system that was challenged by an african who did not get into the university of texas and said that shebled that she at the very least was not given an equal opportunity

to compete for a seat because she wasn't white. and that case went to the supreme court and everybody i think pretty much thought that u.t.'s program was in big trouble because we have one really important -- we have a recurring phenomenon in the supreme court that has happened and that is there are a variety of areas in which she was in the majority but justice kennedy was in dissent. now that the court has taken steps materially to the right on these points of law, justice kennedy's dissenting view have tended either as a matter of actual law or as a matter of practice to become the prevailing view as he has taken on the senter seat. in the cases from the university of michigan, the predecessor one, where the law school program was upheld, justice kennedy was strongly of the view that the programs deserved much more rigorous constitutional scrutiny. and while justice kennedy,

unlike his more conservative colleagues, has refused to say that the constitution is color blind and outlaws all racial preferences, he has said that they deserve significant constitutional scrutiny. so this case came up to the supreme court and people believed that this was going to be the court's opportunity to step back from that michigan law school case and put significant limits on affirmative action. but like in that first voting rights case where we also expected section 5 of the voting rights act to be struck down, instead the court did something much more modest and it's a little bit of a puzzle exactly what they were doing, what it was mebt to do and why they did it. they issued a decision that said to the court of appeals which has upheld the program, we would like you to try again. that was a very interesting instruction. but it isn't backed up by much in the way of explanation. so what the court did actually do is it said two significant things. number one, it said we're going to continue to assume that diversity in higher education

is a compelling governmental interest. remember don's explanation of how the 14th amendment works. you subject these laws to heightened scrutiny. you have to have a good reason for doing it and the law has to be tailored to achieve that reason. the most conservative justices on the supreme court don't believe that kind of diversity is sufficiently compelling interest to justify an affirmative action program. but justice kennedy got them to join saying we'll assume it is. and the rest of the court was willing because it wasn't in a decisions that was striking down an affirmative action. the second part said, we want the court of appeals don't defer universities when they tell you they need these programs. you have to develop an actual record in court to establish that these programs are really necessary. again, it's a pra level to what happened in the voting rights act. the supreme court majority looked at the record that congress had compiled like the

universities were sexiling, looked at the record congress compiled and said that's not good enough. so we have in these follow-on cases courts determining whether or not a state has a history of discrimination so that a harsh remedy bick pre-clearance is required. and so too in affirmative action the supreme court has said you need to scrutinize these programs. opinion esult, the for the courts ends up having eight members in it. both the left and right. in what was a great surprise, because it was really expected to be a 5-4 decision coming back on affirmtive action substantially. so the question i think for a lot of people is, is this term's fisher decision -- which didn't seem to do much, seppeding it back, is that a prelude to something much stronger just like that first voting rights act case which had a justice majority was a preplude to this term's

decision striking down section 4 of the voting rights act? so the last point, perhaps the most jaund dised view of why the court did what it did. that is, really if five members of the court had signaled their grave concern with affirmative action, why didn't those five members of the court actually take the step of doing something? because they haven't hesitated to be aggressive on these important principles of constitutional law. i think one thing that may have been happening is they were going to have to hand down the voting rights act decision at the same time they were handing down the affismtive action decision. the combination of invalidating such a critical part of the 1965 voting rights act and affirmative action or cutting it back optically would have looked very, very tough for that majority of the supreme court. and so it may have decided, in addition i'm sure they thought it was the right answer, but they may have thought that kind of the pacing of their -- i'm pretty sure. they may have thought that the

pacing of the decision was better to kind of leave it for another day because they also were undertaking for next term a very significant fair housing act state that has significant racial undertones as well. before we turn to the kind of follow-on, any further thoughts? >> well, i want to say that it's certainly right to focus on justice kennedy and the fact that he really alone among the conservatives on the court has agreed that diversity in the classroom, diversity on campus, is a compelling governmental interest. the government has a tremendous interest in promoting it. it's the other half of the 14th amendment analysis where he departs from the liberals who agree on the compelling interest. that is to add more supreme court jargon what is called, is the program narrowly tailored to achieve that end? that is where justice kennedy has departed from the liberal members of the court when it comes to these racial diversity

cases. he accepts the idea that diversity is a compelling interest but he is much less willing to give governmental entities lee way to decide on their own what they can do and what level of classification is acceptable to achieve it. so what that decision in the texas case does, it requires essentially a trial to put the university of texas on trial to defend that the way that it gets the diversity -- the supreme court says is worth while objective, does so in a way that causes the least harm to people who are not beneficiaries of the program. so that is where he sort of splits the baby on the court. this is also an affirmative action case but it comes at it from the other end of the spectrum because it involves an attack on a state measure that banned affismtive action. some people were present at

various historical events. i was present at the origin of the modern anti-affismtive action movement. because in 1995 when i was in law school, i was the student member on the board of regents for the university of california or i would be appointed shortly thereafter and when uc under the leader shf of connelly, eliminated conversation of race and ethnicity in their admissions procedures and the following year he followed up with a statewide initiative in california, proposition 209 which abolished racial preferences across the board for state programs, including college admissions and he then went on to replicate that measure in many other states or several other states at least. one of them was michigan. and that is where this case lled, as don informed us

schuty, the attorney general in michigan, comes to us from the sixth circuit court of appeals which includes michigan. michigan we heard of before in the affirmative action context because in 2003 there was a pair of cases where justice o'connor essentially said that you can't have a strict numerical advantage for minority students, you can't automatically give them 50 points on the score to get in to school. but you can, as a part of a holistic, not very clearly defined but a sort of holistic measure of an applicant ds worth take their race into account, perhaps for the next 25 years. that was the time limit she suggested might be appropriate to keep explicitly taking race into conversation but that was not a binding part of the decision yet it was always ited as the court's benchmark.

after those decision came down in 2003, michigan voters acting with the help of ward connerly who sent proposition 209 clone to the state decided they didn't want to wait 25 years and they passed something called proposal 2 which abolished the conversation of race in any state programs including higher education admissions. and the number of groups including one called the coalition to defend affirmative action by any means necessary filed suit to challenge proposal 2 in michigan. the same group or a related group had also challenged proposition 209 in california arguing that essentially by preventing any state agency from adopting an affirmative action program, minorities were being disadvantaged that they

alone or they among a few groups were being singled out to be disempowered, being unable to seek a kind of program that they wanted while other groups that might be given preferences and one often cited are children of alumni or athletes or other types of students who may get preferences in some instances, they aren't barred by the state constitution from getting a preference. they can go and try to persuade the university or the university can on its own give them a preference. the ninth circuit court of appeals in california rejected that argument and upheld prop position 209. but that argument did prevail, barely, at the circumstanceth circuit court of appeals which by a single vote, i think it was a 7-6 opinion, found that this proposal 2 in michigan violated the united states constitution's equal protections clause as intprested by the court and looked to a pair of decisions

principally for the authority for its ruling from one from 1969 and one from 1982 in which the supreme court had struck down local or state ordinances that made it especially hard to pass anti-discrimination laws. there had been certain measures that city council can pass any kind of law it wants. but if it wants to pass a law banning discrimination and housing they need a super majority measures like that the supreme court felt were unconstitutional because they went out of their way to deprive minority groups that might benefit from an anti-discrimination ordinance the ability to get those sorts of ordinances enacted. the sixth circuit court used that same reasoning to say well this is the same thing. that pretty much any other type of person, an alumni child or an athlete or a tubea player or whoever, can have many ways to

try to get a premps from the university of michigan or chigan state or other states colleges. they can ask the board of trustees, they can ask the admissions office, they can go to legislator, or they can see seek a constitutional amendment. but minority groups, the only way they can get a preference enacted is to amend the state's constitution. and that violates the principle by essentially depriving them of the same way to influence legislation or influence state policy that other groups have. now, when that case -- so the case is not one that i -- i mean, it deals with affirmative arks with whether a state can abolish affirmative action on a statewide basis. and it's interesting in a number of ways because it says that a measure that on its face is completely race neutral, no one shall receive any

preference or detriment based on race, in effect, is unconstitutional because it prohibits some people from seeking a preference or detriment based on race. again, we can't ever be sure what the supreme court is going do, but it seems that the proponent or the opponents of proposal 2, in other words, the coalition of affirmative actions by any means necessary, has an uphill climb that it is a violation of equal protection to enact a state constitutional amendment that says nobody can be treated different based on race. so that will be argued on october 5 at 1:00 if you all are free. >> one very brief thing note worthy about this is the way in which the supreme court did tackle a similar issue in earlier generations and we think of there being a lot of

stability in american law in the supreme court decisions because of the value of precedent and the notion of stare decisive. but on these really fraught, hard questions, like affirmative action, race, religion, each new successive supreme court decision sees some flexibility to correct the errors of its predecessors. and so too the current court the decisions upholding the ability to have some form of preference and so too on these questions of whether bans -- local bans on oor firmtive action time programs are unconstitutional. so let's continue with our forward march through the upcoming cases. the first one we talked about. in the next 45 minutes we are going through nine cases. so we are going to stick to five minutes a case. which i think will be no problem at all. given that we only took 20

minutes a case for the first five. so the very simple and easy to understand recess appointments? >> you bet. so this is a case called national labor relations board against canning. the case about how the constitution allocates power between the president and the senate. article 2 of the constitution of course gives the president the power to appoint federal officers subject to the advice and consent of the senate. there's another provision called the recess appointments clause which i'm going to read and the language is going to matter in a way that we'll discuss in a minute. >> you carry that with you? >> all the time. the president shall have power to fill up all vagesies that may happen -- vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate by granting the commission which is shall expire at the end of the next session. so in other words if the senate is in recess, the constitution

gives the president the authority to make appointments that he would otherwise need the senate's advice and consent to make. what this case is about is the meaning of that clause. now, here's what happened to give rise to the case. the national labor relations board enforces federal labor law. it's a five-member board. and you need at least three members to have a quorum so the board can operate. there have been vacancies on the board for -- had been for some time. but they did have a quorum of three. but the term of one of the three was getting ready to expire and then they would have only had two and they wouldn't have had a quorum and couldn't operate. the president nominated two people to fill the vacancies in the board, the senate did not confirm their nominations. so the board was in this position where it was about to

go out of business. in december 2011 the senate decided that it was going to take a break from mid december until january 23rd. but they didn't just declare that they were going to go out on a recess between mid december and january 23rd. instead, they provided that they would have a proforma session every three days during that period in which one member of the senate would be there and would call the senate into session and in 30 seconds or less bring down the gavel and call the senate out of session. and the resolution that set this up provide that had members of the senate didn't need to be there for these sessions and that no business would be transacted. now why did the senate do this? they did it because by accepted practice, a break of that short of time of three days doesn't count as a recess that would trigger the president's power to make recess appointments.

o this happens at the end of 2011, 2012. the president decides that actually the senate is in recess and then despite these pro forma sessions because those sessions don't make the senate available to provide its advice and consent what it has the obligation to do. and if they're not around, the president says they're in recess. since this recess is long enough, and since the nlrb is not going to have a quorum, i'm going to recess appoint two people and which he does and so the board with these two recess appointees on it renders a bunch of decisions in one decision and which it is enforcing a provision of labor laws against a company, nole canning, bring as challenge in court and says well this was an action that was without authority because these -- the board actually lacked a quorum because the people who were

sitting on the board who voted to enforce the law against me were unconstitutionally appointed. and that's how the case shaped up. and it was in the court of appeals here in the district of columbia and there was a big fight between the board and the united states government representing the board arguing that these were valid recess appointments because the senate really was in recess. and the company which said no the pro forma sessions count and they defeat the recess appointments power. everyone anticipated that there would be a decision on the question of whether the pro formas are enough of a session to prevent the conclusion that there's a recess that allows the president to make the appointments. the decision comes out and the court goes way way beyond that question. in fact doesn't even address that question. it addresses two much more

fundamental questions about the scope of this power that have been around since the beginning of the republic. and the first one is what does the recess mean? remember i said it may happen vacancies may happen during the recess. well the court said the recess -- that phrase in the singular, so it must apply to only one recess. and if there's only one recess, it must be the recess between the sessions of congress, the recess between the end of the first session and the beginning of the second session. now congresses are broken into two one-year sessions. so it must be those intersession recess and it can't be a recess within a session. like when congress takes august off. that's an intra recess. so it has to be only an intersession recess. these appointments occurred in january after the new congress convened on january 3rd, which

a different provision requires them to do at noon on january 3rd. so it was within the new session and it wasn't an intersession recess and therefore it wasn't the recess and therefore it was invalid for that reason. but that's not the only problem the court said. the other problem the court said was that the constitution says the president can fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess. and he said well that means that the vacancy has to arise during the recess. the vacancy can't exist before the recess because if it did it didn't happen during the recess. and therefore there are two fundamental problems with these appointments. so by virtue of that decision, the d.c. circuit took what was already a quite important question of a separation of powers and the proper allocation between the authority between the senate and united states and drew it into a gigantic question of the

separation of power between the senate and united states. and part of the reason is that if one goes back to american history as one will see in the brief that we file tomorrow in this case, there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of recess appointments that were either intra session -- in other words not during the break at the end of the session -- or to fill vacancies that arose before the senate went into recess. and including or just to highlight one example the commanderenhower as of the u.s. forces is one example. it will be an interesting case. from the language i read, there is obviously an argument to be made that supports what the court of appeals did. the language is also capable of being read to support bigge