that means reaffirming deterrence. i see no reason to view that with this matter. deterrence has worked with the russians at a time when the soviet union was aggressive. it has worked with the chinese. it has worked with the chinese and it has worked with the pakistanis and indians, in a manner. if the threat of war with pakistan and india was higher before the tw. they realized that if there was a serious military invasion, it poses the risk of a devastating in nuclear exchange. this is one of the reasons why in recent years india- pakistan in clashes have not been that severe. nuclear-weapons create an uncomfortable self restraint. that is perhaps not necessarily the worst about comes. in that region that is very dynamic, very unpredictable, and very prone to violence. this is not an overwhelmingly optimistic prognosis, but it does suggest that there are options for the u.s.. the first option is to explore what is feasible regarding an outcome with which we can comfortably live. and that is an arrangement whereby iran is induced to become a more active member of

extended deterrent. also called the nuclear umbrella. as secretary schlesinger explained at the senate armed services committee on may 7, -- and i quote -- "the requirements for extended deterrence still remain at the heart of the design of the u.s. nuclear posturing." well, this may seem like an onerous responsibility for the united states it is one that secretary schlesinger explained we must continue to pay because extended deterrence remains a major barrier to proliferation. and restraining proliferation is definitely a cop national security interest of the united states -- a top national security interest of the united states. in essence, numbers marry. we can't just reduce the numbers of our weapons to some arbitrary limit like 1,500 or 1,000. we must have a nuclear arsenal sufficient to cover both the united states and the allies who rely on us. and that number cannot be determined without significant study. if we don't, our allies could conclude they need to develop their own nuclear weapon. the commission also recognized that sp

can you talk -- is the qdr looking at the benefits of deterrence and how you put a price tag on that? >> absolutely. there is no question that it is not and it is not just the cost issue, either. the need to do everything we can to prevent more is more than a dollar value. it is the cost of human treasure. and so, i beliebveve you will see as an outcome the types of capabilities that will allow us to be more in the prevention regime. that is why i feel quite good about the strategy that we have sent where we clearly ar ticulated in our strategy that preventing war is as important as winning more and why the emphasis on some things like maritime security regimes were we can work with friends and partners to alleviate the type of activity, transnational criminal activity that can produce those types of corrections and that can result in conflict. theanand why we think there is value in the humanitarian assistance that we have been conducting. the amount of patience in four years on the hospital ship and we have dispatched a pacific partnership and the africa partnerships station has jus

can you talk a little bit, is the key to it looking at the benefits of deterrence and how you put a price tag on that. >> absolutely. i think that there is no question that it is -- it is not -- and it's not just a cost issue, either. i mean, the need to do everything that we can to prevent war is more than a dollar value. it is this cost of human treasure. and so i believe you will see as an outcome of the qdr, the types of capabilities that will allow us to be more in the prevention regime, and that is why i feel quite good about the strategy that we have set, where we clearly articulated in our strategy, almost two years ago, that preventing wars is important as winning war. and why you you know -- the increased emphasis on things like maritime security regimes, where we can go in and work with friends and partners, to alleviate the type of activity, you know, transnational criminal activity that can produce those types of frictions that can then resulted in conflict. and why we believe there is value in the proactive humanitarian assistance missions that we have been cutting. as i men

--deterrable? can you feature them? there is concerned about us still having that capability as part of our national security as an offensive nuclear force. we have to be able to defend ourselves. you want to go out there and try to prevent their proliferation, demand for them is also another issue. host: the report deals with pakistan. they write that the next president should write a comprehensive policy for pakistan, 11 east terror -- eliminate terrorist activities and secure nuclear and biological materials. how does this alter this scenario there? guest: i don't think it changed at all. i think it is on boss spot on. this is a country that teeters back and forth on the edge. they also have a significant nuclear arsenal. most people say that if we are ever going to see another nucleate earth -- nuclear change it would probably be india and pakistan. host: what do we know about how safe the pakistan nuclear arsenal is? guest: pakistan tells us that is safe, that is under the control of the military. if the government

has only one, poses an existential threat to israel, israel in effect is saying that its nuclear deterrent is not capable of deterring the iranians. the israeli argument is that the iranians may be irrational, fanatical and therefore as soon as they have one bomb they might actually use it against the israelis there by creating an existential stet threat and if that is the case the israeli deterrents fails to deter in which case, perhaps a nuclear-free zone, in which there is a quid pro quo involving the iranians and the israelis might be conceivably attractive, although my suspicion is they would not be attractive, either to the israelis or the iranians. and that is -- last but not least, means reaffirming deterntsz in effect by the guaranteeing and by our posture and i see no reason to few that with dismay, deterrence has worked with the russians at a time when the soviet union was truly aggressive, it has worked with the chinese, even though -- now say turning talked -- mao talked about nuclear killing 3 million or so people and it is quite tolerable and worked with the chinese and has

i believe you and in the event they have nuclear weapons they cannot give up their conventional deterrent capability is and now i am talking in terms of nuclear purses conventional and that they would continue to work on the the conventional accuracy of their conventional weapons and whether they have nuclear weapons are not they want to maintain and think a number of different avenues to the term. i really don't know what you're asking suggests they are not trying to improve the accuracy of their long-range missiles because there are waiting for that nuclear warhead to be placed on top and i don't know of that is the case. there are going as far as they can with their accuracy and capabilities. >> the question was whether there was sufficient justification for these missiles as a conventional deterrent that one could plausibly say there was sufficient justification and to this even if the had known a clear intention -- would be irrational to pursue this missile technology purely for missile deterrent if i had no nuclear? >> i think absolutely rigid they learned a lot about this from the

in spite of several billion dollar investment by the israelis and robust nuclear deterrent including a second strike capability through the naval capabilities. well, israel is not certain that its own nuclear capabilities made toward iran what steps can we take federal going to reassure israel that our nuclear guarantee to would detour iran because if i understood you were suggesting you said we have sufficient credibility that if we offered to do the guarantee that would be a deterrent to iran so how are we going to persuade the israelis even though their nuclear capability cannot detour iran that ours can? >> first of any guarantee by the united states would designed to discourage other countries from seeking nuclear weapons and would be designed to protect them house also its focus is not entirely on his real. as far as israel is concerned i think there is the legitimate question to ask how serious are the israelis about the existence of threat and that the iranians because they are suicidal will attack them and even are going to perish and so we would be in a sense of arnesen ini

the second area is on deterring aggression -- deterrence is a major parts of the strategy which i did not say is it geopolitically defensive strategy we believe but it has offensive tenancies. if at the deterrence fails they intend to defeating aggression within their borders the in never of capabilities many partisan warfare and those kind of things which i will get to in just a second and the fourth thing is really the offense of tennessee part of their strategies, and their use and other military forces as a way of extending their influence around the region on think that is very important to note here is that a major part of their defense strategy and doctrine is not really tuna toward attaining territorial gains but mainly toward protecting influence into the region. well, the defense strategy is based on a number of the actress and the doctor and have developed is well timed and well suited to their defense strategy. they have had experience, of course, in the eye iran-iraq war which is a traumatic experience and gave a lot of lessons here and they have also had experience again

is that it seems a little bit more closely aligned to yours is that they do have a conventional deterrent, particularly in light of use -- particularly in light of iran's feebleness with regard to any other response to an air attack. their planes wouldn't stack up very well against either israel or the u.s. at l. i'm just wondering what do you feel is the fairest inference to draw? is it fair to say that this is an, a data point in -- you know, that, that shows a nuclear intention, nuclear weapons intention or is it much more ambiguous than that? >> i don't know if it shows intention or just this is about as capable as they can become at this point. one would suggest that their longer range missiles are much less accurate than their shorter ones. their shorter range missiles. and that this could suggest if they are not working on ways of improving the accuracy of their lodger range missiles -- longer range missiles then maybe they have -- the question that you asked was either or and i think it's kind of both. i believe that even in the event they have nuclear weapons, they cannot give up

comes up, and i said that it is not mine to determine policy, but it is my hope that our nuclear deterrent umbrella will continue to be effective, and that probably means it will continue to extend over wherever in the world i happen to be. the nuclear posture will be aggressive. our president has made clear certain aspects that he hopes to be addressed in the nuclear posture review, and i'm sure the guys doing it understand. part of that was japan, and what was the second part? i am unaware of specific japanese interests in that particular system that you described. i am aware of japanese interest in the nuclear umbrella, continuing to expand. >> just as a follow-on to the question earlier about submarines as being critical to maintaining freedom of the seas, what about surface vessels? would you like to see more of them -- >> yes. >> ok, but also as part of that, not just more, but i'm curious what types for capabilities in particular -- what types or capabilities in particular. >> let me go back to our strategy -- presence. i can make a case -- we have made the case -- quantity has a qu

today we confront a more dangerous north korea that says it is determined to bolster its nuclear deterrent in defiance of its neighbors and other members of the international community. how we deal with north korea this time around will have grave implications, not just for maintaining peace and stability in northeast asia, for our alliances with south japan and korea, south korea and japan but particularly have an impact on our ongoing non-proliferation efforts with respect to iran and any other would-be nuclear power. step one is to get a unified response from the united nations. the result appears to be imminent, but then we must resist the temptation to go into defensive crouch. in the past teaches us that the benign neglect is not a viable option america must lead efforts to stop the current negative cycle of action and reaction and begin the hard diplomatic work needed to deliver results. and as we seek to engage, we should remember the council of former secretary of defense william perry who advised us to deal with north korea quote, as it is, not as we would wish to be. we should n

deterrence is a major part of the strategy which -- i didn't say, geopolitically offensive strategy we believe it has some tendencies. if deterrence fails, they intend to defeat aggression within their borders through a number of capabilities, mainly partisan warfare and those kinds of things which i will get you in just a second. the fourth thing which is really the offense of tendency part of their strategy is their

so deterrence is a great importance. it is a matter in public statements and exercises, those are all geared towards threatening a very high cost if they are attacked. they have a peripheral defense which they look at, we could call it a forward defense, whereby they use proxies and militias and other types of kind of to project their power. and as a defense, a forward defense against invasion. and in case of invasion, a mosaic sense whereby they want to conduct hit-and-run and guerrilla tactics and also use their institute of strategic patients to wear down any invader. underlined these issues that i've just gone through, are four types of components. one is self-reliance. it's a very, very important part of iran's self-image as well as its defense strategy that it become self-sufficient in its development of its capabilities as well as defense of its borders. ideological fortitude in the ranks, the iran's to emphasize indoctrination and those kind of things. joint force integration, they are very at least in their stat

we find, and i think practice has shown that sunshine and transparency does have a powerful deterrent effect on improper or ill-advised behavior and i think even more important, it starts an important dialogue. >> i want to talk specifically about the competitive peace. >> i do not believe anything we are proposing today or you have proposed would have a deterrent-- >> mr. chairman one good piece of information here is that the world is looking at this problem as well so the british have already begun to consider it, the swiss have proposed some principles similar to what we have discussed today. let's imagine the board is worked on the international panel, so this is a global issue with a global set of solutions that the globe is coming to consensus on. >> thank you. mr. backus. >> mr. chairman, your earlier remarks, i would just say whether we ted this on bush, sort of pin the tail on the donkey or whether we pen it on the elephant, it is no all our problems and it is no, it is not then and i just ask that we all work together to get us out of this, these bailouts in these governmen

later, many of the folks with whom we have discussions will get around to asking, is your nuclear deterrentumbrella going to continue to extend over fill in the blank country? so our capabilities in this area are not take it for granted all throughout our air responsibility. everywhere i go, sooner or later, not just in mil to mil. the conversation comes up and i say, you know, it's not mine to determine policy but it is my hope that our nuclear deterrent umbrella will continue to be effective and that probably means that we'll continue to extend over where in the world i happen to be. the nuclear posture view will be aggressive. the president has made clear certain aspects that he hopes to be addressed in the nuclear posture view and i'm certain the guys understand that. and the second part was japan and what was -- [inaudible] >> i'm unaware of specific japanese interest in that particular system that you describe. i am aware, as i say, of japanese interest in the nuclear umbrella continuing to extend over japan. yes, ma'am? >> just as a follow-on to the question earlier about submarines

commission that whatever impact, positive impact nuclear-weapons may have had in terms of enforcing deterrence and stability during the cold war, any residual benefits of these weapons have been more than overshadowed in recent years by the growing risks of nuclear proliferation and the related risk of nuclear terrorism. that is why you can see a group like ours, which is really representative of a group of 150 former ambassadors, a military leaders, government ministers, who have joined this effort because they recognize that the risks associated with nuclear spread out way any stabilizing effect of nuclear weapons in today's world. with that in mind, i would like to show you a chart which in the presentation we have given you, it will be shown on the screen behind me, page 4, the global action plan. what it does is lay out four phases which will take roughly 20 years to achieve, bring the existing stockpiles world wide, of nuclear weapons, down to zero. and if you follow me, on page 5, we have the first stage or face, in which the united states and russia would reduce its total stockpile of

terms that government lawyers need immunity from suit in order to avoid -- and i quote here -- "the deterrence of able citizens from acceptance of public office and the danger that fear of being sued will dampen the arter of public officials in the inflinching discharge of their duties." in other words, by encouraging this lawsuit, many koh was -- mr. koh was effectively deterring his students from doing precisely what yale otherwise recommends that they do: enter public service. elections have consequences. i understand and generally support the prerogative of the president to nominate individuals for his administration that he deems appropriate as long as they're within the spectrum of responsible views. however, because of the importance of his position in representing the united states in the international community with respect to treaties and other agreements, his own words and actions demonstrate to me that he is farrous the mainstream -- that he is far outside the mainstream in such a way that his appointment as state department legal advisor could damage u.s. sovereignty. so i oppose

security is based not only on bilateral treaty with the united states, but a concept of extended deterrence, that is clearly an example of the sort of issue that has to be addressed and would have to be addressed over the next week to decades or so. we recognize that countries have security concerns related to nuclear weapons, and if nuclear weapons go way, that has to be taken into account. most countries represented on this commission in we one way or another will have to address those questions. that said, there is an understanding that the elimination of all nuclear weapons will not lead to the resolution of all international security problems, that is a fallacy to argue that they will. it will certainly be a much less risky world caught and as a result, a much safer world. yes? >> i am a reporter from china and i have a question for ambassador jianmin wu. what do you think china, as another major nuclear power, what kind of road china can play in the frost says of nuclear-weapons reduction, and elimination, and also the pursuit of another kind of security -- without nuclear weapons? >>

we aimed at neutralizing, strengthen deterrence wanted emerges by applying enhanced missile defenses. especially to allies in the region. israel and other countries threatened by iran. the u.s. navy also needs to be ready to deploy missile defense cruisers at appropriate places and times. given the growing ballistic missile capability we think it would be prudent to invest in missile defense. not only for regionally-deployed ones, but at home. the u.s. must be seen as providing robust missile defense for itself because of a secure america has to the credibility of allies in the region. news of the washington should warn any threat

to be a navy that has the capability and capacity to be a deterrent force to deter potential adversaries and to ensure friends and partners, to be a navy that can project power, and that power projection can come from aircraft carriers, it can be missiles off of combatants and our submarines or it can be in the form of marines off of amphibious ships, providing for c control, to control areas of oceans where the commander-in-chief may call for that to be done. it is to be able to provide for maritime security, such as what you see happening off the coast of somalia. it is also to respond to disasters as we have done for route our history. in recent years, a new addition to our capability, to provide pro-active humanitarian assistance much like we are doing o

we have a requirement on the bottom, between a deterrent and the actual -- on the y axis, 2 thirds of these programs did not meet their criteria. 2 thirds. and over half of those that didn't, didn't even meet half of their criteria, and yet these programs were pushed into the field. bleeding in to what jerry is going to talk about, we can talk about how we ended up with these dwindling forces in each of these categories a novel talk about the air force and its aging fighter pilots. how did we get there? the air force banked on the top line that it could not have reasonably done. in the early years of the reagan administration, hundred fighter attack aircraft, we grew the fourth to thirty-eight wins, then we went on a procurement holiday. the f-22 was coming and we going to wait for it. so we banked on those 2 programs that we really couldn't afford from the start. we should have known. these are the number of aircraft fighters -- you notice the vietnam war on the left side. then we built up -- i always tell you this, we bought more aircraft in those years than we are going to for the

you are not consulting with the lawyer and how would you -- i am concerned that it will become a deterrent for applying for medicare. i am concerned that it is placing a tremendous, mandatory requirement on our potential beneficiaries. apart from whether we are in the appropriate area, i would be hesitant to endorse the bill even though i know what the gentleman from georgia is trying to achieve. there has been no hearings on this. i would like to know what a or b thought about this from the beneficiary side before we voted. >> what i would like to suggest, if we might -- and what i enter stand the cost constraints -- >> i've understand because constraint. >> i think this is -- i like the concept. i think this has value. i would not want to -- this is one of these things that we will be out for a number of days. we go back to take a look at this thing. >> could we get a or b's take on this? could we get cbo and the gao to take -- to tell us because of the implementation? >> i would feel better if we had a little more time to look over this. >> let me see if i could. >> this is not a blow o

host: we have a history dealing with nuclear power, certainly with china, the policy of deterrence. would that work with iran? guest: when you think about it, you had made with 500,000 troops. in europe at the time of the cold war, you had a whole set of institutions that were in place. you have hot lines between the united states and the soviet union, and even with the cuban missile crisis. even so, history has told us that there are a lot of different evaluations. iran is threatening to wipe israel off the earth, keeps saying it is going to do that, and there is no communication, no hot line, no diplomatic relations. there is no communication,. . then you have another factor, some of the apocalyptic statements of some of the leadership. ultimately, iran makes a decision on a cost-benefit analysis and they are not suicidal. but this is a whole dimension that we did not have to deal with with the soviet union. the president of iran says statements about the 12th imam, the messiah. but he is not the one who decides, it is the ayatollah, n who is still in charge. there are a lot of di

you're not consulting with a lawyer and how would you -- so i'm concerned that it would become a deterrent for applying for medicare. i'm concerned that it is placing a tremendous mandatory requirement on a potential beneficiary and apart from whether we're in the appropriate section, i would be hesitant to endorse the bill, the amendment, even though i know what the gentleman from georgia is trying to achieve. i would sure like -- there has been no hearings on this. i would sure like to know what aarp thought of this. in terms of from the beneficiary side, before we voted. have you come to a position on the parliamentary -- >> what i would like to suggest, if we might -- >> i understand both compassion and the cost constraints that this suggested. >> let me say to johnny, i think this is -- i like the concept. i think the reasons you have identified it have value. so i would not want to, if we could, this is one of these things we will be at this a number of days here and if we can ask people to go back and take a look at this thing. senator mikulski has a strong interest -- >> could we g

we are here to call it out when we see it, and try to act as a deterrent so that there will be less of it. >> do you think you are better able to anticipate some of the problems that may occur in the future from what you have learned in past experiences? >> absolutely. >> are those procedures being employes today? >> we do, and we change not just with every monthly report, but revolves. we are a small panel and small group. we just. treasury itself has changed over the past seven months. the nature of the economic crisis has changed over the last several months. we have changed as we have learned and as new problems have presented themselves. we have tried to be as responsive as we can and as nimble as we can to try to do with the problems when they arise. >> the issue of stock warrants has come up from time to time. the concern is that some banks were forced to accept tarp funds and provide stock warrants to the government and for these banks to now buy back these warrants, they would have to pay a price that would reflect a very high interest rate on funds that were held for only a f

president obama reaffirmed this firm commitment towards ensuring the security of south korea through deterrence, which includes the nuclear umbrella. this has given the south korean people a greater sense of security. president obama and i also talked about the initiation of working level talks to make progress on the issues surrounding fta and make joint efforts to chart our way forward on the agreement. i took time to invite president obama to visit south korea. i conveyed to him our warmest gratitude on behalf of the korean people to the people of america. once again, i'm very pleased to note that he and i engaged in very constructive discussions. i am very pleased with the results. once again, i thank president obama and if the people of the united states. thank you. >> we have time for public questions. scott wolf. >> thank you, mr. president. north korea says it should be recognized as a nuclear power. it says that as a precondition for relations with the u.s. and other nations. given its bulletin and response to the recent sanctions and the nature of its nuclear program, is your administ

to be a navy that ted has the capability and the capacity to be a deterrent force, to deter potential adversaries, but also to assure friends and partners. to be a navy that can project power and the power projection can come from airplanes off -- or aircraft carriers. it can be missiles off our combatants and submarines, or can be in the form of marines of four amphibious ships. to provide c control, to control areas of ocean of the size and place where the commander in chief may call for that to be done. also is to provide for maritime security as much as you see happening off the coast of somalia. it is to respond to disasters as we have done throughout our history. and in recent years, a new addition to our capability and that is to provide pro-active humanitarian assistance much like we are doing with our hospital ship that is at -- operating in central america today. those are the missions and that is what our sailors do and that is the very flexible force that is the u.s. navy today. in a way, as i said, many of those things we have been doing as a navy for almost two centuries

and i agree to better warning labels will act as a deterrent to nonsmokers. but what about current smokers. there is an study cited in canada. the study consisted of showing current smokers packages of their favorite cigarettes with an increased warning label and graphic pictorials of cancer and other disease. the study concluded that no statistical significant change in smoking behavior could be expected to be followed from the redesigned packages. if you noticed over this 45 minutes so far, i've sort of knocked all the things out that the sponsors of this bill said it accomplished. it doesn't do any of them. it does do one thing. it grandfathers the most risky products and consolidates their regulation at the f.d.a. it doesn't reduce risk of death, disease, or youth prevalence of smoking. since h.r. 1256 bans any reduced-risk, smokeless products from entering the marketplace, it blocks current smokers only into cigarettes. however, our amendment doesn't lock them into just cigarettes. we provide this consumer with the ultimate amount of choice. the purpose

but i also think about the deterrent effect and how we project fairness to all american people. the international issues for me are very important, a, to go get the money that's being hidden offshore, but also, i think ordinary americans need to know, if you're we wialthy enough to e assets, you're not getting a free pass while firemen and teachers are paying their fair share of taxes. it's a long way of saying, it's actually part of collecting the 2 .5 trillion you need to run the government. and it is a matter of fundamental fairness and people need to know the u.s. government is on the job. >> i would like to ask only one follow up question here on consumer account data engine. i've been noticing, i worked with senator colins on this issue after 9/11 on technology in the federal government. having followed it over the years, it's been a source of frustration over how many bad starts we've had in different agencies trying to bring modern technology, maybe the private sector has the same problem. it seems to be at the federal level. your cade system, a core component of the bus

steps to implement defensive measures aimed at enhancing our military capacity and our extended deterrencen the region. on our recent mission we began to outline a future plan of responses and defensive measures that the united states and its allies will take should north korea refuse to adjust course and should it continue to implement its announced plans for provocative behavior. including future missile or nuclear tests. we are committed to do what is necessary to protect the american people and to honor our commitments to our treaty allies. fourth, and far from last, we remain willing to engage north korea to resolve our differences through diplomacy. a central tenet of the obama administration's approach to foreign policy has been a willingness to engage in dialog with those with whom we have had differences. sometimes very serious differences. from the beginning, this has been the approach we have pursued with north korea. but so far north korea has not responded in kind. on our recent trip, we made clear that the united states remains open to bilateral dialog with north korea in con

nuclear attack in nuclear war, sell-through rhianna seems to want to extend the nuclear umbrella deterrence written some agreement. you think this should be a good opportunity at this point to stand the agreement to set aside immunity to north korea by putting something down in writing? >> i haven't seen that report and it if there is a formal proposal we will look at but beyond that i really don't want to say. also number three and? >> one more. >> the two journalists in north korea on may 15th when north korea announced the trial date for the journalists secretary clinton said in my coat, a child they'd been set with you as a weapon in time frame so does the state department still see the legal process so far as a welcoming time frame? >> i think there's been a number of developments since the secretary made that statement. and as i have said before i don't want to get too deep into the details of characterizing our approach, their approach. this is a sensitive issue and i think i would just leave it at that what i said in his answer to charlie's question, is that we continue to call for

problems now with minority access to the vote is that section 5 has sat there as a prophylaxis, as a deterrent. in the city of burnie view, justice thomas articulates this , prophylaxis a outside congress' authority. congress only has authority to recommended, not to deter. so it's a fascinating issue and i don't think congress is institutionally capable of satisfying the supreme court, no matter what the supreme court court and no matter what congress does, i think the issue will come back and be joined either by this court or by the roberts court as it evolves over time. >> linda, thank you. let's move now to another area of the court's doctrine. this is an area which has been very prominent in the present term and that is the question whether state toward lawsuits are preempted -- tort lawsuits are preempted by the action of federal administrative agencies. that's surfaced in two very important cases this term. ted olsen, would you like to take us into that? >> i'd love tofment i know preemption is very much on your mind out there. >> it's a saturday more than issue. >> i'd like to say a wo

that we have sufficient credibility that if we offered a nuclear guarantee that that would be a deterrent to iran and how are we going to persuade the israelis that even though their nuclear capability cannot deter iran, ours can? >> well, fest of all, any guarantee by the united states to the region would also be designed to discourage other countries from seeking nuclear weapons. and designed to protected them as all and the focus is not entirely on israel, as far as israel is concerned, i think there is a legitimate question to ask, how serious are this israelis when they make the argument about the existential threat and the iranians bass they are suicidal go attack them, and they are going to parish and so, we would be in a sense addressing an issue which really has not been discussed seriously in israel, namely how serious really is this argument, the moment the iranians have the bomb they'll be inclined to extinguish 3,000 years of national history for the dubious satisfaction of damaging israel somehow. so i don't take the argument seriously, myself. >> thank you, doctor, from the

did may have ended deterrent but did not end to facto so we should always fight back and justice stevens wrote in a dissent and, please, read back to in the case that the chief justice's opinion twisted brown vs. board and a cruelly ironic way. just as prioress descend criticized the justice, chief justice opinion as applying an overly theoretical case approaching the case law. and he said, why is not an exercise in a mathematical logic. if it was we would not need judges, we could do it with computers and i don't ever want to see that day. [applause] chief justice warren, a man who had a real-life experience took two and half years to put through brown vs. board of education but he made sure it was going to be a unanimous decision so in a deeply divided united states of america could accept this in contrast the roberts court and is divided desegregation decision to years ago ignored the real world experience of millions of americans and said it would depart from the hallowed presidents of the court. and today is the supreme court will issue one of its most important decisions in years,

power in compensation committees but also to say on page bringing this to light does have a powerful deterrent on say in the u.k. even from the study business school it was a positive affect on the tour in high payouts to those that perform pour early. >> we have another subcommittee hearing, so we will take a break and we'll have to votes so won't be gone that long. and will take your questions and then break for the vote. >> many years ago my husband worked in wall street. he started out in wall street i believe when he was 17 and he worked his way up and worked for a large financial service company. he was in compliance and had the whole northeast corridor to good of offices to make sure they were complying with the sec rules but also the company rules and he always found it amazing because he never announced when he was going to be there he would go into an office and a lot of them followed all the rules and regulations, no problems but there were certain offices that didn't follow the rules and regulations and he would write them up and another surprise visit back to see if they cleaned e

proposing today or you have proposed would have a deterrent -- >> mr. chairman, i think one good piece of information is the world is looking at this problem as well so britain has arctic and to consider, the swiss have proposed some principles similar to what we have discussed and as i mentioned the board has worked on an international panel with a stability board and so this is a global issue with a global set of solutions that the globe is coming to a consensus on. >> thank you, mr. baucus, max thank you, mr. chairman year earlier remarks i would say that whether we tax this on a bush and sort of pin the tail on the dock you're whether we pivot on the elephant, it is now all our problems and is now, not then. and i just ask that we all work together to get us out of this, these bailouts and government-funded programs that we extricated herself from that end of the deficit spending that we have witnessed. we work together on that i hope. let me say this, gene, you and i have worked on several things and have a deep respect for you. i very much agree w

i support all these projects because they are a deterrent to our enemies and the programs our war fighters in the field require. as we look at the balance of power occurring in the middle east and asia, this is not the time to cut back on these programs. north korea plans to launch a long-range missile in july as only a few years away from depling a missile capable of hitting the united states. we must prepare for the development and deployment of more advanced technologies by our adversaries. these missile systems should all be considered as -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. griffith: i urge passage of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: mr. chairman, i yield now to the gentleman from new jersey one minute, mr. garrett. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: i thank the ranking member. i thank the chair. thank you for the inclusion of this amendment with regard to israel and the underlying bill. i'd like to speak for that minute then with regard to one of our strongest allies in the middle eas

billion, western should have a system that's operationally effective and had achieved credible deterrence. you have to ask yourself why that hasn't happened after $120 billion. the question isn't how much money you spend, it's whether you spend it smartly. that's what this budget does. mr. franks: will the gentlelady yield. mrs. tauscher: no, thank you. i yield to the gentleman from washington. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> the committee's bill does provide $9.3 billion for missile defense which fully funds the capabilities we need to protect our country. the threat to the nation from ballistic missiles is real. our ad versares have -- our adversaries have a variety of weapons and are working on others. the number of s.m.-3 interceptors will grow, the number of thad interceptors will grow from 97 to 287. these are urgently needed to protect our troops in the field. this also provides for testing of ground-based mid course defense and follows secretary gates' are recommendation to have the number of interceptors at 30. secretary gates said at the level of capab

second, the videotapes will act as deterrent for private contracts or other agencies who are conducting interrogations of the department of defense detainees from straying from those requirements of the army field manual in the treatment of detainees. it is a way to ensure that it is done right and when you have a correctly conducted interrogation, in all probability the results will be positive. and i certainly think this is a major step in the right direction, videotaping is good. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: i rise in very strong opposition to this amendment and yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: we've been down this road before. last year, mr. holt proposed a similar amendment to the bill. we received statements from the army and undersecretary of defense for intelligence stating their opposition to mandatory videotaping and interrogations. today the office of the secretary of defense informed us that the department strongly

the arguments is the reason there are fewer demonstrated problems now with minority access to the deterrents in the city attorney's view of congress's 14th amendment power and justice thomas articulates in in his dissenting opinion, prophylaxis is outside congress's authority. congress has authority only to remedy, not to deter, so it's a fascinating issue. i don't think congress is institutionally capable of satisfying the supreme court no matter what the supreme court says, and no matter what congress does, i think the issue will come back and be joined either by this court or by the roberts' court as it evolves over time. >> thank you. let's move now to another area of the court's doctrine. this is an area which has been very prominent in the present term, and that is the question of whether state tort law lawsuits are preempted by either federal statutes or the actions of federal administrative ajetions and that -- agencies and that surfaced in two important cases this turn. ted olson, would you like to take us into the preemption part of this? >> i would love to. i know preemption is ve

care physicians, they tell me there are three things in their life that really is -- they feel a deterrent to coming into primary care. number one, reimbursement. i would acknowledge that. number two, dealing with the hassle factor and they would like to be able to practice primary care rather than a lot and number three they do have stood alone as particularly the younger practitioners so the scope of this committee deals with one. mr. chairman a couple of months ago i was checking in a grocery line checkout counter and one of the young lady is to undo tony when she want to do to the to be a doctor but she found out that by going to your interests in maryland would cost anywhere from 100 to $120,000 even living at home. the daughter of a single mother. she founded breathtaking, she found a stunning. she cannot comprehend or in that family that family income is under $30,000 that she was going to go and incur a $100,000 of debt so just the thought of it at times precludes people of embracing a pursuits which obviously could be a wonderful and rewarding career. so let's meet the needs to wh