air marshal deployment -- well, what about my question? >> mr. maclean was trained in received training on that and as i say in is no that this did know was ssi. a little confused as is justice ginsberg. the briefing that beforehand erally hat something would be distributed to somebody that this was ssi but this particular information wasn't so designated

before the release. your honor.orrect, but there is no doubt best mark information ssi. >> before it is going out? >> correct. s.s.i. ion can be whether or not it is marked that way. regulations are clear on this that details of federal air deployment are covered as s.s.i. and this issue was the ated before administrative judge. >> if there were no regulations on the books tes at that point are there any disclosure? on there can be no s.s.i. without regulation?me >> that's correct, your honor. what the federal circuit held is that the while blower protection -- extended this b-8 a but 2302 a

xempts from whistle blower protection information that is specifically -- disclosure specifically prohibited by law. the federal circuit found no specific prohibition and no law s.s.i. ut under the regime it was prohibited by the mandated fa nondisclosure regulation -- by the s not prohibited statute until there were regulations, right? >> that is correct. it is not prohibited by regulations. >> i think we would prevail end under that because it is prohibited by regulation that statute mandated to be disclosed but under this under s decisions robertson and sims which it said specifically in robertson a regulation that gave to the administrator exempt from disclosure after a public simms t weighing and in where it had a statute that gave to the c.

to irector an instruction protect sources and methods the court said in both cases that specifically exempted by statute. it apparently came as a surprise to the government lawyer in the court of appeals i will be as clear as i can. specifically prohibited by law in the statute. again the claimant is supposed o know something that the government lawyer in the court of appeals doesn't. >> the lawyer said that but went explain that regulations promulgated pursuant to a control. mandate would >> this seems to be arguing it not simply mandated by statute. examples you gave it was authorized or permitted so what today. position before the federal circuit it seemed to have been this is regulations. now it is some regulations but

whether the regulations said mandated or authorized. >> let me be as clear as i can. we believe it is specifically statute d first by a which was the argument that was -- andearly below and by in the briefs here and this qualifies. second, we think it is by regulations that are prohibited pursuant to a mandate that is promulgated pursuant to a mandate.y >> i must have misunderstood. the ed you whether or not employee could be terminated and only if the statute were on the books and no regulation the there would be no s.s.i. designated. > so then the statute alone doesn't carry the day? >> i don't think that is the way he court looked at it in robertson and sims because in both cases there had been no

not to disclose until the administrator made the determination and yet the court those were specifically specifical specifically, nondisclosure was specifically authorized by statute. the answer to sh justice ginsberg and to the hief justice at 15-5 of the appendix what the federal circuit said was regulations promulgated pursuant to congress's express instructions were qualified as specific legal prohibitions. >> i'm sorry what was that quoted from? decision eral circuit at 15-a attached to the petition. understood circuit as they said regulations promulgated pursuant to congress's expressions would qualify -- qualify, , could you because congress disagreed with it?ertson and -- did and it append ed.

>> it did. statute that morals the way amended foia. the amended foia criteria? >> we do. >> which prong and why? >> we -- first of all i would li to say that the senate legislative history considered and said if stion that -- i'm sorry, can i step second.e we don't think that we need to foia.he manned -- amended foy kwrafplt but what -- senate report said seems reasonable inently despite robertson. you are arguing one of the two exceptions. tell me which one. >> it is the one that stablishes particular criteria for withhold ago are refers to particular times of matters

withheld. legislative he history what the senate report aid was the sims statute, the 102 d-3 of the national security act of 1947 would qualify. that is statute that said the director of c.i.a. shall be esponsible for protecting intelligence sources from unauthorized disclosure. that is all it said. hat is no different from our statute. we think that even if this -- is a little more specific. >> then more specific. court k that if the relies on statute that we meet that makes and perfect sense. >> my goodness, i'm not sure. c.i.a. statute they say you cannot disclose or sources and -- says -- honor, it >> sources and methods, intelligence sources and methods there's another one to refers to critical

infrastructure information. accept those as being having ntly specific or sufficient criteria i look at yours. nd yours says it shall be regulations prohibiting the isclosure of information obtained or developed in carrying out security. criterion. the the undersecretary decides disclosing information would be security of o the transportation. that it seems to me could spark everything from a plug that is deficient in the terrorist. a don't know how i would judge that but to the ear telling the .i.a. you can't disclose sources seems a lot narrower than telling the department of or homeland n security -- what is it, d.o.t. -- that everybody in charge of you have a regulation

detrimental to the security of transportation transportation. how would you decide it? that seems quite a lot broader since so much can be detrimental the security of an airplane. >> a couple of points. irst of all the court interpreted the statute in robertson to be sufficiently specific and in robertson what said was an administrator shall order publiction withheld from disclosure when the disclosure adversely affect the interest of the person and is not required in the interest of the publish. >> that is the one before. that is the one this court found. > but subsequent to that congress amended the act as was just pointed out in a way that to have specific criteria. >> but if i may, your honor it congress ia but the did not amend and include that passed the n it csra.

>> i can deal with that on my money. a question only you can deal with and that question that this.you can deal with is it is a matter of concern that around and say there are no marshals on this airplane. that is obviously a matter of concern. that was a real about blowing up airlines could the ason, president use the second prong an executive order will secret.that to be kept >> your honor, the president could do that. in doing that, does it he omatically fall into t 400,000 regulations that govern security partment information or could he say for thaturpose of this statute

we are talking about now i should be keptit ecret, therefore there is no prohibition against people communicating that information ith swedish people, british people, all kinds of airline officials, et cetera. ou are saying yes he could do that under this second propg. yes or no? because -- >> fine if he can do that there is no worry. if in fact this is going to lead all he ng up airplanes has to do is use the second prong. not right why? >> that is fundamentally inconsistent with the judgment s.s.i. s made that the system should co-exist with the and with information executive orders. what your honor is saying that it doesn't matter that the system that congress set up wouldn't work and can't

president cause the by executive order could fill in the gap. >> i'm not saying anything like that. i'm worried about a practical matter. 'm worried about the decision of the court against you leading up an body blowing airplane. and i suddenly thought as a not a al matter that is serious worry because the resident can always use the second prong to keep people from information that you don't want disclosed. so far you have said i'm right got into a legal argument. i'm not talking about a legal argument. could ink such a system be devised but i think it would construction of the statutes the court has before it undermineare going to and eviscerate the s.s.i. system hat congress by statute -- >> look, let me ask my question if for otheron is,

reasons i decided you were still have to face the problem of airplanes blown up? i'm focusing on this because it is very important to me. answered that questi question. if for other reasons and you of right but k you are if for other reasons i thought you were wrong i woepuldn't hav worry about that practical roblem because there is prong two. be yes as answer to a practical matter. >> i think it is possible the president could duplicate the s.s.i. system that congress set up to help to prevent that problem. >> to follow up on that if the that pathproceeded on what would be the consequence of the class of people that would access to this information? this would be classified

information an only people with clearances rity would have it? >> the system couldn't work if it was a classified information - > i'm talking about in justice buyers system. >> he would have to duplicate it because it doesn't work under the classified information this that exists because is information very sensitive and yet has to be shared among who are operating our transit system so that flight know -- s need to >> what is so hard about duplicating the s.s.i. system? sign an executive order saying i duplicate the s.s.i. system and problem we have with people like mr. maclean information is not a problem because it is protected by executive order. just think thati skwrus that would work but i have to sure of the ins and

outs. >> it would have one good effect sure at is it would make that the matter is important enough to occupy the president's attention and is not so an agency nt that that just doesn't want any whistle blower, doesn't want any it is going, hat can pump out these regulations. sal teary ve that effect, wasn't it. jurisdiction >> it did but what congress did s.s.i. system knowing the president had authority under the executive order and classified information set and what congress -- and knowing in fact what these regulations said shall the very regulations in basically the same form that we have today. , moved gress created d.l.s.a. and what said -- >> before you get away from this

and i understand you have a tatutory argument to make but the way the president would do this if he wanted to do it would new executive order or in fact with this old executive 13556 which deals with controlled unclassified information. is that what the president would use? >> your honor, i'm not sure what the president would have to do. this is information said outside the government which is what makes it a little tricky. hey are shared with flight attendants and -- >> right but i thought that controlledformation, unclassified information as opposed to classified information, could be shared of the government and executive order 13556 deals with president could imply make clear that that executive order applies to there kind of information. >> your honor, i just don't know whether that order would satisfy. take wer is that it would a lot more than that to

s.s.i. te the kind of system in place over a decade and a half and congress signed off on. exact form of the executive order is not something that i think we have contemplated here because there this regime that congress has set up. you talked about what congress meant and set up. says e conference report the language doesn't refer to agency rules and regulations. whatever staffers prepared that and i'm not suggested congress did but whatever prepared that, again maclean will to though more than they did. >> i don't think that is right this is a situation -- i will make the initial point and step back if i could and series of points on this. think this is a situation in which the court would be right to view that legislative history skepticism and here is what. what congress had before it is a bill from the senate side saying prohibited by statute. had congress passed that we would not be here making our

argument. what congress adopted was law.ifically prohibited by a phrase -- >> elsewhere in the same egislation it refers to rule or d by law, regulation. here it just said by law. e is where in the same statute it says by law, rule or regulation. what am i supposed to conclude from that? >> i think what you need to conclude, your honor, the term exclude at some some rules and regulations and we think it does. internal es those agency regulations and regulations relating to what agency, organization, practice or -- >> only that? set up in what was chrysler. what chrysler did is interpret uthorized by law and what the court said that authorized by law meant had a well established was that d that regulations that met the three

art test in chrysler were substantive, reasonably within the contemplation of congress promulgated, were regulations that counted as by law. expressly distinguished internal agency nterpretive rules and agency rules of organization, order and practice and said those were different. we think that is the distinction that was in the statute. >> if that is true and if that congress would not have to have said by law, regulation in the other provision. it could have said by law and hat you said would automatically follow, >> no, your honor the law, rule or regulation is the formulation that sweeps in agency internal rules and regulations and regulations pursuant to the reg.e keeping that is precisely the distinction the court drew in chrysler and the distinction draw in this statute. when the statute says by law, rule or regulation it includes lawfully promulgated

regulations including agency rulesrules, of procedure and practice. when the statute says by law the court -- what is meant and what chrysler said had a ell established meaning that would require a clear showing to vercome includes statutes, regulations that meet the chrysler three part test. precise is the distinction this court drew in hrysler and is embodied in the statute. said ysler was -- it just law. law was not juxtaposed in the phrase tence as another that said law, rule and regulation. juxtaposition m of two very different materials ould seem to defeat the chrysler presumption. >> the reason i don't think it does because it is equally with precisely the distin distinction chrysler drew with n rules, regulation the force and effect of law on

rules and d internal laws -- >> that is so subtle that draw that going to distinction between substantive rules and procedural rules by law here and law, rule or regulation there. spin out that o argument but the notion this is whether congress will in mind enacted this thing or that any member of congress had am mind when voted for it? to believe.hard >> your honor, the reason why i don't think you should find that ard to believe is the following. first of all, why going from by law, right, y congress went from a narrow plainly that before foreclosed and regs and moved to formulation this court will given meaning in chrysler. it is one view to say law

rather than statute is to decisions.icial >> it says that in the history. that is precisely why i think view that withld skepticism. it is hard to believe by statute ouldn't include constructions on statutes this court made so by ove from by statute to law away sweep in the court's interpretation of statutes is a little hard to swallow. if i could preserve the balance of my counsel. >> thank you, counsel. justice you, mr. chief around it may it please the court congress enacted the mother act to restrain not to empower. specter was 50,000 people that will leak there information e are not in the shref ron situation which the agency is etting any deference here and in the one line points out that herring the whistle

blower act dealt with that. -- gave a it read the disclosure of information detrimental to ransportation safety is prohibited and the t.s.a. shall to that e regulation effect. would that be pursuant to law under the statute? >> i don't think so. what i want to know. how specific are we going to get to a point where congress has to at every category of information, every agency deals prohibiting a law the disclosure of that individu individual? >> not at all. ith respect to the backup argument of the government we have two different architects. 114-r doesn't prohibit and the other is it oesn't specific and your hypothetical deals with the first and not the second. so congress is doing the unlike 114-r which doesn't actually do anything. regulation. with respect to specificity, i think that congress has two

it.erent options in one is to pass a specific law. opposite of specific is general. i think the words detrimental to transportation security are are enough.cific if you need an always administration like to my that the chief justice pointed out and said you release information about how important flights were not covered and s.s.i. regulation that s.s.i. material and 1520.15 b 1 and 2 information concerning the information of fair air marshals that is s.s.i. aterial and so -- >> you look at this and make the argument that the disclosure of information didn't potentially harm transportation safety? maclean's whole position is that he saved national security. unfolding situation in real-time in a four-day

period and he did everything he ould from going to the inspector general and to upervise in a quick thing to save something that otherwise would have been detrimental to national security. the -- point by >> and he was successful. >> he was. >> they called off the cancellations. exactly. the other point by specifies hysical city congress has another way of dealing with it which is that critical infrastructure regulations alike. the uld you say that statute is not specific enough for a foia request? if someone under foia will asked for this information they could gotten it 114-r first worked in notwithstanding foia congress can do that with respect to the better notwithstanding all laws or whufl blower mostction act and pass the general statute imaginable. > so you want us to decouple

foia from this? it would be ok under foia for withhold nection to this >> that's what congress said. particular types of matter to be withheld you agree it includes rnment his kind of material >> it may satisfy it because of notwithstanding foia so you this. have to deal with but here the statute doesn't say anything like that. for that reason -- it is not the statute other language dent talk kept when a matter is secret by statute as opposed to regulation. so, given that it is all tied in tempting to is very say i'll tell you when it is a statute rather than a regulation you go and read the

3 and say it is a statute when, one, it leaves no on the issue or, 2, it establishes particular or three withholding in refers to particular times of matter. seee look at the statute to if it does that. that is what i thought i was to decide whether it is the statute that is going o doing it or regulation and the one that gives me the most trouble on those three is the last one. because it does seem to refer to particular type of matter though in very general terms. so, what do you think of what i just said? >> your honor, we think the best way of understanding the its fic is to think about opposite which is general. an detrimental to the security transportation is general. refers to a particular -- it does refer to a particular matter. some atute will refer to sort of particular matter. but we think congress will

something deeper in mind. -- >> i see that. ou have to say critical infrastructure facilities are on within side of the line, this is on the other. what about the analysis i just went through? what do you think of that? legal the correct analysis in your opinion? >> i think that not. think you can pick any definition of specificity. y worry about adopt being the foia one as justice scalia was pointing out this statute distinguishes between law, rule and regulation law in irst clause and the second. i think that congress is saying rules and that regulations don't themselves do the prohibiting. it is only law. the phrase is specifically prohibited by law there isn't anything like that foia. foia has two purposes as this court in robertson said one of empower agencies. it has nine different exemptions

agencies empowering feel of your aph men position after congress facted wspa anything within the ould be disclosed until congress passed another statute. >> no, as long as it either has notwithstanding clause as many things before the whistle blower had or it has a specific prohibition about be discloseders to unlike the general here etrimental to security transportation. >> where could i look to find the les of where before regulation there would be information pertaining to that couldn't be disclosed? >> i'm not sure airline flights 2640 the secretary of defense may notwithstanding any provision of law withhold

from public disclosure safety that d information and so is a notwithstanding -- > that doesn't apply to this respondent. >> i'm saying in general available -- >> you are saying this respondent until it was a second not prohibited from disclosing anything within the reach of the wpa code of of matters relating to specific danger of public settle nd hascongress said we will pas another. >> they were not dealing with pwhrblower protection act. we think congress could deal as it if they wanted but that brief points out they likely won't because people like the nationalromote security, they don't harm it. >> you are saying in the brief with a cted a reporter history of responsible reporting

maintains close connections with congress. uppose that he instead contacted a reporter working for news ign state controlled agency and the information was ot quickly released to the public so the information was out there and could have been terrorists haps by before congress was aware of this and before the agency was ware of it and before it was able to take corrective action. would there be any reason that fall under the statute? >> i don't believe the whistle blower protection act deals with that. congress could by circumscribing the act but they not just can congress pass a specific exemption or with a fic one notwithstanding clause the president by executive order can eal with this problem and it doesn't require classification and doesn't require somehow two -- ems that are going to >> you are arguing you don't even need the president.

the president wouldn't get you have to use have a very specific statute. that is your view. judge breyer there are two different ways in -- >> i know that but you don't because it was in a regulation and not in a statute. it is not in a statute you don't get into that. >> i'm dealing with the 60,000 people media ht leak to foreign and if the government believes that they can solve that problem by having an y executive order that says s.s.i. like the material here ir marshal information is exempt from the whistle pwhrer protection act and congress justice at and as scalia says that is to promote accountability they didn't want to fox to gencies guard the hen house. i doubt if congress thought

about it they would be content a h the possibility of disclosure that wasn't really a disclosure to the full public. congress has t dealt with this question about how the whistle pwhrer do you an exhaustion requirement and every time they have amended four advertisements -- times and they said it is not too many and two few and congress recognized it is hard maclean to go r. to the media because they put heir job at risk and get fired and then they have to spend years litigating as this litigant has to get his job back and they do that only in the name of public interest. again.s no private so, justice kennedy, of course congress can prohibit the disclosure of the information in and they have in 114-r. the question here is have they with respect to the whistle blower protection act and done something specific to deal with the whistle

blower protection act and we think the answer is no. i'm concerned about your acceptance of the hypothetical the whistle blower doesn't the whistle to anybody except the soviet union. do you really think that is what means when it says a take or fail to take personnel action with respect to any employee because of any which ure of information the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidenced a rule or of lawyer, regulation, grossness -- don't thathink it is implicit in he is disclosing it to somebody problem as medy the opposed to an enemy? may be precisely right. our simple point is whatever that standard is that is a this case and to the extent the court is worried congress in b-8 provided mechanisms either

orcific or nonspecific order executive order that doesn't require classification. it doesn't require -- troubled because the facts are very much in your he disclosed ause it publicly. but under your scenario or in position, if he published every day until the executive of r came out the schedule which flights air marshals will come out and ould just say i think we need more -- marshals, that would be violation. not be a they koepcouldn't fire him for . >> the congress has dealt with at various points asking is this too loose a standard and concluded they have not. why? because it is so hard for whufl forward.o kocome the former government official 203 says there have been cases going to the federal

circuit and they have won a three of them. there have been 56 that went to blowers and whistle have won three of them. >> which way does that cut? you. ms that cuts against whistle blowers are blowing the histle without think justification. i thought that was the government's point that this eggs in -- puts all the the basket of whatever the is a good rblower thinks disclosure. >> i think congress each time moreaid every time we need whistle blowers to come forward because that is the human fail afe against a machine bureaucracy. >> i know people don't want to up but the staffs of congress do consider these problems. they rite them down and say what the answer is and the members are informed. there particular case if you happened to read the the rence reports you get answer. it says what does it mean, not

prohibited by law. and then in both the house report it the senate tells you go back to what we namely, o years ago, the foia exemption, and that is what it means. so, that is why i got the thought that maybe that is what it means. and once you have that thought, you then see the country isn't apart because they wrote in the presidential exemption as well. so, reading what the staffs ctually wrote -- perhaps i'm biased -- believing the members thesegress do think about problems through staff we have the answer to this case leaving only open whether it is specific or not and you make an argument that it is too general. i follow that approach? >> i think that in general you breyer.justice i think that the conference report and this is quoted in our

unliket page 24, this is almost any case i have seen before this court in recent years in which the conference have clearly given you the answer to the question presented. >> there are three reports. is really foia. that is the conference report. he senate report is somewhat against you because it picks up , essential and says that is -- exemption and says means. what this i would read all of them, house report. too. even under the foia standard this is a particular matter that is too general but are two other things about that -- >> excuse me. hen you would say under foia, assuming i followed justice you would be ach, leading to the conclusion that a foia rnment, if request is made the government has to disclose it because it s tphis -- the statute is not

referring to a particular type withheld.to be it is not particular enough for you. 114-r in the first notwithstanding clause is enough foia.cket >> just answer my question. you are saying the government withhold it under foia? >> i think they could under foia which has a different empowering ich is agencys to try to make certain exemptions. pwhrblower protection reveers -- with the reverse. i not to look at the senate report when reading i agree there is language where talk about robertson but page 154 has the text of the doesn't have d specific in it so that is why we would caution against use flag deciding mplate for what specific is. the you agree with suggestion that there could be

remedied by the president with order do you agree with that? >> i do. > could i ask how that with work out. take this example. suppose the information in layout in ncerns the a particular airport. some is an area that thinks isf the t.s.a. not security. the information comes out that there is this problem with that t.s.a. ar airport and employee thinks it is not being wants toso this person disclose it. how would that -- this disclosed has to be to a certain number of people associated with that airport in rder for the problem to be remedied. how would that be dealt with in an executive order? to issue an has executive order about that and ay this can be disclosed to security people at the airport, maintenance people who are going to fix it. how would that be dealt with?

ways.wo different one is classification regime the other talking about with justice s.s.i. he nonclassified system. the president can pick up the s.s.i. system in agenda under d-8 exemption because it deals with national defense and affairs. there are parbts of s.s.i. that ay not fall within it but he could designate that subject to the exception to the whistle act.r protection >> you have to get into deals about who it would have to be with but he could. he could also use the classified to exempts from information as well. my friend on the other side says share information with uncleared people, foreign people and the like. page 52 points out the classification regime is supple enough to provide that as the defense of the home land. more to the point this court egan which my friend cites says the classification

of the s a creature executive and can be modified at will. so if they believe you need to claire classified information with -- share classified nformation with uncleared parties they can did that. so we are not requiring some sort of specificity requirement. an executive order or congressional solution. -- or anything like that. penalties e criminal for violation of this statute? material but i. classificati classified information. it your we tkgo back legal agent. you are saying don't use the revised exemption three. 114-r. is narrower than that. >> that is correct. exemptions three cases become irrelevant. >> correct. that based re doing solely on the notwithstanding foia language. is that correct? >> i am saying that. i wouldn't want to go too far.

adopted the foia three standard i still think that this which is deatrimental to the security of transportation capacious heaven knows what it means. mr. maclean thought what he was was promotion of transportation security, not detrimental. >> it is very general language if you were writing on a slate you clean would say that general but we are not and all the exemption cases suggest very general language can meet the bar. g.t.e. sylvania which was a statute that prohibited disclosure if it was not fair in the circumstances and reasonably waiting the fect purposes of the consumer product act. enough but that is what we said. >> i think that the foia context than here ferent because foia is something about

mpowering agencies to restrict disclosures as this courts case aid there was a preexisting legislative history that wants to keep in place the 100 tatutes that are antidisclosure. the whistle blower act has the reverse idea. see this text toit distinguishes between law, rule and regulation and law. i think that specifically prohibited by law and what congress is saying by that and in the context of this statute is unlike foia we empower bout trying to agencying through general language. i think that there is the no, natural way to understand what the statute says. used he word specific is the most helpful way of understanding what congress will in mind is think of the opposite, general. there are two boxes. detrimental to the security and transportation sound very much the t.s.a.'s mission

statement and not anything more than that. if congress wanted to reach our position and had a choice of the word it would use in the second part of the statute could say statute instead of law or and come out the same way? use statute. >> and forms of this case and generally there would be no difference. >> there may arguably be a difference as found in the onference report saying we didn't use statute for a particular reason because they wanted to sweep in not simply statute and u.s. code but ation.al interpret >> i'm sure they had that in mind. >> first of all it is what congress said in the conference report which is what congress i understand many don't like legislative history of this is the apex legislative history as was -- >> does congress vote on the report?ce >> they do. >> the whole house each separate

house? to that eve the answer is yes but i would say the other thing about it is i do think what they were saying in the report makes sense because the language is prohibited by law. i think that what congress is trying to do is sweep in things the trade secrets act in which even if that language lay look general to a observer the word trade secrets have been fleshed out. maybe this doesn't make think sense but you have been focusing on specifically as referring to the material that is covered. ouldn't it also refer to the prohibition specifically prohibit prohibited? insert it has it say you cannot this.se you think it is specifying what this is. equally be specifying how direct the ban prohibited?ifically >> there is the argument in the reply brief that comes up. advanced by anyone and no support for it in the

i think ve history or the text of the statute. i think that specifically refers disclosures if such disclosure is not specifically so i think y law specifically is best read is referring to such disclosure. back to your 102 on about the report 02-d-3 it is important that i say the congress when they rejectede while blower that -- >> i think time talking about the report on the whistle blower act. >> exactly. report on the whistle blower act, which came two years foia, the senate committee are those disclosures which specifically exempted from disclosure by a statute which be ires that matters withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no or by a statute which

establishes particular criteria to holding or refers particular types of matters to be withhold. that is word for word. so, did the senate vote on the report?committee >> they did no. >> did the senate committee vote on it >> no. just breyer, that senate bill that is interpreting doesn't word specific in it. that is the actual bill the senate is using at page 154 have it in it and that is why i don't think it is the est guide for what specific means. there is language as you say it would d-3 saying meet the specific prohibition. the actual while blower act which justice scalia exempts voted on 102-d-3. argumentdidn't buy the the government has come up with reportys that the senate means 102-d-3 was a specific

rohibition because they added language no provision of this chapter shall be construed to the authorities and responsibilities set forth in section 102. congress itself didn't 102-d-3 this notion that was specific. >> you might be right about that. what bores me is drive -- bothers me is driving an the pretive wedge between foia exemption and whistle act.r >> i think that this doesn't meet -- think your opinion is the wiser way to go about t. assuming that this statute is specific enough, which is the better way to go about it? blower act isstle special or to say interpret them alike? >> i think that either is

equally plausible because foia whistle blower protection act are two different acts. foyas is about empowering agencies and here nobody has said that. the act never refers to empowering appearings. congress with respect to the whistle blower act is concerned about incentivizing them to come forward. that is what the members of congress brief and office of brief. counsel there is no fear of showing a request. >> it does suggest we take the same language and read it two depending on the purpose of the underlying statute. is that correct? >> thank is available to the but you can use the foia standard and there is no way -- just asking if -- your architegument is based on the notion the two statutes had ery different purposes and therefore we can take those very

different purposes and read the very similar language differently. 114-r for purposes of which bothers to specify only foia by saying notwithstanding and goes through the transportation of security. doesn't specify the whistle act.r congress can have a more general notwithstanding -- >> i thought you were relying texted and difference between law and law, rule and regulation. that's right. >> not just purpose. >> that's correct. >> thank you. i was worried. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. minutes left. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. the question is whether the whether question is there was specifically prohibited by statute. we believe it is. very interesting justice kagan you pointed out

that the precedent seems to require that. breyer, you pointed out that the legislative history in seems to report require that. justice calia and kennedy you pointed the practical effect would be grave. chief justice you pointed out and we agree that the term specific which is critical to could just as easily and we think properly mean express which is what it here and justice scalia you asked about criminal the statute doesn't provide them but it does penalties.il we think in that situation where you have the prior case law, egislative history, practical effects and plain text that to that mandatestute nondisclosure regulations prohibit ecifically disclosure is just a very odd construction. practical al arguments we have heard today

are that we don't have to worry because congress could have had executive order to make it work. we continue to think there is no that the s.s.i. system doesn't work under mr. katyal's construction. expected was a duplicative order to mimic the odd and a me seems odd way to construe congressional statutes. there was a concern here that there is this fox guarding the hen house. hat may be a concern with the whistle blower protection act but has no application here mandated ress itself the nondisclosure regulations and did so knowing precisely regulations were when it did so. inally, there's been some suggestion that the facts are in favor.lean's what t.s.a. employee has is not picture of the threat or full picture of the resource constraints, not a full picture other means the agency is taking.

and is not possessed with the t.s.a. has.nce that >> i hate to interrupt but you worry me. if we find for your friend on the other side, the s. i. regulations are not number and void. still apply to everybody exception whistle a violation l be for anybody to make those disclosures unless he is doing whistle pwhrer capacity. >> yes but the standard is whistle blowing is do you there is a elieve substantial danger to public safety. information on the known to the employee and with y ascertainable not the full picture of the full security consequences. the right way to think about this case is in a situation where the statute nondisclosure just that, if the chief justice were bar me the marshal to from the courtroom it would be

perfectly reasonable to say that expressly ustice had prohibited specifically my presence in the courtroom even marshal were -- >> we know how common that is. how common it is to have regulations specifically opposed to authorized or permitted. aware honor, we are not of very many statutes like the s.s.i. statute where congress mandated regulations. there are things like 102-d-3 of security act that generally says to the c.i.a. director protect sources and statutes like that. there are a wide range of focusedosures but we're presently on the nondisclosure here.sions we respectfully ask the court to they would that this is pecifically prohibited by law and in particular by the s.s.i. statute. >> we would never bar you from the courtroom. >> he was not talking about you.

counsel.you, the case is submitted. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the house approved the bill keystone pipeline passing 252-161. 31 democrats joined 221 republicans in voting to approve a 161 nos from democrats. voted present. the senate will vote on the measure next week. he white house has not said that president obama will sign or veto the legislation if it chambers of congress. ore live house coverage monday noon for speeches and 2:00 for legislative work here on c-span. tomorrow on "washington journal" e have thomas lorenzen former assistant head of justice department to talk about the carbon emissions deal reached this week. the cato institute's tim lynch

will talk about the debate over asset forfeiture laws. that is love tomorrow on starting n journal" 7:00 a.m. eastern. president obama continues his asia and australia. today he was in myanmar or burma eeting with government officials and opposition leaders. it concludes this weekend with attendance at the g-20 summit in australia. on c-span saturday 8:00 p.m. eastern members of the dark tuskegee air phefp share stories of their service. >> the main thing about my training i like to think is that the gentlemen who went over before me came back and taught me. my instructor in basic flying lieutenant -- was captain --

jackson out of fort worth, texas. how to fly the at-6 combat flying, night flying, cross-country. men came back and taught me well. well.taught us i guess my other claim to final in primary my first girls no you guys or are interested in flying knowing that after 20 hours of flying going to give you a to and the test is for you prove that you learned whether your instructor is supposed to have taught you. my first check ride was with c. anderson, chief anderson, who happened to have tan mrs. roosevelt up. didn't know any of this until i came out of the service.

deal an, was that a big with me when i found out that was the man that took me up and my first check. author y at 8:00 on q&a and president of arabs for israel on book tv we are new releases. best selling author on religion conflict. george w. bush on his biography of his father and john mccain on heroes.ilitary on american history tv on c-span coverage of the world war one ymposium.l single find our complete schedule at c-span.org and let us know what think about the programs you are watching. 202-626-3400 and -mail us at comments kwrat c-span.org or tweet us at c-span comments. like us on faculty and follow us

-- on twitter. cluck layingle said there were ystematic problems with the management of the u.s. nuclear weapons program. this morning he announced following two government reviews that showed serious issues with everything weapon icer training to security. security layingle said the u.s. 10% budget increases to improve the program. hour.s just under an >> good morning. earlier this year, following revelations about troubling lapses and poor morale in our nation's nuclear forces, i

ordered reviews of our entire nuclear enterprise, scanning the air force and navy systems. i tasked them to examine the health of the nuclear enterprise. to demand oversight mission performance and funding. this morning with me here on the stage are individuals who have played a particularly important role in these reviews. but probably most importantly, they had the responsibility to carry out the recommendations that came from these reviews and i believe you know that after i leave this morning, the deputy secretary and others here will stay on the stage and answer more specific questions.

i'm going to thank you, admiral, for what you have done as vice chief of naval operations because your component is critical to this. admiral haney, thank you for your continued leadership at centcom. it is an integral aspect. we are going to go to the air force base in north dakota and spend a day. general wilson, thank you for what you do with your forces and your team. these individuals as well as other leaders have all been integral to what we are doing and the internal review part of this.

our reviewers visited all of our operations and many of the key support facilities. they interviewed hundreds. the review team leaders from the external review part of this are with us this morning. i want to particularly thank admiral harvey and general welch for your leadership. madeleine headed up the internal review and general welch and general harvey headed up the external. for all of your teams, we are grateful. today, i am announcing the results of those reviews, the actions that the dod has already taken to carry forward and carry

out the recommendations of those reviews. and the actions that we are in the process of taking to address the findings and ensure the safety of america's nuclear deterrent. i went to be clear about the importance of the nuclear mission and its role in defending our nation. it plays a critical role in assuring u.s. safety. it is the dod's highest priority

mission. no other capability we have is more important. our nuclear triad deters attacks on the u.s. and our allies and partners. it prevents adversaries from escalating. it provides the means for effective response should deterrence fail. consistent with president obama's guidance, our policy is to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our nation's security strategy and seek peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons. we will continue to do both but that does not diminish our responsibilities. as the president has made clear, as long as we have nuclear weapons, we will and must ensure that they are safe, secure, and effective. dod senior leaders and i are in full agreement. we are in full agreement that today, america's nuclear

deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective. that is thanks to the heroic efforts of the airmen, seamen, and marines. however, the internal and external reviews show a consistent lack of investment and support for nuclear forces over far too many years has left us with too little margin to cope with mounting stresses. the review has found evidence of systematic problems that if not addressed, could undermine the safety and effectiveness of the force in the future. this includes manning and skill inefficiencies. the culture of over inspection and inadequate inspection and follow-up and accountability by senior leadership. the cause is a lack of sustained

focus, attention, and resources. it results in a pervasive sense that a career in the nuclear enterprise offers too few opportunities for growth and advancement. i know this from my many conversations. we have been taking steps to work on the conditions. some of the recommendations involve changes in organization, policies, and culture. others require an increase in resources, allocated to the nuclear mission. we must address all of the underlying problems. many begin with the many steps that we have already taken, starting with improving

oversight and first, i established the oversight group. not only from the pentagon but from strategic mandate in nebraska and air force global strike command in louisiana. previous reviews of our nuclear enterprise lacked clear follow-up mechanisms. recommendations were implemented without the serious follow through to assess that they were implemented effectively. there was a lack of accountability. to fix that, i have directed our analysts to track both the status of the actions we are taking, the progress we're making, and the impact on the health of our nuclear force. we need to know what is working and what is not. they will report every month. they will report to me approximately every 90 days. i will hold all leaders accountable up and down the chain of command to ensure that

words are matched with actions. we must change the cultural perception of the nuclear enterprise, which has particularly suffered in the air force. we must restore the prestige and attract the brightest minds. that is why i have granted that air force authority to elevate double strike command to a four-star billet. they will no longer be outranked by their non-nuclear counterparts. lastly, secretary james, who has been a tremendous leader, personally awarded the first nuclear deterrent service medals, a new medal to recognize the contributions they make to american security. cultural change must permeate down to the individual, with every airman knowing how much we value them and their service. we already have started to match

much needed leadership with investments. last year we established a program to address the most urgent shortfalls in programs, equipment, and manning. some of it will fund incentive pay for critical nuclear scientists. the air force has exempted 4000 airman from manpower reductions while adding over 1100 billets to fill gaps. our efforts must be sustained. the dod will soon finish updating and standardizing how we conduct inspections and elevate our personnel across the nuclear enterprise, eliminating micromanagement, redundancies, and administrative burdens that overtax the force and harm the mission. the navy is reducing administrative distractions and plan to hire more than 2500 workers at public shipyards, weapons facilities, and reactor training systems.

meanwhile, the air force is planning construction to improve weapons' storage facilities. we will replace helicopters and revamp how it trains and manages the nuclear force. both services are elevating and reinforcing the nuclear mission, including in the budget requests they are preparing for fiscal year 2016. we will make billions of dollars of additional investment in the nuclear enterprise in the next five years. this new funding, which will be detailed in our budget submission next year, will be critical in continuing upkeep and security while addressing

shortfalls that undermined morale in the nuclear force. there is much more we need to do leading up to our modernization. i traveled to wyoming and montana. i visited kirtland air force base in new mexico and the air force base in omaha. i met with sailors at the uss tennessee in kings bay, georgia.

right after this press conference, we will leave for the air force base in north dakota to speak with crews and support teams that are now stationed there. my message to them and to their colleagues is simple. our nuclear enterprise is foundational to america's national security and the resources and attention committed to the air force must reflect that. we need our best people in this enterprise. i will now take a couple of questions before we leave and as

i said, this team will stay behind and answer further questions that you may have. rita? >> you talk about accountability. several years ago, they fired people and had similar reviews. where is the accountability for the failure to improve and take the steps that were needed over this time? it has been quite a while and steps have not been taken to see what is needed. what is the accountability? you're talking about billions of dollars. can you narrow that down? >> on the budget issue, let me address it this way. we will get specifics on how

much and where and all of that in our budget that we present to congress. over the next five years, future fiscal years, we're looking at a 10% increase over each of those years. right now, we spend $15 billion to $16 billion on our nuclear enterprise, if that gives you some kind of range. on the accountability issue, there has been already accountability in a number of instances in specific areas as we are holding people accountable.

there will be more. as i said, here in my remarks, and, i think, in backgrounds most of you received yesterday, this is also a process as we work our way through accountability, as we restructure. i go back to a comment i made. i know secretary james feels strongly about this. all our leaders do. accountability is key to everything. it is critical. you could have the structure and

process and resources but if you do not have accountability, it will unwind. so, everyone who is holding responsible positions, and by the way this cuts across lines, it is not just the nuclear enterprise, it is all the institution,--who hold responsible positions, are accountable and will be held accountable and we will continue to make adjustments where we need to make them. david? >> we are told one of the things that the panels found was a situation in which there was one copy of a wrench needed to attach warheads to the muscles. one wrench, 450 missiles at three bases. is that true? and if it is, how did they manage with just one wrench. >> it is true. i think it is indicative, david,

of the depth and width of what has happened over the last few years. as i said in my statement, a lack of focus, little attention to some of these specific areas, it wasn't just resources. partly, it is cultural. people taking their eye off the ball. it is important to note that this did not affect the safety of the weapon. we are talking about delivery platforms as opposed to nuclear war heads. but your point is exactly right. it is indicative of a system that has been allowed to kind of slowly back down hill. we have seen as a result of the

intense reviews, internal and external, is those kinds of things come out. how did they do it? they did it by federal expressing the one wrench to each base. there were creative and inventive and they made it work. that is not the way to do it. we now have a wrench for each location and they're going to have two for each location. >> one follow-up question. everyone is asking. what happened to your cheek? >> well, i had an incident with the cabinet door. i know it is not an exciting story. it depends on the audience as to what i tell people. i thought over the years, it is always better to tell the truth. that is what happened. i engaged the corner of the cabinet in my kitchen and it did not go well for me. but it is going to be all right,

no stitches and it all heals. but i have had more bandages on my face in my career and have been in tougher spots. [laughter] i'm sorry not to make it more interesting. actually, general dempsey asked me what happened and said it was not interesting. one more question. >> over the years, we have heard similar words from your predecessors. how do you convey to the american public that this time will be different?

each time we have heard, we're going to make the nuclear enterprise. is it because we have been at war and officials have been diverted? how can you explain that this will be different this time? >> i think it is all the things you mentioned and the number of things i mentioned in my statement. let's start with what this enterprise has been focused on

mainly for the last 13 years. two large ground wars. when you have that situation, when america has been at war and had large numbers of troops commitments in those two wars, when a nation is at war, that is a focus. that is not the only reason, i think, that this is nuclear enterprise has been allowed to back downhill little bit. it is that. it is not paying attention where we should have in some areas. our young people, upon whom we rely on, if career paths are blocked or seen as not conducive to promotions, and they are young people with a lot of focus and commitment, where they want to go with their lives and commitments, if they see that not as a very attractive way, that is going to affect where we are. i think, too, the good news about this, there has been no nuclear exchange in the world. that is the whole point of deterrence. that is the reason

this triad system is so critical for our security. i think there has been nationally a sense of taking it for granted. so what? there is not going to be a nuclear exchange. the big problem is what is going on in the middle east, africa, al qaeda, that is the threat to america. yes, that is the threat to america, it still is. we have taken our eye off the ball. i think this is the right time to have this assessment and review. the seriousness of this issue has always been there. i do not think anyone has diminished the seriousness of a nuclear threat. the good news is, there is nothing here that we cannot fix. the good news is, none of this has endangered americans or put our security at risk. that is all good news. but if we cannot pay attention to this, fix this, eventually, it will get to a point where

there will be questions about our security. i think, it is not unlike institutions and life and the world. we have so much going on in the world and so many new threats. there is a convergence of challenges and threats in the world. all you need to do, your business records every moment of every day. it is coming at us at once. we have to manage it. we can't lose sight of the long-term. at the same time we managed through the crises and we leave through coalitions and other means, but we cannot take our eye off the ball of longer-term

issues and challenges to keep this institution strong. it is important to keep him prepared for what is coming. new asymmetric threats. cyber. you know about those things. that is the way i look at it. >> bob, thank you. >> good morning. i am the deputy secretary. i would like to make a couple more remarks then they -- then we will get into questions. i would like to echo the secretary's thanks to our viewers. the internal reviewers, matalin is not here, she is at the national nuclear security agency working on the warhead side of the problem. she could not be here because she was traveling. major olson is having a senior enlisted right on the review was critical.

we wanted to get a sense on what was happening all the way down to the deck plates of the submarines in the silos. a had a heart problem. they were talking truth to power. it wasn't a pretty story, and they stuck to their guns. our nuclear deterrent is safe, secure, and effective today. and lest we take immediate action, the possibility of something happening in the near future goes up unacceptably. we needed to address it right away. the external reviewers, harvey and general welch, were not asked to give an assessment of whether or not the nuclear deterrent was safe, secure, and

effective. they were tasked to find the gaps and vulnerability. they took this job so seriously, they reported. it wasn't done by a committee, and it is one of the most well-written, hard-hitting, and thoughtful reports i have written. the internal and external reviewers did an excellent job and told us what we needed to do. how was the different? we have had many nuclear deterrent enterprise reviews. the senior leadership is involved this time. one thing that the internal review said, you don't have anyone looking at this as an enterprise, and you have to have someone looking at it as an

enterprise. you have to get your reviews. they have been telling you where the individual problems are. you did not have anyone looking at enterprise review. they recommended we consider that. the external reviewers, as a marine, really knocked me and the secretary, and punched us between the eyes. they told us you have to take ownership of this issue mr. secretary. the secretary did. what makes this different is the nuclear enterprise deterrent review group is chaired by the number two civilian in the department.

and the number two military officer in the department, and we report to the secretary. this is different, because of the insistence of two seasoned nuclear officers. if you do not do this as a secretariat level initiative you will go the same way as the past. so was the follow-up. there were 100 recommendations. the secretary assigned dr. jamie moore, the director of the cost analysis and evaluation shop, to put together a team to track each individual.

we had a checklist in the past. now we have metrics for everyone. they report to the indirg who reports on a basis. the accountability is much different. the secretary said there will be a four chart -- four star global chart command. a three star on the air force staff. everyone will be coming in on a quarterly basis. essentially monthly or five or six week basis. and the secretary will hold us accountable if we are making progress. we are making news and oversight. and the personal reliability program, if you want to get into that. also, the inspection regime. those are pointed out in the reviews as getting out of control. there is a saying, don't expect what you don't inspect. expectations became -- inspecting became the reason you were inspecting. they were a burden on the force.

the next indird meets on the 19th of november to make changes to the inspection regime and security regime to take the burden off of our airmen and sailors, and the officers who supervise them. the investment will be billions, not tens of billions. we spent 10-15,000,000,000 dollars a year on the nuclear enterprise, and we will have to increase that. if you have questions we can answer those. this is a toolkit. to thread the bolts so the wrenches could attach. they were being fedex around. for me, a marine, that is a metaphor. you don't want to be sending your gauge from company to company. it was a metaphor or how far things have:. it is because people stopped reporting it.

they worked around it. that is what i would like to leave you with. the people in the enterprise are unbelievable. they were able to make this deterrent safe, reliable, affect it, and secured. -- and secure. we were doing it on their backs. the secretary said, we are going to stop this. that makes this different. from the leadership down, we are invested. we won't ask the impossible of our sailors and soldiers and airmen who have been making this enterprise work. we will make it that are for them, and make sure it remains that way. >> with the pressure on the defense budget, and the services

with a history of putting other priorities in front of nuclear projects, and with the hundreds of billions it will take to recapitalize nuclear over the next couple of decades, is it time to take the nuclear budget out of the defense budget and make it its own separate entity? >> this goes back to a thing that happened over 13 years of war. because our budgets have been coming down. you say do we do this in the nuclear enterprise or this to support the war fighter? when you make a hard choice you will support the war fighter and you will make it as best you can. we can't do that. it is gone on too long. it has to be a primary thing. if we hit sequestration this will be a major problem in this enterprise and across the enterprise. if you go to sequestration level cuts you will not be able to make, what we believe, are the prudent investments to make a safe, secure deterrent. it would cascade throughout the

force. this is something we talked about within the department. we think it will be a presidents legit 17 -- a president's budget 17 discussion. the downgrading of defense resources and to accommodate that. the navy faces the problem. you hire a replacement program, that is expensive for the icbms. replacements for the bomber, very expensive. we will have to address that forthrightly, and we will in the future. yes? >> can you briefly explain why it will take 10% more money to fix this problem. why it can't be done without increasing the budget. we are part about the nuclear enterprise. why will it cost more? >> the president has said his goal is a world without nuclear weapons. this strategic reduction treaty with russia is bringing us down to 1550 weapons. we need to keep those safe, secure, and effective. when your inventory comes down, it is more important that you are sure you are taking care of

it. we have made a decision, with the triad having land-based icbms, ac-based nuclear deterrent, it is the best way to achieve a deterrent. i might ask general wilson at admiral howard, you have to add people to the shipyards to allow the submarines to get through, but i may as them why we need more money and they may be able to give you examples. >> thank you for the question. the shipyards, infrastructure, are continuing to age. i just visited our strategic weapons facilities last week. those buildings were built 25 years ago, and are in good shape . it is like your 25-year-old house. things degrade over time, and you invest money to keep them up . you invest more money and maintenance time.

in the cycle for our submarines, as they get older we need our maintenance availability to trend longer as we put in more work to get them up to the highest operational level. we can reduce the maintenance cycle i hiring more people, and putting more workers on it. we are hiring more shipyard workers. in the end, adding more people cost more money. having to do more maintenance over the life as things age costs more money. >> two examples from the air force. the infrastructure that supports was done in the 1960's. we have missiles --. the infrastructure and the capability has to be modernized. built up. and sustained. helicopters that we fly in the

missile fields are 1969 vintage helicopters. as we modernize and capitalize, we need a new helicopter because the current one doesn't need the requirements for the force. that is something we will look for in the future to spend money on to bring us to the capability we need. >> there are two parts of the problem. we have to spend money to maintain a aging nuclear detergent enterprise and to bridget to the nuclear enterprise we will be building in the 20's. that is something we need to address. this morning, we don't have any clear answers. yes? >> a question about the culture

in the force. there have been a couple of scandals in the last couple of years. i'm curious what the reviews found about how bad the culture was, and what is being done to address the issues within the force. >> these would best be addressed by all three. i would like to start with the admiral, then go to the air force. >> i would like to start off by saying, most of our team and warriors come to work every day with integrity, and commitment. there have been some stumbling blocks that we have managed to remove those folks. when you look at the discussion we have had, and the amount of effort our worriers have -- our warriors have in bridging that gap to make sure it is safe, secure, and affect, they are on

board. i have visited all of the nuclear bases more than twice in most cases over my tenure and a year of being u.s. command and strategic command. i have met with large and small groups. most of our folks are very committed to the point a were perturbed at the performance of those who demonstrated flaws in their integrity. their very passionate about the business, and very hopeful as they look at the commitment the department has had associated with this mission which is very important to our country. >> i would add, what is happened over the years is a culture of micromanagement. today, across the air force and the nuclear business, you will see it is about leadership and empowerment. we are empowering our airmen and removing obstacles to their success. they are excited and motivated about the empowerment that they

have not seen before. less than 1% of our folks are the ones that are messing up. 99.9 percent of our folks are amazing people. they come to work every day, are committed to the mission, no it is important. they live our core values every day. >> after discovery of the incident in charleston, the director of naval reactors did an investigation and decided to step back and look broadly across the nuclear energy forces. he also had outsider groups come in and ask if it was about culture.

the conclusion is, it is not about coulter. our sailors exhibit for values of courage, honor, and commitment. if it was not sent a manic we had to look at what happened in charleston. that gives to the report. one of the factors is the workload at charleston. the instructor workload, the workday. it came to the point that folks felt it was ok to take a shortcut. leaders had to ask if they set the environment correctly. that is why we will be hiring additional instructors. to get the workload balance right, so our sailors continue to exhibit courage, honor, and commitment. >> i wonder if i may be able to

ask major olson to come up. because of the number of enlisted in the nuclear enterprise are in the thousands. they are the bulk of the security force, maintenance force. there are the backbone of the enterprise. perhaps major olson can address this issue on culture. >> 90% of the troops come to work focused on doing the right thing, instilling the right pride and right drive for the mission. you have the 10% that blame the culture that they grew up on and try to spread that culture among the workforce. that 90% continually way out the 10% that try to take the shortcut. the culture is a culture we have across all services. to allow democracy to rein in this country. >> it sounds like the defense department has been implementing fixes.

he said that you have went to a variety of bases. i'm wondering why the pentagon has waited so long? also, general wilson, the review says many of the senior -- have no experience with the system and have been on the base less than a year. what have you been doing to mitigate that situation? >> that was a special case in the external review. i may ask john or larry to address it. the leader of the secretary and deputy secretary was very helpful to point out that this is where you have to look. it is an austere and remote base.

some of the decisions were indicative of a lack of real attention. the secretary is gone before, and he is going with secretary james. i am going in february, because they told me if i would not go to mind -- is that i did not go. with either be like to address it? >> there was a time when the catechism of why not? that expressed everyone understood why not and that my not mission was the toughest in the air force. there is a sense of pride that went with being from there. the strategic air command, if you had not served there, you

weren't a real nuclear airmen. over the years, that gradually disappeared. as the mission moved, it didn't get the kind of emphasis that is demanded in the kind of environment to existed. it is the academy of the northern care -- northern terror -- northern tare. you find some of the oldest facilities in the air force. you find an extreme reluctance to accept an assignment. the secretary is working on instilling that special pride that always went with being able to do the toughest job in the toughest place. i think they are taking actions to restore that attitude. it will not be an easy thing to accomplish.

>> can you give us examples? in the 50's and 60's, everyone in the united states knew of the nuclear mention -- new the nuclear mission mattered. the public was behind it. i don't think you find a lot of americans today who worry about it. how do you convey to the airmen that it does, on a daily basis? do you visit the folks in minot? the civilians? what do you do? >> of pointed out very carefully that you would be surprised how much these people know. you'd be surprised how much attention the maintenance guy that works on the icbm or the

truck driver that has to move things around on the roads along with all of the oil industry trucks. you'd be amazed how much they know about what their leadership to say, and what the public is saying. the first stop to restoring pride in what they do, is for the senior leadership to say how important this is. we move from the part of our former government officials who suggest we don't need icbms, and they don't hear any response from the senior leadership, we have to move from that to constant reminders of the most senior leadership that this is job one.

this is important, and we value the people perform this mission. we have seen that happening. we have seen that at a level we haven't seen for years, but it has to continue. we have seen it before. it did not last long enough to bring about lasting change. i think admirable harvey -- admiral harvey and i are hopeful this will be a lasting change. there has to be reminders to those people that it is job one. they are valued. we understand it is a tough duty and you should be proud of performing it. >> one more question. >> this is secretary james' third visit to minot.

she has been to every nuclear base twice. in terms of the manning experience it is one we addressed early. secretary james plused -- secretary james added to our manpower. we're making sure we have the right experience, the right numbers, at the right basis. we are focused on min to get the numbers and skillot -- on minot to get the numbers and skill at our nuclear bases. we did the bottom of review. -- bottom up review. there is a 95% overlap. we agree with everything in the reports.

there were well done. we have been moving from the last six months from manning, training, there be, and investments. we have been moving out for the last seven months to do this. >> first, i was wondering the timing of when you would be looking to make investments. you spoke about maintenance that you have on the aircraft carrier fleet that uses the same public shipyard. how do you ensure the investments are going to the nuclear submarine? or to a non-nuclear part of the force? >> one of the distractive things of last year when we hit sequestration and the government shutdown, on the furloughs and the hiring freezes on the civilian workforce, we took the fair approach and said we could not exempt anyone in the force. we have to treat everyone the same, pic -- the same, because this is an appalling thing to happen.

you can see the cascading effects it is had on the maintenance availability. we have approved the hiring authority for the navy to go after 2400 folks right now. you will see the actual dollar figures attached said that when we drop our budget on february of 2015. the show, do you want to say anything? -- the show --michelle, do you want to say anything? >> by raising the level of nuclear promotional workers, that helps across the force. we are hiring now. >> i would like to leave the last word with admirable -- admiral haney who is --. the secretary said, we believe. our deeds will follow our words.

this is the most important mission. it is critical to the safety and security of our nation. i would like to leave the last word with admiral haney, and thank you for coming out this morning. >> thank you mr. secretary. if you look at our strategic forces, it is not just the triad. it is everything from the sensing mechanisms we have associated with the intelligence apparatus, or when some country launches something. and determines it to be a threat against the united states of

america or a threat against one of our allies. or is it a test within one of their countries? we want to quickly assess that. with the information through our nuclear national nuclear apparatus so we can quickly to the right set of leaders together with that decision apparatus to go from the president of the united states down to our warriors associated with the platforms i'm talking about. that is part of it all the way to the warheads. we are doing the business right. in a safe, secure, and effective manner. you don't read about it or see mushroom clouds as a result. we must continue that. it is important in the 21st century. to ensure that we can continue to benefit as we have from our strategic capability. the may have been successful, they have been under the radar scope. the good news is, the great work has been done by professionals

through these reviews and the internal reviews the services have been involved in. also, the strategic command. they have put a lens on this. to see where we need to go for the future. giving serious consequences of having a miscalculation, and not keeping the strategic ability we need in the world. it is good to see the attention it is getting today, because it is important for our future going forward. thank you. >> the u.s. house approved a bill allowing them mediate construction of the -- the

immediate construction of the keystone xl pipeline. 31 democrats joined 21 -- 230 democrats joined 31 republicans. the white house has not said if president obama would sign or veto legislation if it passes both chambers of congress. 2:00 eastern time for legislative work right here on a spam. -- on c-span. on washington journal our guests included thomas talk about thell carbon emissions deal reached with china later this week. then tim lynch will talk about civil asset forfeiture laws. that starts at 7 a.m. eastern here on c-span.

president obama continues his trip to asia and australia. today he was in myanmar, also known as burma. the trip concludes this weekend with attendance at the g 20 summit in australia. weekend, saturday at 8 p.m. eastern, ledger and -- members from the legendary tuskegee airmen share stories about their service. the gentleman who went over before me came back and taught me. my instructor in basic flying was lieutenant captain leonard jackson out of fort worth texas. back and taught me how and how to do six

combat fighting, night flying, cross country. those men came back and they taught us well. i guess my other claim to fame my first check correct -- after 20 hours of flying they are going to give you a test. to proveis for you that you have learned what your instructor has taught you. my first check ride was with chief anderson, who happened to have taken mrs. roosevelt up. man was that a big deal with me one and -- when i found out, the that was the man who gave me my first check. evening at eight

on c-span's q and a, author and president of arabs for israel. on book tv we are featuring new releases. karen armstrong on religion and conflict. president george bush about his biography on his father. and on american history tv on c-span3, our all they live coverage of the world war i centennial symposium. our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. us or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the concord coalition is an endcacy group seeking to deficit spending and balance the budget.

the group hosted a discussion for recommendations on changes to medicare, social security, and the tax code. this is almost an hour. >> we are going to get started now. the microphones are not going to help amplify us, they are just or c-span2 record. thank you for everyone for coming today. the the average -- i am rector of the concorde coalition. second totake a quick thank congressman woodall's staff for coordinating the logistics of this. in recent years policy makers on both sides of the aisle sought common ground for a plan to put our nation on a sustainable that

of oururb the growth national debt and reinvigorate our struggling economy. failed toe standoffs produce a grand bargain. with the deficit having fallen since the peak in 2009 and washington mired in gridlock, some suggested it is time to move on from the budget debate. deficits are going to rise. whether they like it or not the face a numberwill that demand actions action. those of you in the audience who work here on capital hill will these into opportunities to enact more spending policies. those of you who choose to leadership mantle of on