grossman. in light of the nimble major you have responded to previous comments or questions, i would ask you if you could address this panel on the limit or the scope of the existing executive privilege state secrets doctrine. let me just say hypothetically if there was a white house that had contracted with an enterprise that had the trappings of a criminal enterprise to engage as a contractor and working with developing the census which happens of course every ten years in the united states and if the results of the senses might genetically change the congressional districts in america, change the political dynamics in america, if those results of counting the people to maybe be extrapolated by formula than the constitutional requirement to count people, if those -- and if that enterprise appeared to be a criminal enterprise or something that happened to be also supportive of turning out the vote for that very same white house would there be able to express or assert an executive privilege th

grossman seems to have great confidence in the executive. his testimony is there are 7 separate requirements including the department of justice review and personal consideration by high-ranking federal officials, ensuring that the state secrets privilege is used only when necessary to protect state secrets. i respect the sincerity of his belief. but at the same time, in my judgment, it is not what the founders designed when they created the constitution, and there was meant to be these checks and balances. it is and distrust of government. >> you indicated you are a conservative. i share your conservatism in this particular area because it is so fundamental. secrecy is the hallmark of totalitarianism, and transparency is clearly the aspect of viable democracy. we are out of balance. i am not here to defend the obama administration. this is something the united states congress must do. to reorder the balance of power, the separation of power. we ought to be looking at how are things classified? i know how things are classified in some agenci

grossman was a writer, editor and general analyst at heritage. contributing to think tanks research program in domestic policy, foreign policy and legal affairs. mr. grossman is a graduate of the george mason university school of law where he served the senior articles editor of the george mason law review. he received his master degree of government from the university of pennsylvania in 2007. in 2002, he received his bachelor's degree in economics and anthropology from dartmouth college where he edited the dartmouth review. he specializing in national security human rights and first amendment issues. he's litigated several post-9/11 civil liberties cases in which the government has invoked the state secrets privilege including al-massi versus the united states the challenge to the cia, abduction, torture of an innocent german citizen, mohammed jepson a suit against a private aviation company for facilitating the cia's rendition to torture of five muslim men and edmonds versus department of justice a whistle blower retaliation suit on behalf of

grossman is always on the case. mr. wizner, you're a relative newcomer here but we welcome you and it's no secret that what we're going to say and do here today is going to be information for everybody to help decide how we resolve this situation. tufor your indulgence, chairman nadler. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in the interest of proceeding to our witnesses and mindful of our busy schedule, i would ask that other members submit their statements for the record. without objection all members who have five legislative sundays to submit statements for inclusion of the record. we will declare a recess for votes on the floor as we ask questions of the witness the chair will recognize witnesses in the order of their seniority ultimating between majority and minority they are member when their turn recognized. the chair reserves the right to accommodate a member who is late or who is able to be with us for a short time. i would like to introduce our panel of witnesses. the first witness is the honorable patricia wald who had

grossman it is always on the case, mr. wizner. you are a relative newcomer here but we welcome you and it is no secret that what we are going to see and do here today is going to be information for everybody to help decide how we resolve this situation. thank you for your indulgence mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. in the interest of proceeding to our witnesses and mindful of their busy schedules i would ask members submit their statements for the record. without objection all members have five legislative days to submit-- the chair will be efforts to declare a recess of the hearing which we do in the case of those on the floor. as well as questions the sure will recognize members in the order of seniority on the subcommittee alternating between majority and minority providing. members or not present when their term begins will be recognized after the other members have had an opportunity to ask questions. the chair urges the rights to only able to be with us for a short time. i would like that to introduce our panel of wi

grossman indicated there was some evidence. what is that evidence? or are you speculate? >> i am speculating, based on. >> that's fine. no, please go ahead. >> when they were in the senate, both senator biden and senator obama were both critics of the state secrets privilege. since assuming office, the administration has used the privilege in at least three cases that we are aware. all three of those cases were very controversial in vocations of privilege. the cases that have resulted in much of the -- in this congress, as well as in the public theater. essentially, it is speculation. i have not asked anyone in the executive branch what their thinking on this is, but a reasonable conclusion can be drawn by what has exit occurred. >> can you explain the attorney general's failure to provide a witness? >> no. >> anyone else want to weigh in on this? >> i will to say, i appreciate the fact that the attorney general is looking within the executive branch as to refining their internal procedures of the assertion of the state privileges doctrine. to me, that raises the profile,

grossman for 5 minutes. >> good afternoon. my testimony concerns the consequences of the state secrets protection act which limits the privilege. the legislation is unnecessary because there is no evidence that the privilege has been abused. it is unconstitutional because it avoids -- in the board's -- ignores president. the legislation would invite the courts to intrude on the power and responsibility of congress to make policy. this would upset careful pollin crist balances. contrary to repeated claims, there is nothing unusual about the privilege. seven requirements ensure the privilege is used only when necessary. judges play a crucial role by ensuring is properly applied. courts have cited a debate clause to throw out suits by members of congress involved invasion of privacy, defamation, discrimination, retaliation, and these are harsh results, but for a greater good. in the same way the privilege advances the greater public good -- protecting our nation. there is no evidence that the privilege is being abused or used mor

. >> yelena grossman. i wonder what the panel thinks about the need for conventional security guarantees, or perhaps a whole range of them, substitute for the allure of nuclear weapons on the part of emerging nuclear-weapons states. >> we have not specifically examined what you call conventional military guarantees, but we do have an agenda that will address issues like that going forward. we say in the handout that we recognize the reality of regional security concerns, and in some cases, one example being japan, whose 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 qu

grossman an opportunity, they said this is not change, this is more of the same. will give you a chance to agree or disagree. >> i agree entirely and it is quite heartening. demonstrates that this is not a partisan matter. it is not a political matter. is about the safety of our nation, the tween presidential administrations, there has been no disagreement. >> i know i took the opportunity to express' some feelings that the administration has been hypocritical in some of the attacks it made on the previous administration and has come to some realities that are always easy to ignore in a campaign. what is important here is for all of us to realize the truth in time travel on the same road, the truth always has the last word. perhaps in this institution and in our campaigns, we should try to figure out what is right instead of who is right. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the purpose of this hearing is regardless of the position of any of ministers and to figure out what is right, not who is right, and i agree with you. i think the witnesses. there will be 5

grossman for five minutes. >> good afternoon mr. chairman, ranking member sensenbrenner and members of the 70. my testimony concerned the consequences of the state secrets protection act. and i have three points. first, this legislation is unnecessary because there's absolutely no evidence the state's sikh which privilege has been abused for the second it is unconstitutional because it of ignores clear supreme court precedent of the president's power to safeguard national security secrets and third, this position when and by the courts to insure on congress' power and responsibility to make security policy. upsetting the careful balance is congress has struck. i will begin with some background. contrary to often repeated claims there's nothing sinister or unusual about the state secrets privilege. seven supper requirements including the part of justice review and personal consideration by high-ranking federal officials insure the privilege is used only when necessary to protect national security and judges play a crucial role by ens

be sticky since about 15 or 68 centuries iraq tonight on the communicators the co-chairman of a grossmanr of random house on how the publishing industry is changing. >> when you read something great you want to be a kind of heirloom product for you personally. and when you have digital media it is harder to read that to be true, you can't actually be proud of a bookshelf and that is a memory stick. >> the future of publishing, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the communicators on c-span2. >> later this summer there will be freezing in the secure side passenger id system, we talked about at this morning on the "washington journal" were about 30 minutes. >> host: kip hawley, head of the transportation security administration from 2005 to 2009 joining us from mountain view, california. thanks for being with us. >> guest: thanks to be here. >> host: looking at the baltimore sun reporting about this tsa to require a gender, birth date of wires as part of secure allied airlines last passengers buying tickets to provide their names exactly as it appears on a government issued identification a pl

grossman for five minutes. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman. ranking member sensenbrenner and members of the subcommittee. my testimony today concerns the consequences of the state secrets protection act which will severely limit the state secrets privilege. i have three points. first this legislation is unnecessary because there's absolutely no evidence that the state secrets privilege has been abused. second, it is unconstitutional because it ignores supreme court precedent on the president's power to safeguard national security secrets and third this legislation would invite the courts to intrude on congress' power and responsibility to make national security policy. upsetting the careful balances the congress has struck. i'll begin with some background. contrary to often-repeated claims there's nothing sinister or unusual about the state secrets privilege. seven separate requirements including department of justice review and personal consideration by high ranking federal officials ensure that the privilege is used only when necessary to pr

grossman and opportunity, the aclu said this isn't changed, this is more the same and i want to give you a chance to disagree or agree with the aclu director. .. >> what is important here, i think, is for all of us to realize that truth and time travel on the same road and that truth always has the last word and that somehow perhaps in this institution and in our campaigns we should try to figure out what's right instead of who's right all the time, and with that i yield back. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. i think the purpose of this hearing is regardless of the purpose of any administration to figure out what's right, not who is right, and i agree with the gentleman in that. i thank the witnesses. without objection, all members will have five days to subject written questions to the witnesses which we will forward and ask the witnesses to answer as quickly as you can. without objection, five legislative days to submit materials for inclusion in the record. without objection, i thank the witnesses and the members, and with that this hearing is adjourned. >> pleasure to serve w