number? if so? what should we do about this problem? >> i know i can say in the context of my experience $ sl should not be issued because they might have

concerns there was no check with the power with the fbi? >> exactly no outside check that allowed the abuse to happen. >> how do we fix that? >> in other words, of the reinsure that the fbi or the justice department does not have to go to court to get the nsl orders know that the proper safeguards are there? >> you have to take a broader view the first of this is not the only had been mistreated of subpoena authority there are those on the criminal side better used every day by federal authorities and have different requirements could issue directly by the agency to people who possess third party records it is not the anomaly the nsl is a tried

and true tool kit that until has used for years secondly this is one instance that was highlighted by the report by the ig report but this got most of the attention in that looked at activity i don't believe this is symptomatic of a broader problem the fbi will subvert the first amendment these are invested of investigative authorities they have different of taxes -- objectives 1/2 to meet i do not remember the language fat the investigation based on first amendment activities i am confident accounts office likely did not go off the fisa court opinion they did go back and look there's a different standard opprobrious. >> my time is well expired i will recognize the gentleman from wisconsin. >> figure very much

mr. chairman i am very curious most of the questions is the national security and a 12 make it clear again that national security letter authority was not one of the expanded authority is given to law-enforcement by the patriot act it was passed in 198615 years before the patriot act under legislation sponsored by senator leahy of vermont. much of the adversely go decisions on this entire issue have been routed to the national security letter law rather than the mr. sensenbrenner patriot act i do take pride of authorship is the fact that the mr. sensenbrenner patriot act 15

of the 17 provisions yser went unchallenged as to their constitutionality in almost eight years of wrangling case there is a constitutional challenge withdrawn. that were held unconstitutional and the mayfield case in the district of oregon which is currently on appeal involved whether fisa orders violate the fourth amendment and there is a string of cases that have reached the opposite conclusion that fisa orders to not violate the fourth amendment and i think the supreme court will end up deciding that issue definitively when the case gets up there. so all of the hyperbole the patriot act has been plainly unconstitutional enactment of congress that tramples on civil rights is not borne

out by the litigation that has occurred in the almost 80 years the patriot act has spent a lot. i really would admonish people both in this room and out to look at the fact that 15 of 17 authorities of law-enforcement nobody has bothered to challenge. if it is constitutional and working thin really i don't think we should break something that does not need fixing and i am afraid that this time of like unanimous consent to include in the record a lengthy letter from robert f. turner from the center from national security of the virginia law school that talks about the

expiring provisions of the patriot act which is what we ought to be talking about, and none of which have even been challenged. >> without objection. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you i recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you. i want to commend all of our witnesses here today including mr. wainstein who has been very forthcoming. i want to commend former chairman mr. sensenbrenner. you mentioned the sensenbrenner patriot act of course, i mentioned the one from the of the rules committee that was a very mysterious activity in which nobody ever found out there

were no fingerprints on the new belfast the sensenbrenner pager fact which i suppose mr. sensenbrenner wrote that night and got up there because nobody ever saw it in the judiciary committee but it is one of those mysteries in the legislative process that have not been fully examined and maybe we would get a judiciary committee chairman are maybe even a constitutional subcommittee chairman that will step up to the plate and find out how a several hundred page bill could be substituted for another in the middle of the night. the rules committee was meeting after midnight when this was acted upon.

i own they digressed to show you that to there has been bipartisanship on the rules committee. there are very few important bills in which ever republican and every democrat votes in its favor and that is what happened to the sensenbrenner con years but then whatever else happened to it, it is one of those problems that need further investigation. the witnesses have raised i think i stopped counting at 11. there are a number of small problems that need to be cleared up about reissuing

the three provisions that have the expiration date. i set that aside from the reconsideration from the rest of the patriot act that does not have any expiration date and i am sure our chairman will have a feel for that to the ones to tell me what it is but i'd go along with them. >> we'll look at all sections of the patriot act as a look at this with the opportunity provided by the expiration of these three sections for all other sections as well as five and five which is the national security letter although mr. sensenbrenner did predate the patriot act was considerably amended by the patriot act. >> yes.

coulda asked the witnesses witnesses, what further after having heard each other's testimony here, what else would you add to any of each others' comments or what would you want this committee to know about everything? here is our former colleague heading a bipartisan committee. here is probably the most experienced lawyer of intelligence law before the committee. we have the american civil liberties union which has participated in more privacy cases civil liberties cases

of our rights cases than in avondale said also a distinguished member of the bar who have some very profound experience themself. what do each of you comment each other's testimony? >> it is a great thing to have this oversight responsibility that you have accepted on this committee. and i would like to make one point* with the challenges and limited number to the various provisions, if you are innocent it would take a very courageous man or woman to make that challenge because of the image said this created so i think that is the reason there have not been more challenges.

>> also of the bill they get from the lawyers would dissuade a lot of people taking on the united states government is not something you can walk into any law office and say i think they're totally wrong. i am an ascent or at least i 122 handle that and i can tell you what the average law firm would say and fellow like to have mr. wainstein comment. do you have $150,000 to continue this conversation? what about it? >> you are a partner full-fledged. >> we're just looking for the righteous case.

[laughter] that is all we want. >> i know you're a law firm is good with pro bono work but if you get one of these walking into the office and you decide to take it without consideration of the legal costs that may be incurred, that is pretty heavy duty. mr. german? >> as i mentioned one of the problems with these authorities is they are exercised in secret and having more facts in the debate would be very helpful to everybody especially members of the public and trying to understand i commend the department of justice that revealed the number of authorities refused but have they use it there is a need to protect

interest but the excessive secrecy is harming the public debate. >> thank you, mr. chairman. of like to thank the witnesses this has been interesting testimony and dialogue. i wasn't aware of the sensenbrenner conyers bill until i heard testimony and i would trust that came out of a serious effort to provide safety and security for the american people after september in the oven and as i listen to the fed chairman's lamented but bill did not provide to the floor in the same condition understand his sentiments. >> will the distinguished gentleman from iowa yield? >> this was before your time. you were not even here. >> that would be why i don't remember it. [laughter] >> apparently.

thank you, mr. chairman know i don't feel so badly for not being completely tune into the history. but it did trigger my memory how the bankruh@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ bill that appeared fresh and voted on literally the next

day from the printer that nobody had a chance to read. that was unfortunate spirit reclaiming my time and perhaps resetting the clock would wonder if maybe the chairman of the subcommittee and full committee might wish to join me in my endeavor to move the rules committee to the floor because the business of this congress takes place in bowl of the wall rather than in front of the public by anybody one to respond? >> we would do that but not it is not before this committee but we should discuss it. >> i appreciate that response maybe we can move the wide of day of to the holder in the wall and now we will turn my attention to those who are here to testify and everybody watching these proceedings. or i am curious mr. chairman, i am curious about the position of the

aclu during that period of history in the immediate aftermath of september 11 as a bill that was crafted and the one that came to the floor did you have a position on the overall amendment and a position on the bill as it came to the floor for a vote? >> i also was not than at the aclu i was that the fbi so my recollection may not be perfect but i do understand they did offer statements that are in the record urging there be caution and moderation in trying to discover the facts >> but perhaps not an opposition to the patriot act as it came to the floor for final passage? >> could good gentlemen yield? i do not remember what the aclu said that they were certainly in that position.

>> i appreciate the clarification the sole tumblers to analyze history are helpful. the discussion we have on the reauthorization of these three particular sections then i would ask mr. chairman, have you been involved in drafting alternative legislation that you put together that is useful for this committee to be aware of? recovery been involved? we have been offering suggestions. >> conceptually or specific language? >> i am sure over time specific language. >> thank you for that clarification that is not a zone that i worked in but i did not have a feel for that. do you have examples of individuals whose constitutional rights happen deeply violated under any of the three sections of we're considering reauthorization? >> no.

we do not know who they were used against. >> even though some are bound to a confidentiality doesn't happen from time to time people will reach that if their constitutional rights have been breached? >> i am not sure that they would know that the fisa authority usually does not alert the targets of their surveillance. >> let me submit this is a subject of the various subcommittees subjects who were before us anonymously because of certain allegations made about their history and it was strike me that if there were some significant constitutional violations to bring those cases we can go beyond the hypothetical and simply do

with a defined personality rather than an individual or not. why don't i hear about that even a hypothetical individual beyond the generalities why isn't it more specific if the constitutional rights are at play? >> any use of a constitutional authority is an abuse and unconstitutional because the person does not know and nobody in the public knows only the government knows these authorities are used. >> if nobody knows then our way back to if a tree falls in the forest? >> but when it revolves around the constitutional rights of americans may have to make sure we're protecting those rights and that is the obligation. >> but one of those obligations. >> will you yield? just to clarify if you were

being wiretapped unconstitutional without any proper evidence, you will not know about that and maybe nobody knows about it but your rights are violated >> and a stand that explanation but i do not accept if they have been violated and nobody knows it has there been it if it cannot be identified. i will take you off the hypothetical path and turned to mr. wainstein a un of many individuals whose rights have been violated and are you aware of cases that have been resolved because of the utilization of the patriot act? i will leave that there and open the question to your response. >> sure. the patriot act has been tremendously eight -- helpful and i have

watched it but i have watched them get used in march of the information was integrated not getting into specifics you can see how critical because now you can get cellphones for almost pennies and throwing away and give new 11 hour later and if the recovery and has to go to the government with a 70 page document every time they will be stymied. it is critical. >> is there a constitutional distinction between the wiretap and the fisa law for the landline? directors is a constitutional debate but those who look at the wiretap authority in the

context find it constitutional. >> i appreciate the dialogue and i yield back. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognize. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if the appropriate committee were to look at the proceedings of the rules committee and decide to require those committee meetings be held on the floor of the house has has been suggested, i believe the number one smoking gun piece of evidence would be the sensenbrenner patriot act bill, the 700 page bill fact is an intriguing issue of how that occurred. that is one of the big mysteries of our time.

kind of like the beginning of the earth and how big is the solar system. are there any other solar systems, those kinds of things. but what may ask this question with respect to section 215 where the fisa order can also require or contain a gag order. how long does the gag order last? is there any limits on how long it last? or the scope of the gag order? >> i am not sure if that question is to me but i will

answer there is a non disclosure order that comes along with fat similar to the context and it does say the person who receives that orders not to disclose it to anybody else but there are some exceptions the fact the order if you were seeking counsel from my lawyer you are allowed to disclose. if you are a bank did you have to go to a clerk to get those orders you can disclose that fact but then you are allowed to challenge yet there is a process put in place and carefully crafted i am sorry with a patriotic -- patriot act reauthorization that congress put in place a mechanism not only for a challenging the validity itself. >> let me stop you hear.

i appreciate those answers record does the act itself put any limitations on the length of time that the gag order is in a fact assuming there is no challenge by the third party too it? iraqi recipient can challenge after one year. then the person that has received the alert. >> if they do not challenge then it goes on year after year after year? >> i believe that is the case i am not aware of it expiring at any time. >> what happens if the fis out for dirt is not responded to by the third party? the third party tangible

evidence has been requested supposedly they turn their nose up and let's say the agency the aclu receives a fisa order, but yes. so first of all, they would be on the hook if they did not challenge it before the in definite time and secondly, what would have been fav cited to not respond or refuse to turn over information based on a privilege? what would happen there? >> that is whether liberty

security committee is a bipartisan group. all of us act on the pro bono basis and i do everything on a pro bono basis but we believe there should be some reasonable limitations like 30 days so you could go out publicly and a talk about the agco pact with the chairman initially said and what i added you have to have deep pockets to bring challenges. >> perhaps there is a not a deep pocket third party with from whom tangible documentation has been ordered and endure the fisa order and that a third party decides to violate the gag

order, what happens in that kind of scenario? >> refer to the former assistant attorney general. >> their orders of the corps is so if you defied the order. >> would they be enforced in the secret fisa court. >> with the 215 yes or the nsl a district court that his manner standings rex lee person could be locked of secret the for violating the fisa order that could be the indefinite detention if you well. >> i am not sure about that. the fisa statute as amended by the reauthorization a sadr process by which you can challenge that the size

of a court order you say i don't think i should have to turn over those reasons if it is legitimate the court would say you have a privilege and you have to craft a resolution but if you do not have a basis for challenging the subpoena, it is a legitimate court order and the court has authority to enforce it. >> can you appeal the fisa order ruling by the fisa court? >> yes. you can buy the review. >> who is it appealed toã@ @ @

and it was back apparently when it first passed as a big zero and then five years ago we took it up if i was '01 of a couple of people on the day be passed out of committee on the republican side that was adamant about the need for sun says the we would have people come in and talk too us from how these powers have been used. the one provision regarding cellphones zandi make great points, to use conventional methods when we have throwaway cellphones? that was never anticipated in the original methods. in pursuing the bad guys.

and then looking at the september 21st story come with the headline of the mass transit warning, i see the word cellphone mentioning the number of time in this story. do we know of any of the powers granted in the patriot act were utilized in bringing to light to this alleged terror plot? anybody know? >> and now believe there has but a reference to any specific tools that were used, not that i have seen. >> from the earlier witness from the justice department was careful with his words not to suggest. >> i will read how we did that in the "new york times." but i am wondering, and the

last year there misinformation that came out about a wiretapped conversation with one of our members jane harman was that wiretap provision under the patriot act? >> i am just curious. apparently i take it by your silence, nobody knows? i see the need there and it is critical to a proper law enforcement in an apparent -- japan to such an important tool to not be attacked again during the bush administration but coming forward to the nsl the patriot act the power was expanded to allow field offices to make nsl request has opposed to the fbi

headquarters. i think at the time the patriot act passed, most of us here on this committee were not aware of just how profound the fact good director moller policy would be and had been that we have lost thousands of years of experience because of that policy basically being if you are in charge in a supervisory position for five years in the field, then you have two either move to headquarters here in washington or take a demotion or ted -- get out. so get out or outsell in view of his policy, having lost thousands and thousands of years of experience and recalling director mueller

saying after the fast abuses of the nsl came to light saying he took responsibility for having the experience and training in the field to properly monitor those nsl, and maybe we should pull back the nsl authority to fbi headquarters where the director has polled so much of the remaining experience. i just know when this past, that was not really an issue on the radar screen, but it does seem to make sense that could be a reason why there were so many abuses reported by the inspector general you just did not have the experience some officers going 25 years of experience in charge down at six with they are good people but experienced as make a difference i would be interested ask your comments whether that might be something we need to look as

far as pulling power back to the fbi headquarters? tarullo like to hear from everybody if you have a comment. >> congressmen that is a very interesting suggestion clearly since the inspector general can now the fbi has tightened procedures and has taken steps to ensure that they reduce the number of mistaken use and abuse of national security letters. >> that would call the director saying we would not find any evidence of that kind of abuse. >> another possibility you might consider is enhancing the role of the national security division at the department of justice in terms of managing and overseeing the process. >> a very important issue that should appropriately be addressed.

>> if i can come i don't know what you reference how director mueller said you would not find those abuses. >> after it came to light he said he did a full audit and the ing had not had a chance to inspect them we would not find abuses like that again. >> they did do a fall of it and there was a huge deployment of people and they found the instance of mistakes which was basically consistent with all level that the ig report had found but i think what he might have been referring to is the letters said is the more abusive aspects. he might have then saying that is not what migrated to the field officers because that might be what he was talking about. my concern about your suggestion that we pulled the nsl authorizing

authority back to the fbi headquarters, it would reduce or we would add cumbersome bureaucratic requirements to getting nsl out and then the course of a fast-moving investigation you need to get to them quickly and with the time and complication of having to go to fbi headquarters would slow things down and in the wrong situation could be the difference between catching are not catching a terrorist. i believe the better way is to make sure you have the necessary system in place and oversight. i think you heard earlier from mr. hinnen and ast ms. spaulding said, a lot of procedures put in place with the fbi in national security division to make sure those problems do not arise again.

look at the sec in the aftermath of what happened last fall and the questions of how they should change their operations. what is one of the first things that has come to the floor this suggestions to delegate the authority to take investigator steps lower down to make them be able to build cases more quickly the same thing we saw in the fbi and that is the natural reaction with a overly complicated system in place. >> with the sec is that how goldman sachs could have the biggest profit in the second quarter and some was supposedly overseeing fed is also on their board met treasury secretary gates gave him a waiver from that conflict. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> could i have the last panelists' comments. >> you can respond briefly. >> i agree that stronger

internal oversight mechanisms are very important but and i would also argue outside oversight is critical and the strongest internal oversight will not be as effective. >> what do you mean biosite? >> this body. where it is applicable by the accords pfizer corporation, a criminal court but also the up the scope was so broad that it allow the innocent people to be collected and that was perfectly legal and that is where i believe the abuse happened. >> with the chairman's indulgence, do you have a recommendation how that broad scope could be tightened? >> sure. to bring it back into the three patriot act 30 review use against a suspected agent of a foreign power or

a member of a terrorist group rather than just against people two or three times removed from the subject. >> that would be by restoring the language? >> right to. >> i think you. i thank all of the witnesses. without objection you can submit to the chair additional written questions which will ford and asks the witness is two respond as promptly as they can all members may submit any other additional materials and again i think the witnesses and with that this hearing is adjourned.

of defense. james cartwright the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and patrick o'reilly the director of the missile defense agency. we're delighted to have you with us. we thank you for your service to the nation and i see that senator lemieux is also with us today. we're delighted you are here. we give you a very warm welcome to a committee which works on a very bipartisan basis. i think you'll enjoy your service on this committee and we very warmly welcome you. we also are going to, if we have a quorum here going to

take up military nominations when we have that cure rom. last -- cure rom last thur president obama announced he accepted unanimous recommendation of defense secretary gates and joints chiefs of staff to restructure the plan for missile defense in europe. president obama put it this way, "our new missile defense architecture in europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of american forces and american allies". secretary gates called the new approach" vastly more suitble and and a far more effective defense than a previous plan to deploy 10 long-range interceptors in poland and a radar in the czech republic." i believe this decision will enhance our national security and the security of our allies and partners in the region. it will deploy demonstrated technology sooner to defend against the number one existing threat in the middle east. the threat of iranian short

and medium range missiles. they can reach our forward-deployed forces and allies in europe and israel. secretary gates has said the existing iranian threat "was not addressed" by the prove youts -- previous plan. the new european missile defense architecture will evolve and increase in capability as iran's missile capabilities evolve. it is flexible and adaptable to circumstances. it will counter future iranian missile threats and including long-range missiles that could reach the united states if iran develops them. so it will offer@@@@@ rsá )""$@ @@@@@@ g )@ @ r

scrapping missile defense in europe". the newark tech chur will be deployed sooner than the previously proposed third site would have been. secretary gates has said the new system will be deployed starting in 2011. whereas the previously planned system would not have been deployed until at least 2017. assuming then that it met all the conditions required in our law. such as ratification by the czech republic in poland and demonstrating the system operation fallly effective. as to the suggestion the administration is abandoning some of our european allies the administration's plan would involve more allies than the previous plan and would defend all of nato europe rather than only a portion of europe. and poland and the czech republic is being offered the first opportunity to participate in the newark tech chur.

the nato -- architecture. last thursday nato secretary rasmussen said "i welcome the united states today has discussed with nato how we can develop missile defense which can include all allies and protect all allies. i welcome in fact that nato will play a more prominent role in the u.s. plans for missile defense in europe. that is a positive step". now, the reason that he reacts that way is the new plan would defend all of our nato allies and our forward-deployed forces against that existing threat rather than defending only a portion of nato europe that is not within the range of iran's existing missiles as was the case with the previous plan. this is a substantial improvement for nato. now, while some early statements for some polish and czech leaders were critical later statements were supportive. for instance last friday polish foreign minister

sikorsky said" poland will be an element of a new missile defense system. there is no question of the united states abandoning our region if the scenario outlined yesterday by the u.s. president state department officials and the secretary of state is implemented it will be a significant reinforcement of poland's defense potential he said and on polish tv he said "we will have what we wanted this is the polish foreign minister sikorski we will have what we wanted the presence of american troops and patriot missiles is guaranteed. czech president earlier this week said he is" fully accepts the decision". to those who say the new approach stems from russian pressure, secretary gates wrote in a "new york times" "russia's attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue. secretary gates added that"

if rush she's leaders em -- russia's leaders embrace this plan that will be an unexpected and welcome change of policy on their part. now, it would be an additional benefit if the new plan opens the door to cooperation with russia on missile defense. if russia were to cooperate with the united states and nato, it would send a powerful cig that to iran. -- signal to iran. it would also if russia were to share the data from its radar improve the capability of our defenses against iran. nato has repeatedly supported missile defense cooperation between the united states and russia. in april i traveled to warsaw, putting a prague and moscow senators bill nelson and senator collins. we had frank discussions with government officials in each country. we came back i think with the view that there appeared to be a possibility for a new approach to missile defense that might be acceptable to all.

and which might show iran that its purr suit of missiles and nuclear weapons will bring countries including russia together in opposition. this plan creates the possible for missile defense to be a uniting issue rather than continuing as a dividing issue. i would add it was clear from that trip that the polish government was focused as foreign minister sikorsky said on the deployment of a u.s. patriot battery and on u.s. personnel in poland. rather than on deployment of the previously proposed long-range interceptors in poland and it appears that now both nations are moving steadily towards such a deployment and i hope secretary flournoy will discuss the status of the patriot issue. the new plan is also consistent with the direction provided by congress over each of the last three years under both democrat quick republican

leadership -- democratic and republican leadership. congress in our legislation told the defense department to buy more standard missile 3 and interceptors to defend against the existing short and medium-range missile threat. congress established a policy to develop, test and deploy effective missile defenses the defend our forward based forces. our allies and our homeland against the threat of iran's existing and possible future balls will tick -- ballistic missiles and congress directed that defense department place a priority on developing, testing and fielding near term effective missile defense systems including the bmd with standard missile three interceptored that patriot pac-3. in summary i believe this new approach is a 3-for. it addresses more directly and effectively iran's

missile threat. it maintains and expands our security commit tonight europe including poland and the czech republic. it opens the door to working cooperatively with russia on a missile defense system that could not only provide greater protection to europe but also make a strong statement to iran that europe including russia will take unified action against iran's threat. the balance of my statement will be placed in the record and before calling on our witnesses let me recognize senator mick kahn. >> thank you -- mccain. >> thank you mr. chairman i'd also like to acknowledge senator george lemieux of florida and welcome him to the committee despite the fact he is an attorney i look forward to working with him on the many issues we face today and this committee does work in a bipartisan fashion but i also might say a very spirited fashion from time-to-time. so welcome george. and i welcome the witnesses today.

since the end of the cold war we've prided ourself on a strong and enduring relationships we've forged with our european allies particularly in eastern europe. at a time when eastern europe nations are increasingly weary of renewed russian aggression in the region. georgia attempts to intim ukraine -- intum date ukraine. other actions that have been taken. the administration is adopting a new european missile defense strategy that has clearly bruised some of our staunchest allies in europe while encouraging hardliners in my view. the decision by the administration to back way from its missile defense commitment to the czech republic and poland can only demonstrate to the rest of europe that the united states is not prepared to stand behind its friends that the united states views resetting its relations with russia more important than commitments made to close friends and allies and that the administration is willing to let russia have

veto power of the disposition of our missile defense architecture. missile defense in europe is not and should not be viewed in moscow as some new form of post-war aggression. prudent response to the belligerent threats the iran regime continues to pose to the united states and the world. one of the troubling rationals for this new approach is base on the asimmings -- assumption the long-range iranian missile threat threat is not materializing as quickly as previously assessed and the real threat is in the short and medium range missiles. i agree the short and medium range missile threats are significant and growing threat but i question the notion ha we don't have to be as vigilant in developing our defenses against long-range iranian ballistic missiles. eric adelman undersecretary of defense for policy.

undersecretary gates during the bush administration recently said intelligence reports on the iranian threat as recently as january of this year were more troubling than what is being portrayed by the current administration. and he said maybe something really dramatic changed between january 16th and now of who the i -- what the iranians are doing with their missile systems but i don't think so. we all know the threat's real of iranian ballistic missiles is real and growing. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses on both exactly what had changed threats-wise and why the new and old strategies are mutually exclusive. why we can wait until 2020 at least 3-5 years later than originally planned to field a long-range system cape about the -- capable of defending both the united states and europe interesting about this whole decision-making scenario which in my view was incredibly amateurish and

hand fisted months of negotiations dedicated to wards reaching agreement with the polls and czechs in 2008 but a late night phone call was all it took to tell our friends to take a hike. according to news reports the polish prime minister was called at midnight only hours before the administration formally announced its new strategy. but i suppose that prime minister tusk shouldn't be all too upset because he unlike members of congress didn't have to wait to read about it in the morning papers. and i must say the timing was ek quiz it is. -- exquisite. while the polls were commemorateing the 7 ott anniversary of the russian invasion of poland. exquisite timing. poland headlines read, "betrayal u.s. sold us to russia and stabbed us in the back" and then the czech republic," no radar, russia won. i urge the administration to

take every step necessary and -- above and beyond proceeding forward with the planned newspaper european missile defense strategy to not down play the long-range iranian threat and reassure our allies. also i think it is worth noting the czech republic currently have nato forces deployed as well as 100 personnel deployed in kandahar. the polish currently have 2,000 troops in afghanistan. i'll be very interested in the future to see how firmly the poll asks the czechs stand -- and the czechs stand behind those commitments and there is very little doubt in most of very little doubt in most of the world that this is viewed as an attempt to gain russian concessions on the iranian nuclear issue. that's the interprepassion. -- interpretation. it's said, it's not what you do it's what you appear to do. i am sure that the witnesses today will make a strong

technical casing for abandonment of the long-range missiles to short and medium range missile defenses. i have to tell you that there's more to this, far more to this than a change in policy. this is a signal to our east european friends who are very nervous about aggressive russian behavior in a region and they have a rich history that with which to base their concerns on that we have sent the wrong message at the wrong time and as far as this decision having significant beneficial effect on russian attitudes towards iranian nuclear build-up. we'll see. history shows us that unilat rl -- unilateral concessions very rarely gain anything except increased demands from our adversaries. i thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator mccain. there's a quorum now present and so i would ask the committee to consider a list of 2559 pending officer

nominations included this in list is admiral mull land for reappointment to be chairman of the joint chiefs of these nominations 25 do not meet the committee's 7 day requirement by only one day. no objection has been raised to these nominations. i recommend the commit wave the seven day rule the order to permit the confirmation of the nominations of these 25 officers. is there a motion to favorably report the 2559 military nominations? is there a second? >> second. >> all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed they. the ayes have it. now, -- does this have to be done separately? okay. secretary flournoy? >> thank you chairman levin. senator mccain and other distinguished member of the committee. we very much appreciate the dmunlt