versus reynolds. in that case the court made it clear that if the court after giving appropriate deference branch giving public disclosure of information would harm national security, the court is obliged to either dismiss the case or limit the public disclosure of national security information as necessary. under this doctrine, people with legitimate claims are not demind access to court review. rather, the doctrine allow judges to personally review any sensitive information. while this doctrine may occasionally disadvantage someone suing in court, it is vital to protecting the safety of all americans. the roots of the state secret privilege extend all the way back to chief justice marshall the author of marbury vs. madison who said the government need not provide any information that would endanger the public safety. in the modern era, congress debated the issue of the state secret privilege under federal law in the '70s but ultimately chose to maintain the status quo including elements of the privi

we have the reynolds case that has been cited, the el-masri site most recently, the eastern district of virginia, the jefferson case i understand luby discussed, the fourth circuit case. all these reflect different approaches in different results. some better, some not so good depending upon your viewpoint. but i believe that congress, being the important third branch of government, should act to provide the guidance and clarity in terms of what is the right approach to provide the independent review of the state's secrets privilege. house resolution 984 is an excellent foundation to consider this. provides for an independent assessment by the courts. it does not require substantial deference and i know this is a little bit of a touchy issue but if i might just make the point that in other areas of litigation where there is some deference, foia, other regulatory areas, there are fine guidelines in history and regulations that give guidance in those areas that fine-tune it before it ever gets to the court and perhaps there is a distinction between the deference given in those circumst

>> i think that the basic principle, the one that was endorsed by the supreme court in reynolds, it is the judge should be the decision maker as to whether it a privilege applies. he ought to make an appear -- a -- and an independent assessment. it takes away that from the underlying principle. >> congressman hutchinson come those who oppose often argue that it is the president of the executive branch, not the court that has greater expertise and responsibility for safeguarding national security. did you underestimate the responsibility of the courts in our cost digital scheme, your testimony says york times to overstate to avoid exposure, does the argument also overlook the potential conflict for the government in the case with the information that seeks to withhold information that might be embarrassing or provide information about illegal conduct? >> the key point is that we have to give the courts but tools and a guidance to ensure an independent review. any language, such as substantial deference would undermine that independent review in terms of the ability of the courts to wait

he cited the reynolds case, i mentioned earlier in doing so. i oppose any efforts, including this bill, that invite the court's to deviate from the some procedures they correctly follow to protect security information. the bill would preclude judges from giving way to the executive branch's assessment of national security. it would authorize courts not to use proceedings in conducting a review of claims. it would prevent courts from being able to dismiss the case from the government -- when the government cannot defend itself without using privileged information. the obama administration is not enamored with the approach of this legislation. it has adhered in court to the doctrine as asserted by the previous administration. according to the editorial page of "the washington post" says it is hard is distinguish the obama's administration from the bush administration's position. last congress legislation essentially the same as this one was co-sponsored in the senate by joe biden and hillary clinton, who are now the vice president and secretary o

reynolds, the supreme court acknowledged that ultimately it is a judge must decide whether that privilege applies or not. judges who have been administering the privilege have struggled with varying success to find a middle way between protecting security and ensuring access i were the plaintiffs to some remedy. unfortunately, the judges have not been consistent in a way -- in the way the administer the privilege. some show a readiness to dismiss cases outright, and some pro more intensely. some judges look at the item that is the state secrets privilege has raised to, and some are content to look at the affidavits. there is not any consistency as to how substantial the risk has to be to justify closing down the case. in summary, i think there is a consensus is time to regularize the administration of the privilege in a way that protects national security, but not at the expense of a total shutdown of civil process for the claimants. i make two points here. there is nothing that i can find in this bill that prevents the government from raising or invoking the state secrets privilege, and

thank you again to the reynolds foundation for generally -- generously supporting the symposium. i would like to begin by acknowledging the alumni who have joined us today. i created the washington term program 22 years ago. without the loyal support of the alumni in washington, i could never have kept the program going. they have provided helps with -- they have provided help with internships and visits. they have been enormously helpful. over the many years when i have called on alums for help, no one has ever said no to me. of course, none of you will ever break that record. i think again to the alumni. the washington alumni are very supportive. i would like to ask my current students to stand up to be acknowledged. the students this year are interning in a wide variety of offices, including the office of the speaker nancy pelosi, cbs news, the american enterprise institute, the center for american progress, the health committee, and a variety of other internships. these are my current crop of students. they will also be alums and be very supportive of the program in the futur

this is chairman reynolds, and on behalf of the u.s. comig on civil rights, i welcome everyone to this briefing on health care disparities. this project is examining why despite the continued advances in health care and technology racial and ethnic minorities continue to have more disease, disability, and premature death than nonminorities. more specifically, the commission will examine racial disparities in the rates of cardiovascular disease and the related condition of hypertension. experts will present the commissioners with results from on ongoing research and health care delivery systems access to and quality of community education, patient behavior and other aspects of health differences between population groups. the record of this briefing will be open until july 13th. public comments may be mailed to the commission. and at our address at 624 9th street northwest room 740, washington, d.c., the zip code is 20425. this morning we're pleased to welcome two panels of experts that will address this topic. on the first panel, speake

thank you again to the reynolds foundation for generously supporting this symposium. i would like to begin by acknowledging the alumni who joined today as bryan said, i created the washington program 22 years ago and without the loyal support of the alumni in washington, d.c. i could never have kept this without internships and jobs upon graduation or speakers in seminars and visits the alumni have been helpful. i like to thank the alumni eve dance over the many years when i called on the alums for help no one has ever said no to me and the alumni even some usually at none of you are going to break that on that record. thanks again to the alumni, very, very supportive. i would also like to ask my washington term students, the current students to stand up so they can be acknowledged. the students are entering in a wide variety of offenses including speaker nancy pelosi, gop whip, eric cantor, center for american progress, a top committee under kennedy, senate foreign relations committee under richard lugar and a variety of other internships, so these are my current cro

so i don't think -- like don't think the supreme court in reynolds or anyplace else suggested that this was some kind of sacrosanct constitutional privilege that couldn't be touched. >> mr. hutcheson? >> i think the argument is that somehow legislative in this area and impedes the executive from his national security responsibilities protecting our country and i don't see any challenge to that authority at all. the legislation is being considered doesn't stop them from exercising state secrets from implementing national security programs. it doesn't change the fact they can assert that privilege. it just says that when it gets to the courts after the fact always when it's going to be reviewed then there's going to be a process in our system of checks and balances, so i do not see this as taken away from the authority of the chief executive in terms of national security. >> well, if we were in court, mr. grossman, you would be on the short end of this discussion >> that is perhaps the true numerically speaking. [laughter] i think if you look at the supreme court's decisions and opinions

thank you for the invitation, chairman reynolds and co-chairman. my name is sally satel. i'm a resident scholar at the american institute and i work at a methadone clinic in washington, d.c. and i wanted to give you an overview today of the contours of the health disparity issue. in fact, i almost call it a health disparity debate. what do i mean by debate? there are certainly no controversy over the fact that minorities have poorer health status and often poorer healthcare, both the variables that dr. chandra spoke of. there's no dispute there. but the debate has to do with the causes of those differentials and the causes, of course, lead us to the remedies. so there are two starkly different perspectives on the causes, and dr. chandra spoke to them already. he characterized them in short as dynamics within the clinical encounter, biased physicians and even biased health systems. that's one perspective. versus the -- what i call a more socioeconomic focus. on inadequacies of health systems that disproportionately served low-incomed individuals who are disproportionately

thank you, chairman reynolds and co-chairman. my name is sally satel, and i work at a methadone clinic in northeast washington, d.c., and i wanted to give you an overview today of the contours of the health despair to debate. now, what do i mean by debate? there is certainly no controversy over the fact that minorities have poor health status and often poor health care, both variables which dr. chandra spoke of, but the debate has to do with the causes of those differentials, and the causes, of course, lead us to the remedies. so there are two starkly different perspectives on the causes, and dr. chandra spoke to them already. he characterized them in short as dynamics within the clinical encounter, biased positions, and even body is to help systems. that is one perspective -- by his physicians. and even body is to help systems. -- biased physicians and even biased health systems. there is the 2002 institute of medicine report, and i want to spend a little bit of time on that. that report is called on equal treatment. it got an e

reynolds uses. it's their new version of camel cigarettes targeted to girls and women. it's camel no. 9. sort of a takeoff on some descriptions we've heard. this has she can, shiny black packaging and flowery ads and the advertising light and luscious. this advertisement has appeared in "kos mow poll tan," "in style," "lucky" and marie clair magazines. women are now at increased risk for lung cancer, heart attacks, strokes, emphysema and other deadly diseases. these statistics are staggering, and it's important to remember that they represent mothers, grandmothers, aunts, sisters, colleagues, and friends. 17-year-old kate steward of dover, new hampshire, has seen these camel no. 9 advertisements. she saw them in "glamour" magazine. she sees through the campaign. she says -- and i quote -- "tobacco companies advertise to pry to get me and my friends to smoke. they try to make young girls that i smoking is sexy, glamorous and cool. they know that if they get us to start smoking now, we will be addicted for years to come." now, it's not just cigarettes that we're attemptin