tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN February 25, 2016 8:00pm-12:01am EST
billion in 2006 and every year we can find earmarks in the appropriation bill it is released. >> sunday night q and a. >> tonight, house minority leader nancy pelosi talks about the refusal to hold hearings on president obama nominee. and speaker ryan talks about the budget and then a house hearing on the defense budget. today senators discussed the senators of republican leaders not to hold conformation hearings for president obama's supreme court nominee. the president said it is his constitutional duty to propose a
candidate to the senate. this is two hours and begins with charles grassley. >> yesterday the minority leader came to the floor to disparage the work the senate judiciary committee and disparage the work of the senate as a whole. has he does from time to time he launched into a personal attack against me. that is okay. i don't intend to return the favor. i love senator reed. i don't want to talk about the nuclear option and the damage that did to the sen achlt over the years
and years the democrat senators had had to endure his leadership without being able to offer an amendment we had the story about one democratic senator who was defeated in the last election.
he never got a chance to make a vote during the entire time in the united states senate. we know that is how some people act when they don't get to wait. tantrums are in appropriate for the senate. i think if my friend senator biden had been in the chamber today he would have said, as you have heard him say so many times, that is a bunch of malarkey. i didn't come to talk about the minority leader but i wanted to follow-up on my remarks earlier this week
on the biden rules. senator biden didn't make these rules up out of thin air. his speech back in 1992 went into great historical detail on the history and practice of vacancy for presidential
election years. he discussed how the senate handled these vacancy and how presidents should and have handled them. based on that history and a doze of good common sense senator biden layed it -- laid it out in the divided government. now the biden rules are very clear my friend did a good job laying out the history and providing the sound reasons for these biden rules. they boiled down to two fundamental points. first the president should
exercise restraint and quote not name a nominee until after the november election is completed. end of quote. as i said on monday, president lincoln is a pretty good role model for this practice or stated differently the president should let the people decide. but if the president choses newt follow president lincoln's model but instead as chairman biden said quote goes the way of johnson and presses an election year nomination end of quote then the senate shouldn't consider the nomination and shouldn't hold hearings. it doesn't matter quote how good a person is nominated by the president end of quote. or stated plainly it is the principle not the person that
matters. as i said on monday, vice president biden is an honorable man and loyal. those of him who know him know this is true. i wasn't surprised on monday evening when he released a statement defending his remarks and defending the president's decision to press forward with a nominee. and under the constitution the president can do that. like i predicted on monday vice president biden is a loyal number two. but the vice president had the difficult task of explaining today why all of the arguments he made in 1992 are not really his view. it was a tough sale. and vice president biden did his best monday evening.
but i must say i think that chairman biden would view vice president biden's comments the same way he would view the minority's comments today. he would call it like he sees it. as we so often heard him say it is a bunch of malarkey. here is part of what vice president biden said: some critics say one expert of the speech is evidence i don't support filling a supreme court vacancy during an election here. this is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. in the same speech critics are pointing to today i urge the senate and white house to overcome partisan differences and work together to ensure that the core function as the
cooperation when he called for withholding consent quote no matter how good a person is nominateno nomina nominated by the president end of quote. was he suggesting the president and senate work together a little bit more when he said we should not hold hearings until these circumstances was that all about cooperation between the branches? well, since we are talking about filling justice scalia's seat it seems appropriate to ask how would he solve this puzzle? i suppose he would start with a text. so let's begin with. in 1992, chairman biden discussed cooperation between the branches. yes, in fact, he did. so far so good for vice president biden.
but that can not be the end of the matter because it doesn't explain the two vastly different interpretations of the statement. let's look at the text. here is what chairman biden said about cooperation between the branches quote "let me start with the nomination process and how the process might be changed in the next administration whether it is a democrat or a republican" and remember again emphasize that was during the 1992 election. well, mr. president, we didn't have to search very long to honor textual reference regarding the meaning of chairman biden's words in 1992. yes, he shared some thoughts about how he believed the president and senate might work
together but that cooperation was to occur within the next administration. in other words, after the presidential election of 1992, after the senate withheld consent on any nominee "no matter how good a person is nominated by the president" so the text is clear. if you need more evidence this is an accurate understanding of what the biden rules mean look no further than a lengthy ""washington post" article. he said "as someone steps down i would highly recommend the president not name someone not sent a name up" and if the president does send someone up "if the president did send
someone up, i would ask the senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee" >> specifically there are decisions about to be made by the supreme court and in the middle of the presidential election of the year. chairman biden went on and there would be no bounds of propriety that would be honored by either side. the environment within such a hearing would be held would be super charged and so prone to be able to be distorted end of
quote. at the end of the day, mr. president, the text of chairman's biden's 1992 statement is very clear. so in 2016 when he is serving as the loyal number two to this president vice president biden is forced to argue that the biden rules secretly mean the exact opposite of what they say. ironically that is a trick justice scalia taught us all to recognize and to reject on site. we know that we should look to the clear meaning of this text as justice scalia taught us. this was not a one off comment by senator biden. it was a 2000 word floor speech
laying out forcefully a difficult and principled decision. it relied on historical precedent. it relied upon respect for democracy. it relied on respect to for the integrity of the nomination process. there is no doubt what senator biden meant. mr. president, there is a broader point and i hope in the next several months we concentrate on the broader point and that is text matters. justice scalia devoted his adult life to these first principles. do the american people want to elect a president who will nominate a justice in the mould of scalia to replace him? or do they want to elect a
president clinton or sanders who will nominate a justice who will move the courts in a drastically more liberal decision? do they want a justice who will look to the constitution text when drilling down on the most difficult constitutional questions? or do they want, yet, another justice who on those really tough cases basis the decision on what is in the the justice's heart as obama said. we lost one of the great jur jurorist. it is up to the american people whether we deserve his legacy.
do you follow the text of the constitution? of the law? or what is in the hearts of justices on the supreme court? this is a debate we should have. this is a debate that i hope we will have. this is a debate that i hope will be in three or four national debates between nominee clinton and sanders on one side and whoever the republicans nominate on the other side. the american people should be involved and then we should let the american people decide. i yield the floor. >> i want to speak
personalablely about another matt matter. senator hatch is here and i would like another opportunity to respond but we have become friends and worked on the same committee and served on the same body and are i respect. the -- this is about the passing of justice scalia and if this place on the supreme court will be filled and if so who will do it and when.
the first place you turn when it it comes to asking the questions is the only document that matters. it is this document we swore to uphold and defend. democrat and republican. this dockment is explicitt and spelling out the responsibilities when it comes to a vacancy on the supreme court -- documents -- article section 2 says the president shall appoint, shall appoint, and the senate shall give advice and consent to that nominee. it is our responsibility to do this. it is amazing to me in the history of this republic, guided by this great document, we have
reached a point in 2016 where those simple words and directions in the constitution are being challenged and ignored by the republican majority. there has never been a moment in history when the senate has refused a vote on a nominee. and mr. president, i cannot say never, but it has been more than 150 years since we have allowed a vacancy on the supreme court to allow to go on for more than a year as the republicans and senate are determined to do
here. that 150 years goes back to the civil war. so i say to my colleagues you are about to make history if you stand by this decision. if you decide that senate judiciary committee will not entertain a nominee it will be the first time in the united states. if the senate republican leadership makes the decision even if it nominee they will never allow a vote it will be the first time in the history of the united states. that is why this is a definitive issue. that is why this is so unusual
whatever this theory was and we all express a lot of theories joe biden was respectful of this document and knew what the united states constitutional said. the republican senators and the majority are going to walk away from this constitution, turn their backs on it. i have a lengthy statement with consent included in my remarks here which goes into the question of why the republican majority continues to obstruct
the appointment of judges and people to serve on the branches has been unprecedented. they decided long ago they would not give this president the same treatment, the same respect as has been given to other presidents. and now it has been brought front and center with this vacancy, this scalia vacancy on the supreme court. i disagree with justice scalia on a lot of things but i do not argue with the judge of the s seventh circuit in my state when he said justice scalia was a major force in terms of thinking on the supreme court. and what was the philosophy of justice scalia was what he called originalism. some people mocked it and some disagreed. but he said time and time again
we the constitution and we the precise wording of the constitution. i saw different things in those words than he did. but that is what his gold star was when it came to decisions. article 2, section 2, that says the president shall appoint and that the senate should talk about the nominee. there is no doubt. if he relied on the president of the united states, the history of the united states, that the united states senate has never denied a hearing it a presidential nominee until this moment in history, has never refused to vote on a nominee until this moment in history, he would realize what is being done
is unprecedented and uncalled for. 54 votes strong against 46 on the democratic side really disagree with the president's choice, his nominee, whoever it may be, they have an option. there is a constitutional option. the constitutional option is hold a hearing, do the background check, which is done. and then vote and if you disapprove of the nominee vote no. that is the regular order and the regular course of events. that is the constitutional way to approach this. but they have gone either further. senator mcconnell said two days ago he would not only give the president's nominee no hearing and no vote but he refuses to even meet with that person whoever it may be. that is the length they will go
to to avoid facing the constitutional responsibility that every senator has. you can quote joe biden's, vice president joe biden's speeches as 25 years ago as long as you want, you can read his words over and over again. this is what he swore to defend. history will not look kindly on this decision by the republican jury. history will not give them a pass. history will ask time and again how could you ignore the constitution? how could you ignore your
responsibility under that constitution? why won't you do your job? a job you were elected to do to fill this vacancy? is a temporary victory worth this? i don't think it is. i hope when the republican senators go home, and meet with their constituents over the weekend and days ahead, they will have second thoughts. when the president sends a nominee i hope they will abide by the constitution and be respectful of this document and respectful of this president and give his nominee the same due consideration that has been dpi given to nominees throughout history. justice anthony kennedy became a justice on a supreme court when a democrat controlled senate gave him a hearing and a vote in
a presidential year much like this one. a lame duck outgoing president appointed justice kennedy. a democrat senate didn't refuse to meet with him or refuse the vote but said we will abide by the constitution. for this outgoing president has the full authority of office. president obama deserves nothing less. we as senators have a responsibility under the constitution regardless of what speech was made 25 years ago. mr. president, i field the floor. >> the senator from utah. >> madam president, i have been very concerned about the tentative debate. you know, certainly some read
the constitution different from others. yes, the president has an absolute right to nominate. and we have an absolute right to consider the nomnition and give advice on it. there are 160 justice nominated over the years and 36 of them were nominated and for some reason never got a vote in a number of cases. there is a lot of precedent here you can ignore. one precedent we should not ignore is i am very upset. the majority leader yesterday slandered my other dear friend, the chairman of the judiciary
committee, senator grassley, by calling him inept as the committee chairman. there is no room for that kind of language. even if it was true and it isn't. senator grassley is one of the most effective hard working advi decent senators in the united states senate. everybody know he treats people fairly. so i hope we can get rid of that kind of language and start treating people with decency and with regard. we differ widely with the democrats on this issue and other issues. we are not slandering them.
i would stand up if a republican did this. it just shouldn't happen. on tuesday, i rose to honor the memory of the late justice antonin scalia. i know him well. with this passing the nation lost one of its greatest supreme court justice's to serve and i lost a gr friend. today i rise to make the case the next president should make the nominee repetraeus juss antonin scalia. the first task is to situate the senate's role and let me embark on an approach that justice scalia employed to make the same point. in addressing oaudiences the lae justice asked what part of the constitution was most important in protecting the liberties of
the people. audiences provided protection for the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be secure in houses, and unreasonable search and seizures. justice scalia voted they were important but made one crucial observation. even the most repesive dictat dictatorships had provisions akin to our bill of rights in their constitution. simply writing them doesn't ensure their protection. i ask i be allowed at a complete my remarks? >> without objection. >> james madison said the accumulation of all power in the
same hands may be pronounced the definition of tyranny. there were powers with those powers diffused and balanced within three co-branches of government. they decide cases and controversy it is in the words of mar berry versus madison the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. judges have the power to hold political branches to responsibility and their ability to restrain the political majority from exceeding the authority granted to govern by
the sovereign people. it is the source of the pit falls of the government in which five lawyers can substitute their personal policy preferences for the legitimate branches and legislative branches and retricting the powers of the self-governing people. the dangers of the accountable of judiciary to say what the law is and instead says what it thinks it should be makes the process important. there is a careful process envisioned by the framers and this is the means by which we can maintain the integrity of the judicial branch. the roles of the president and
the senate are layed out. article three section two provides the president shall nominate and bind with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint judges of the supreme court and other officers of the united states by creating two separate roles in the process the executive branch to nominate a legislative branch to provide advice and consent. the framers were creating rival interest. alexander hamilton explained the rational for this allocation of power in federalist number 76. following from the example thof massachusetts constitution the framers invested the nomination's in one officer, the president to ensure accountability in selecting nominees and to guard against corruption and in propriety and imprudence that characterized
the appointment process in many of the states. by concentrating the power in one person the framers sought to accountability and in hamilton's words a more exact regard to reputation. the framers invested an unchecked appointment power in the president alone by requiring the president to submit the nominee for the senate's approval the founders thought to stall any potential abuse of the nomination power. hamilton argued the requirement of advice and consent would serve as an excellent check on upon a spirit of favorite ism in the president and would greatly prevent unfit characters from family connection to personal attachment or the popularity.
the president's authority over the nomination history shows the senate equally posesses to reject or confirm the nominee and in the clause there is a limit of considerations the senate can take up. but the president's right to veto legislation the senate enjoys complete and final discretion in whether to approve or even consider a nomination. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have taken up the mantra with respect to the current vacancy, despite what the democrats are saying, our job is not to follow a path found nowhere in the constitution but rather to determine the most appropriate
way to fulfill our advice and consent rule for this vacancy. the senate would not be doing its job if we don't vote. voting and consent can be just as valid of our role as granting. defending the conformation process for a particular vacancy may be the most appropriate and responsible exercise of advice and consent: it all depends on the circumstances. madam president, consider these precedents. the senate has never, never confirmed a nominee of the supreme court vacancy that opened up this late in a term limited president's time in office. it is only the third vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the american people had already starting voting in a presidential election. and in both the previous two
instances, 1956 and 1968, the senate did not confirm the nominee until the following year. in other words, after the election had occurred. that is precedent. it has been more than three quarters of a century since the supreme court justice has been nominateed and confirmed in a presidential election year. and the only time the senate has never not voted was in 1916 and that was because chief justice charles evans hughes resigned to run against incumbant woodrow wilson. the consciousness of approaching
the vacancy are amplified. in the last election the american people went to the polls to speak out about the obama administration including the laws against illegal immigration, its regulation contrary to the plain text of the law such as the clean power plant, it's willingness to igno ignore stach toreies such as the president releasing the top five taliban leaders without notifying congress as required by law, the stretch of the executive branch does poses
recognition such as the mass clemency effort for drug offenders, and about topass the senate's role in the conformati conformati conformation process one of nearly two dozen times the obama administration lost 9-0 before the supreme court. the american people elected the republican majority to check the overreach of president obama. and given our proving of holding this administration accountable to the constitution and the law the senate has ever reason to approach lifetime appointments consciously and deliberately. leaving justice scalia's seat open until after the election would hardly result in a constitutional crisis. an absence of this would be hardly an issue as the court has adapted to vacancys over two
years and in 1970 accommodated the vacancy for over a year thanks to liberal obstruction of two candidates nominated by a republican president. -- justice robert jackson took a year long leave of absence to serve as chief prosecutor to the war car crimes tribunal and justice francis wrote and advs e advised he didn't sacrifice a single interest of importance. we would all prefer to court to be full but it is not unusual to have an 8-8 court that does its job. often times the court is required to consider various
cases including cases like arizona vs the united states and fischer vs the united states with a reverse number of justice. an uneven number of justice never stops the justice from functioning. justice kagen had to excuse herself in 38 cases. in the unlikely event a tie should occurred, as has occurred in only two of 38 justice kagen's rulings, the ruling of the lower court is upheld. only a relatively small minority of cases,typically less than 20% are decided 5-4 and fewer along
certain lines. the court has the authority to hold cases over or argue them when a new justice is confirmed. put simply, the absence of one of the non-justice on the court is not unanimous but a lifetime appoint is. counsel in favor of waiting until after the election why would we act to otherwise because the other party tells us to do so. the minority leader made the same point when he rejected the senate must give the nominees an up or down vote. he said it would be rewriting the constitution and reinventing reality. he said, let's refer to this chart, the duties of the united
states are set forth in the constitution of the united states. nowhere in that document does it say the senate has the duty to give presidential nominees a vote. it says a premise should be made with the advice and consent of the senate. that is very different than saying that every nominee receives a vote. that is our minority leader. yesterday i was stunned to hear numerous democrats contradict the minority leader on this point. the minority whip said the clear language of the constitution requires an up or down constitution vote. that claim is obviously wrong since the constitution says no such thing. by the minority's leader
standards the democrats are rewriting the constitution and reality. perhaps they received different talking points. the constitution requiring up or down conformation votes is baffling for another reason. between 2003-2007 the minority whip voted to filibuster the nominee 25 times. voting 25 times to deprive an up or down conformation vote he said the constitution language requires now. come on, you cannot have it both ways. many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle repealed to confirm the process until the next president takes office is unprecedented. this part gets me. the filibuster is used to refuse presidential nominees were
unprecedented but many democrats voted for them. the proper question is not whether this happened before but whether or not this is the appropriate step to take now. the senate's job is to decide how best to carry out its duty and consent in the situation before us. we are not without guardance in making that judgment. a presidential election year in 1992 in which different parties controlled the white house and senate. joe biden, judicial committee chairman came to this floor on june 5th, 1992 and delivered this longest speech in his then 19 years of this body evaluating the conformation process and suggest suggested reform for the future
and he said if a supreme court vacancy occurred in that presidential election year president george h bush should consider the practice of his majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee after the november election is completed. unquote. if the president did chose the nominee, chairman biden said they should consider not scheduleing conformation hearings until after the campaign political season is over now. unquote. i am sure vice president biden might feel differently now. to form the conformation process until the next president was in office was the most appropriate way for the senate to confer their role. chairman biden said several factors that led to this
recommendation and everyone ouf these factors exist today. first, it would have taken place in divided government. second, he said the president had recently made controversial supreme court appointments noting those nominees received a significant number of negative votes in the senate. the same is true today. says obama's points are both among the top five most opposed supreme court nominees in history. or should or should i say appointees in history. chairman biden noted the presidential election cycle had already began. that is the case today. that is the case today in numerous states that have casted ballots. and other states are ready to
cast ballots probably before the nomination occurs. fourth chairman biden said the conformation process itself had become increasingly divisive. this selection is ironic given its source after all senate democrats are responsible for provoking the conformation wars with the political used to talk about the scenario tactics of thomas. and by the way, i remember when strata was nominated by a republican president and they did everything in their power from trying to stop them from even going to the circuit of appeals for the district of columbia. they did that because -- the circuit court of appeals for the
district court of columbia is a stepping stone. a stepping stone to the supreme court. they didn't want the first hispanic in the history of this country to be on the court nominated by republicans. he is one of the greatest judges in the country and that is what happened. hard to believe from the moaning on the other side when you look at these facts. let's go all the way back to roosevelt. he tried to pack the court. he was a democrat. i am showing here they are all democrats. senate democrats have been responsible for every major of escollation in judicial conformation since 1992.
within two weeks of the bush anomination the senate leader vowed to use whatever necessary to defeat pun desirable nominees. senate democrats organized a retreat a few weeks later with the goal of changing the conformation process rules. democratic congressman, appeals court judge, abner mick urges senate democrats not to consider any supreme court nominees during president bush's first term. he went on to the circuit court of the appeals. in 2003, democrats began to use the filibuster to defeat judicial nominees who would have been confirmed.
charles schumer sent a speech out saying the senate should not confirm a supreme court nominee during bush's last 18 months in office. chairman biden said the state of the conformation process should be fair, consideration of any supreme court nominee, judicial nominee had been defeated by filibuster in years. democrats led 20 filibusters that defeated five appeals court nominees. think about that. in 2006, senators biden, clinton, reed, schumer, obama voted to filibuster the nomination of samuel aleta.
president obama did say last week he regrets voting to filibuster the nomination. though it is unclear why it took him 3,600 days to reach that conclusion. i accept his statement. i like the president personally. but the reason i am bringing these up is there is no reason for the other sides screaming and shouting on this. finally after the dc court of appeals, a court that many consider as important as the supreme court, invalidated several action of the obama administration, democrats openly sought to fill that court in order to obtain decisions. the president's allies focused
on the washington, d.c. circuit to quote sich the majority who were willing to fill up the washington, d.c. circuit one way or another unquote. they broke the rules to change the rules so they could pack this very important court where most of the regulatory matters are decided. and most of the administration l law matters are decided. and the overreaching agenda has the senate democrats using the parliamentary maneuver. the nuclear option to abolish the filibuster nominations they used so aggressively but with one exception they left alone the possibility of filibuster of a supreme court nominationism i
am disappointed and a little baffle at the response of my democrat colleagues. now vice president biden and president obama have said he was speaking in 1992 about a quote hypothetical vacancy unquote. his purpose in doing so was to outline if the vacancy happened. that vacancy is now real. and he is saying the senate shouldn't take his advice. vice president is saying his words are being taken out of context. we have all faced the inconvenient truth of past words and the go-to objection is about context. i have two suggestions. my colleagues should read chairman bidens speech and it
takes up ten pages in the congressional record. this as much context as anyone wants to consider. the second thing is how the media considers the speech. one news story has the headline joe biden once took the gop position on the court vacancy. perhaps they too are contextually challenges. here is what the new york city post says bidens's comments were relative to the current situation and embedded in the words were rebuttals to every points democrats have brought forth in the past week to argue for the consideration of obama's
nomination. well, obama's nominee. the constant reframe of senate democrats and their allies over the past few days is the senate should do its quote job unquote. that means they should they say do what they want to senate is do. the senate would be doing its job by deferring the process for supreme court nominee. senate democrats believe the senate was doing its job by denying the conformation votes of the judicial nominee and the minority leader believes the senate would be doing its job as he said in 2005 the constitution doesn't require to do so. the senior senator from new york
believes the senate would be doing its job if they followed the 2007 recommendation and refused to consider supreme court nominees in a precedent following 18 months. on the other side of the aisle the senator from new york said quote it doesn't matter what anybody said in the past unquote. or as president obama said it quote senators say stuff all of the time unquote. i agree with both of those statements. consider this point, ben franklin wrote in 1789 that quote nothing in this world can be said to be concern except death and taxes unquote. ... year of president -- of a republican president's tenure, a democratic-controlled senate would not only refuse to consider any nominee of the
lame-duck president but would extensively cite chairman biden's 1992 speech and other such clear statements for support. yeah, if this was reversed, you can imagine what the other side would be saying. my personal approach is i think my personal approach is i think you can imagine what the other side of the saying. my personal approaches, i think we ought to get out of this terrible atmosphere. whoever is president has that obligation to nominate. my friends on the other side and have fallen in the trap in which he warned that individual senators may have little interest in opposing presidential encroachment on legislative prerogatives, especially when the encroach are is a pres.a president who is the leader of his own party.
for i conclude i cannot let past the disturbing comments yesterday by our minority leader, friend of mine about judiciary committee chairman grasp in. iin. i have served with him for nearly 25 years on the finance committee. and for 35 years on the judiciary committee. if there is anyone who knows his own mind and makes his own decisions it is chuck grassley. i was flabbergasted by the statement that chairman grassley has allowed the majority leader to run rock shot over him. the minority leaders case depends on grasping at such unwarranted and unjustified personal attacks in the minority leader exposes the weakness of his own position. under john grassley's leadership judiciary committee has reported 21 bipartisan bills, five of which have become law, the
same number as during the entire 100 13th congress under democratic leadership. this contrasts quite clearly to the senior senator from nevada's record as majority leader in which the senate set a record for bills that bypass committee consideration and voted only 15 amendments and all 2014. i know there are different opinions about whether or not know whether or how to address like the vacancy left by justice scalia's death and i appreciate that. and ii appreciate the senators and others feel strongly about these issues. nevertheless, it is absolutely disingenuous -- disingenuous to suggest that chairman grassley is doing anything other than what he believes is right. one of the great senators here. he speaks his mind and we
all no that. madame president, absurd longer on the judiciary committee than any other current member of this body. except for senator leahy. during theduring the past four decades including during my more than eight years as a member of the committee i have strived to develop a record of true fairness toward the nominations made the bottom line here is simple, the constitution obliges the send to take its role seriously with a check on the president especially the supreme court. there are already underway to replace our lame-duck president delaying consideration of the nomination until after the nomination comports out only not only with historical
practice but the prescription of key democrats in the senate and the white house over many years. by protecting the integrity of the supreme court no question about it, senate republicans are acting responsibly. i yield the floor. >> senators from ohio. >> i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call and unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. >> sudden passing of supreme court justice polio leaves us with a vacancy to fill in our country's highest court. but it should not lead us to a year-long political standoff. article two section two of the constitution is clear.
the pres. shall mount i supreme court justice with the advice and consent of the senate. is not say may, maybe. senators do not have to do their jobs in an election year. does not say anything about that.that. that is the tradition of our country, we run for office willingly, enthusiastically, work hard to get here, take an oath of office, get paid every week and every couple of weeks we get a paycheck, yet some are saying we should move forward. complete refusal to consider any nominee is outrageous, and defensible, and unprecedented in spite of what some of my colleagues would like to say. cannot take my word for it. senator grassley said as recently as 2,008 the senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president's term.
we did not elect barack obama whether you voted for against. did not elect him for a three-year term. the country elected him for four years. since the civil war no supreme court vacancy has been left open for a year. for the past century it has taken action on every pending supreme court nominee. i am still, talk to people in ohio all the time. i talked to a republican today support senator rubio for president and probably votes for republican every election. i can't believe what mitch mcconnell did. the people i vote for and senate races would possibly say we are not going to have a hearing. a number of senate republicans have said we won't even shake hands and
are not want to meet with the supreme court nominee. under the constitution shall appoint the present submitting to the united states senate. let's look at what has happened in the past. president reagan's final year in office,, democratic majority unanimously consent -- confirmed justice anthony kennedy. 1988. submitted his name and was confirmed via democratic senate. the senate has been confirming justices in presidential election since our nation's founding. since 1916 every supreme court nominee has received a a hearing or been confirmed quickly before hearing even took place. think about that. yet within hours of the
announcement the republican leader of the senate pretty much said we are not going to do our jobs. they're not going to have a hearing on whoever the pres. ofpresident of the united states nominates. we will not only not have a hearing my am not going to meet with that person. imagine that. that nomination, that vacancy will be more than a year for sure. again, last time there was a vacancy was during the civil war because there was civil war and congress was not very functional in those days. we have nearly a year left
since president obama's term that is plenty of time for the senate to carefully consider and review nominee. president obama made clear that he was not just elective, he was elected decisively. only the 2nd democrat since the civil war to at least twice when a majority of the popular vote. believe the only democrats and 150 years that have gotten the majority of the vote twice. president obama, president roosevelt. decisive wins.
this was a legitimate election. let's look at the longest nomination on record, justice brandeis, the 1st jewish-american to be appointed. took a hundred 25 days. president obama has more than 300 days left. they were elected, sworn in, get but if senate republicans don't do their jobs to supreme court terms will pass. i spoke with professor peter shane professor at osu ohio state's moritz college of law in columbus. a vacancy of this unprecedented length will compromise its abilities to reform -- performs proper constitutional function.
we do these things and create uncertainty, uncertainty in the consumer bureau. the worst kind of uncertainty and the facts entirely one 3rd of the government without a full bench is to be further delayed for americans who fought for years to have their cases heard. leave americans in different parts of the country. how to prevent that, do your job. in the past center mcconnell himself has agreed to normal deliberative approach. ourour job is to react to the nomination in a respectful and dignified way and that thethat the end of the process to give that person up or down vote.
that is what senator mcconnell said a decade ago. we run for these. mia paid every two weeks. we should be doing our job. i'm not saying they have to vote for the nominee but make with them somehow the president begin hearings, meet with the nominees individual who have aand every supreme court nomination since i've been in the senate. they are not going to work not going to do our jobs. how would that make sense. time and time again given republican supreme court nominees a fair hearing. when he was a senator he
oversaw the confirmation of justices nominated by a republican president. even allow justice thomas talent up or down vote on the senate floor even though the committee failed to report his nomination. that means clarence thomas was in front of the judiciary committee majority of member said no. if they still move his nomination to the floor. thomas one 52 to 48. the senate did its job. confirmed by the senate with fewer than 60 votes meeting again they could have blocked him, did not.
at this time republicans are refusing to hold hearings and are refusing to even meet with them. do your job. can you imagine how republicans would have reacted democrats as shown ronald reagan the same disrespect? you understand the history and the story. the consistent attempt to delegitimize a democratically elected president is politics at its worst. they shut down the government. three years later they still do not like the results. well, forget the 2012 election. this is all about the 2016 election. no comments about the president elected with the majority of votes, elected
for a four-year term of four-year term in american history in spite of all my colleagues like to say about revisionist history comeau we have done this in the 4th or 8th year of many presidents. now as they shut down the government in response to the 2012 election was they did not like now there trying to shut down the supreme court process with the year left in the president's term. you do not shut the system down when you do not get your way. the other side of the aisle comeau we need to let the people make their choice. well, they did. they selected a president. this is the 4th year of his term. there is no reason he should
not have the obligation and right to nominate, send a name up here. meet with the nominee, bring them to the floor for a vote with the 50 vote threshold and see what happens. if they felt no that is a legitimate exercise. they are not doing our jobs. i expect the senate may be asking too much. the head of the sands attitudes so many on the other side, but expects the senate put politics aside. we need to do our job.
>> i rise today to express my very deep, deep disappointment my republican colleagues found to block president obama's nomination for vowing to block president obama's nominee for filling a vacancy on the supreme court. each and every senators serving in this chamber was elected by the american people, and we took an oath to uphold the constitution. in this matter the constitution is very clear. article two section two says the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate. mr. president, it does not say the president only has
an hour and a half left. the time limit. if you are president never four-year term you have the authority and duty to exercise your obligations under the constitution for a full four years. the senate has a duty to invite advice and consent. there are no waivers for election years. i urge my colleagues, colleagues, do your job. follow the constitution and live up to the constitution. does not say. the were delayed is not even appear in the constitution. republicans have said that the senate must wait until the people of spoken by electing new president november.
the american people of already spoken electing president obama in 2,008 and reelected him in 2012. barack obama is our president now until noon january 20, 2017. if the founders wanted a three-year term, they would have written it in the constitution. they mandated a full, complete four years. now, the other party wants to deny the president the legitimacy and authority of his office. even george washington had his nominee considered during a presidential year was good enough for the 1st congress under george washington should be good enough for this congress now under president obama. president obama and i but
that does not mean we are done working for the american people today. there is a lot of work to be done. pres. obama has the constitutional duty to submit a nomination and fill the vacancy left. the constitution is clear. the president must fulfill his duty and we must do our job. the issue is not about executive orders are interpreting. it is about following the constitution. so i said to the republicans on the side of the aisle please do your job. constituents elected each of the position to again follow the constitution.
now if you don't like the nominee. follow the process.follow the process. the president will nominate. we go through a courtesy process. the nominee calls upon a senator and there are hearing. several days of hearings and then there is a vote. i'm calling for following the process mandated by the constitution. the president nominates, meet with the nominee, all the hearings call follow the process and bring it to a vote. over the last 40 years the average time is only 67 days from nomination the
confirmation. to say we don't have enough time just does not work.work. they have ten months, 330 days left. now, there is precedence for this obstructionism. the chair of the judiciary committee cited four times in history are president did not nominate someone. well, the numbers are right but the vacancy occurred after the senate adjourned for the year. none of those could have nominated a candidate because the senate was not in session. for the past 100 years every supreme court nominee has been acted upon, even if they get a disapproval of the committee. they still got a vote in the senate. robert in 1987 was voted down.
clarence thomas in 1991, one of the most contentious and controversial supreme court nominations voted by the committee without recommendation and out of vote on the floor where he was approved 5248. these candidates each have their day to be evaluated. each senator had the ability to provide their advice and consent or in some cases lack of. i doof. i do not always vote yes, i certainly support of the processes that we have here. we never denied a sitting president his duty to provide nominee. this is of utmost importance. it really is. the supreme court is unique, the highest court of the land was real
and lasting impact. joe startimpact. to start a supreme court nominee for political reasons would be absolutely unprecedented. until this vacancy is filled the supreme court is left with eight members with the potential for tie votes. votes. if there is a tie vote in a decision the ruling of the lower court remains as of the supreme court never heard the case. and in some cases that means disagreement among courts leaving laws at odds with each other. if this vacancy lasts until the next president supreme court be left without members for two. some of the cases with the most impact have been decided in five to four votes. that takes me to some cases of concern to me. what if we have a tie decision?
very involved in equal pay for equal work. the famous lily ledbetter case. decided five before. not only at her job but in the courts. at the urging of justice ginsburg the senate provided a legislative remedy. if we had time we might not have ever been able to reserve -- resolve this issue. another case that was just amazing, bush versus gore. we all remember the 2,000 election and the hanging chads and days when we were
not really sure who had won the election. but it was america.america. thanks state open. tanks in the street. schoolchildren were able to go. we were moving ahead. decided five before. imagine now we would have a constitutional crisis and the crisis over who was the legitimate president. we cannot have this again. i hope that when the voters make the decisions in november that it is clear and decisive and we don't end up before the supreme
court. but should we need to have a court that is not going to end in a tie. and we have done our job to make sure that there are nine on the supreme court. i really in the interest of our country 1st of all follow the constitution what do your job and say we are a nation of law, encourage people all over the world that are emerging from authoritarian regimes chaotic political situations , let's live by the constitution. say that we need to follow
what we say we were elected to do, thatdo, that we swore an oath to do. president obama must do his job. ayers a republicans to do your job. let's follow the constitution. when the pres. makes his nomination let's open our doors so that we can meet with that nominee or hold the hearing and then let's all the vote on the senate floor, be accountable by deeds of votes, not just simply by awarding our responsibility. i yield the floor. >> at noon today a group of us on the side of the aisle went to the supreme court, stood in front of it and spoke about what was happening with the
republican decision not to proceed with the advice and consent provisions of the united states constitution. andconstitution. and i have been a member of the judiciary committee for 23 years. i sat on six supreme court cases and in those 23 years i really became infused with great respect for the american system of justice. for thejustice. for the trial courts, appeal courts in the supreme court's. and i don't think there is any system of justice that affords an individual a fair way to proceed to litigated case in the american justice system. so as i stood there and heard some of my colleagues said i began to think of the enormity of what is
happening. we all know the constitution is clear, the president's role is to nominate and the senate's role is to advise and consent. nothing lasts on nothing more. i strongly believe that we should proceed to render their presence nominee to the highest court of the land and proceed to consider that advice and consent with a hearing in the judiciary committee. to do anything less in my view is to default on our responsibility as a united states senator. there has been been a process the matter how controversial nomination. that has been the process if and when the president and senate are different parties and yes, that has been the
process turned presidential election years, that is what happened when they were confirmed last year of president reagan's term: democrats actually held the senate majority. in fact,fact, a total of 14 justices have been confirmed in the final year of the president's term. why is this important? the supreme court is a coequal branch of our federal government, a vital part of the separation of powers, the final arbiter of the land and one of our important jobs as senators is to ensure the court has the justices that it needs to decide cases. it is impossible to overstate the importance of a functioning supreme court. brown v board of education desegregated our schools. made interracial marriage illegal.
wrote about the prospect of a split court in 2,004. in responding to a request raising the possibility that by reason of a tie vote it will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case. he continued,continued, quoting the courts on recusal policy, even one unnecessary are crucial -- recusal impairs the functioning of the court. so that is what we are doing. comparing the functioning of the supreme court. what the republicans are
doing well affect cases for at least two years cases left from this year and those to be heard next year. if republicans are successful in blocking a hearing and the vote on the presence nominee the court will find itself unable to resolve important legal questions for a lengthy period of time. imagine that you are plaintiff, someone who has been wrongly terminated from a business or a business in a legal dispute or imagine you are person or business held liable as a defendant for millions of dollars in a civil case or someone who has been charged with or convicted of a crime. the mice band years of your life in prison or even be subjected to the death penalty. even though there may be a legal problem that court
will find itself unable to resolve the significant legal issue presented by the case. and that will mean that individuals and businesses as well as the american people itself will be denied the full system of justice guaranteed by this constitution. our people should not stand for this. there are major issues pending before the supreme court. there are important measures to help stop climate change. immigration issues, race and college admissions, the fundamental concept of one person one vote, the ability of unions representing public employees to function the.is, important issues are before the court or will be an there should be a full
court to hear them. there is absolutely no reason, none that the senate should refuse to do his job and conduct a full and fair hearings and told the vote on nominee. just a bit of history. the senate has not left a supreme court seat vacant for a year or longer since the middle of the civil war. that is fact. since the middle of the civil war. that would be about 1863. even as the nominations process has become more contentious the senate has still considered supreme court nominees and timely manner. this has happened regardless of who sat in the white house over which party controlled the congress. so here are a few historic facts to consider.
since the judiciary committee began holding hearings in 1916 for supreme court nominees a pending nominee to the supreme court vacancy has never been denied a timely hearing. never denied a timely hearing. even in the final year of the president's term. since 1975 the average time between a supreme court nomination and about. it has been 72567 days. about two months, and i would remind my republican colleagues that this includes justice anthony kennedy's confirmation which took place in february of 1988, a california judge in the final year of president reagan's presidency and before the democratic side.
the democratic senate took a republican presence nominee in the final year it was a republican and made him a justice of the united states supreme court. this is held true even for controversial nominees. robert bork and clarence thomas both failed to win a majority vote by the judiciary committee, but the nomination still advanced to a full senate vote. that was even the case for justice thomas, a very conservative jurist who replaced justice thurgood marshall, very liberal jurist. in this took place in a democratic-controlled senate.
someone i consider a friend who is chairman of the judiciary committee during periods of my tenure, senator orrin hatch who voted in favor of justice ginsburg said at the time, and i know i noted it because i was sitting right there and heard it, he believed the president deserves some deference on supreme court appointments. he said he would not vote against the nominee simply because he would have chosen someone else. senator grassley, now chairman of the judiciary committee made similar comments saying congress must not forget its advice and consent responsibilities. well, those responsibilities don't cease with the death of a jurist. asa jurist. as a matter of fact, that is the clear intent of the
constitution, that the advice and consent responsibility is mandated no matter what. so to refuse to hold hearings before nominee is even announced, to me, is shocking, and it makes me think, to what extent is the partisanship inherent in this body going when it is willing to deny the supreme court a vital member, it would be like denying of this baltimore pitcher. in the case that has any controversy cannot be fairly held without nine justices. that is not what we were sent to washington for. it is not how to do the
people'speople's business. to deny the american people fall unfair senate consideration for a supreme court nominee would be unprecedented in our history. and further undermine faith in the senate is institution. i don't know why this happened. the consequences could reverberate for generations, and it will be a serious gesture against the functioning of this great democracy. so all we ask is do your job it is 1 percent here, after all. thank you very much.
>> mr. pres., i yield the floor and note the absence. i do not know the absence of a quorum. thank you. >> mr. president. >> the senator from new mexico. >> thank you for the recognition, and i just want to say to senator feinstein i was not much of her marks and very much agree with what she said in terms of comeau we should be doing our job in terms of the
supreme court nominee. this really is our job, advise advisejob, advise and consent. constitution talks about how we shall advise and consent when we get nominations. you know, ten years ago the senate face a critical task it was a fierce debate, many opposed them, some passionately so. i will not argue that it was an easy road, but it was when i was traveled because that is our job and it is one of our most important duties. at the time the car majority leadercurrent majority leader was clear on the duties of the senate has been said, we stand today on the brink of a new and reckless effort by a few to deny the rights of many to exercise our constitutional duty to advise and consent
the senate should repudiate this tactic. and that is a direct quote from the majority leader. justice alito did get an up or down vote and was confirmed 58 to 42. including for democrats who voted in favor. mr. president, the majority leader was right. we do have a duty to advise and consent. in the constitution that uses the word shall advise and consent. the presence nominee deserves an up or down vote. it was true then and is true now. i do not agree with many of his views, but i do agree that it was critical for the senate to do its job. now here we are, new nomination to the supreme court by a different president but the majority
leader seems to change his mind. no nomination by this president will be considered. refusing the constitutional mandate that it shall advise and consent this is misguided and without precedent. full senate has always voted to fill a vacancy on every pending supreme court nominee. in election years and nonelection years every one of the last 100 years, but we cannot go back. we can go back even further than that, further back than 100 years. the senate judiciary committee was created 200 years ago. according to the congressional research service the usual practice
is been to report every nominee to the full senate, even those opposed by a majority of the committee. this is a bipartisan tradition: that makes sense, one that we should follow. went to the full senate. supreme court nominee the individual nominated is given a vote by the whole senate. for those senators in a less principled? i don't think so. and he passionate in their views? no. but they did their job, new how important it was.
they honoredthey honored the senate tradition and make sure the highest court in the land was not running on empty. how did we get from there to here? if the majority leader has his way critical to a functioning democracy and has become contentious only in recent years. it was not always so polarizing. confirmed 98 to zero. not arguing either side is 100 percent pure that we know one thing, a fully functioning supreme court is a vital to ensure justice in our system of government. and it depends on a fully functioning senate. this obstruction is part of
a bigger problem. we have seen before and are seeing now that the senate is broken, the american people are frustrated, fed up with political gains, obstruction in the senate, special deals for insiders, campaigns being sold to the highest bidder. they see this obstruction as just another example of how our democracy is being taken away, and this case the hammer doing the damage is the filibuster. instead of debate we have gridlock. instead of working together we have obstruction. judicial nominees the lower courts that that does no good as their main blocked.
and that is what is happening in this congress. the line is longer and longer, perfectly qualified nominees tonight about, denied even to be heard. meanwhile the backlog grows, 17 judges, three ambassadors , even a top officials of the treasury department's job is to go after the finances of terrorists. we are areterrorists. we are on track for the lowest number of confirmations in three decades. we now have 31 judicial districts with emergency levels of backlog. a year ago we had 12. thousands of people wait for the day in court because there is no judge to here the case. that is justice delayed and denied. just when you think things cannot get worse, they do. a
seat on the supreme court is empty and the majority leader is actually arguing that it should stay empty for over a year. i do not believe that the constitution gives me the right to block the qualified nominee the matter who is in the white house. i say that today and many times before. amazingly that obstruction may reach all the way to the supreme court and not just for a specific nominee but for any nominee. mr. president, what we are seeing is bad going to worse the majority leader said the voters should have a say in who the next supreme court justices. not a three-year term.
therethere is no logical endpoint to the majority's new position. what if this were two months ago comeau what whenwould the reviews be if it was december 2015, october. not the only ones with limited terms in office. a number of sitting senators are retiring. to their constitutional duties and rights expire now? of course not, and neither should the presence. nominee should be judged on their merits. public servants in the executive branch our courts. justice kennedy was affirmed
unanimously in the last year of president reagan's administration my democratic-controlled senate. our democracy works with three branches of government, not just two. this assault on the supreme court is without precedent kemal without cause, and should be without support. the president will do its duty and nominate a supreme court justice. any senator has the right say no, but the american people have the right to hear why. i began my speech with comments by the majority leader, but this really isn't about majority leader ten years ago one of the majority leader's of said. it is about with the american people are saying now. and with the constitution has always said, do your job
comeau folger of move our country forward. so i say to my colleagues, let's get serious. these. these dangerous games. the presence nominee, whoever that is deserves consideration in the american people deserve aa government that works. and i note the absence of a quorum. >> tonight house minority leader nancy pelosi discusses republicans refusal to hold hearings on pres. obama's eventual nominee. house speaker paul ryan talks about the federal budget in the november election and later the house hearing on the annual defense budget. >> live every day with news and policy issues that impact you.
a member of the judiciary and foreign affairs committee will join us to discuss the war in syria, gitmo command out the senate should proceed to fill the supreme court vacancy. onto talk about campaign 2015, the endorsement of bernie sanders and the organization's thoughts on the back and forth between the white house and congress supreme court nominee. be sure to watch live at 7:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow morning. join the discussion. campaign 2016 is taking you on the road to the white house on saturday is the south carolina democratic primary. live coverage at 7:30 7:307:30 p.m. eastern with election results in speeches from the democratic candidates. also your reaction through phone calls and tweets. join us saturday for live coverage.
>> i am supporting hillary clinton. fighting for children and minorities and women her entire life. she works hard and keeps her head down. >> supporting bernie sanders for president because we have some insurmountable changes that we need to have happen and incremental is among not work. that is what my generation needs. hillary will drag us and more wars, and that is kind of it. >> at her weekly press conference house minority leader nancy pelosi discuss the vacancy on the supreme court and republicans refusal to consider
president obama's nominee. this is a half-hour. >> good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> the nation mourns the passing of justice scalia. proud when he was named to the court, the 1st italian-american named. i came to know firsthand justice scalia's love for his family and for our country. and i love the constitution and i would hope that we could follow it in his honor. however, a breathtaking refusal to remain their
constitutional duty to give his replacement a timely vote and a fair hearing. republicans contend for functioning government and the disrespect for the president knows no bounds. evidently it is not enough to shut down government threaten the full faith and credit of the united states. in the sabotage the supreme court, too. a structured congress, structured congress, our president, and now they want to obstruct the court. but the refusal to pass the voting rights act they are obstructing our democracy. eleven months, every person appointed to the court has been given a prompt hearing in the vote within 100 days. six justices of a confirmed in the last century including three republican nominees commandos justices
have included justice brandeis, cardoza, and kennedy. the republicans will not even consider meet with the person the president would nominate. in addition to not given a hearing publicans are refusing to have a hearing on the president's budget. it is unprecedented that they would not hear from the director of the office of management and budget to present the president's budget. sadly the budget gain the most traction is the tea party fantasy budget, and this is some of what it would do, dismantle social security command the medicare guarantee and block grant medicaid command grants to curb domestic violence under violence against women act and eliminate headstart. it is time for republicans to stop putting their toxic ideology ahead of the
constitution. priorities in a bipartisan way to pass a budget that creates jobs, raises paychecks of the american people, and vests in the future of our country as we reduce the deficit. let's hope we can go about that soon. >> regarding the president supreme court nominee we are considering. do you believe it is a good idea for the presidency consider appointing a republican to the supreme court? >> first of all, i don't know the president is considering. yes, i think it is a good idea for the president to consider a republican or democrat.
>> you talk about the potential ties. at the time they are putting it together. they are stymied the seems to be you cannot turn that against them. is that a problem? >> that is part of the freedom caucus making social security a program for the poor. >> that would totally undermine social security and is why it was never designed to be a program just for the poor. you pay in and take out. it is not a poverty initiative. the very idea that they are
putting forth command the same thing, some of these are consistent with the ryan budget in terms of removing the guarantee about rising medicare, block granting medicaid. they go further in a limiting headstart but nonetheless this is all part of the debate comeau one of the biggest we have here, the battle of the budget. a statement our values and how we come to those allocations of resources should be what is important to the country in the make social security a program justa program just with a poor eliminate the wavefront medicare and to eliminate headstart. an act of cruelty in addition to being bad policy. i have always tried to have a tough love kind of thing. how can we lift people out
of poverty and bring them into the middle class. this is tough luck. zero, yes. the heritage group, eliminate the american dream team. >> senator sanders says there were racist efforts behind and efforts to undermine president obama's regarding the supreme court vacancy in light of this historic destruction, do you think race as a role ina role in this at all? >> it is true the people think that, as they have indicated. i have asked the congressional black caucus has been since they took office. he has extended the hand of
friendship over and over and they have rejected that and it is hard to understand why. responsibility to find common ground. the competition, the marketplace of ideas i have not much by way of ideas 12 struck the president, governance and science. a trifecta. i do not want to go to that point. >> you can go back to before the nomination. as far as when different partners use the rules of their advantage, you were talking about the party
being in the majority. >> your point is well taken. i do not remember anybody saying the president should not appoint and we will not interview his appointee. we will not. i am talking about obstruction. >> in the majority. >> look, the constitution says that the president will nominate in the congress shall act upon the senate shot on the nomination. not to say we are never going to interview anyone he names and we are not going to have a hearing on the subject, that flies in the face of the intention of congress. >> on the presidential election. >> yes. >> generally what do you think accounts for the rise of antiestablishment
candidate? the dysfunction in congress. >> advocating in terms of reducing the cost of student loans, passed .-dot frank in terms of putting a cop on the beat, reduce the role of money in politics. many of the things he is advocating our democrats is to foreign congress. i will say this : members of congress say something hit something. when a candidate for for president says it attracts much more attention. glad that he's out there
making his campaign attracting many young people might not otherwise be attracted to politics. attracted to public service, to community service in different ways, but now they are understanding the importance of elections. so the concerns that he expressed, we have addressed some. and i hope that his candidacy will give us the boost that we need to make the changes necessary to overturn and disclose where the money is coming from, amend the constitution to overturn citizens united, reform legislation to increase the role of small donors in the political process and empower, remove obstacles of participation and so have some differences of opinion single-payer for 30 years.
they were out there. people 55 and older and the affordable care act. >> maybe the antiestablishment label is an incorrect label. >> if that is what you want to call it. calling attention to any good for him, the darling of the under 25, but he is articulate, eloquent, and has attracted command that is really so much about what this is. you have the best vision, take us in the future, build upon the successes of the obama administration, and they are many and great, have great knowledge and great judgment about it all
and have a plan to take us into the future in your strategic thinking about it. you also have to be able to attract attention to it. both senator sanders and secretary clinton i think have done that in a very magnificent way that will serve us well in the general election. >> given the dispute between apple and the fbi and the subsequent reports we have seen today that apple is trying to construct a phone that would be impervious to even the technological capabilities of the fbi, do you see a scenario in which congress will have to act between the legitimate needs of law enforcement and to investigate criminals in the legitimate privacy is? >> this is an interesting challenge to the balance that we have always had in our country since our founding, the balance
between security and liberty. if you don't have one, you can't have the other. they go together. today in the world we live in preeminence globally and technology is essential to our security. essential to security. essential to our security. so it is not want instead of the other. the fact that any technology company would be moving forward with technological change, you cannot stop that. that is just what the technology is about. product cycle ever shortening. so i think there have been suggestions. the be a commission to look at this.
several institutions in place, the privacy and oversight in the intelligence reform bill. in 2008 we had an oversight board. it is an important element. a very important place for us to have this discussion. on the technological side as the cryptologist report that is technical that raises questions that i think need to be answered in this debate and i prefer that to you. in addition to that, i do not think it should be up to one judge to decide on the encryption policy as we go forward. this is not about one case. as dreadful as san bernardino was, and it was,
the cooperation that apple gave following something i am grateful for and now we are a place where is the one thing? the fbi saying loudly asking for the ability to use more passwords. houston passwords and information disappears. the ability to use more passwords. that is one thing, and to do so in a way that will take ten years. well, that 2nd part is the controversial part. so let's have people understand technology and possibilities, recognition of technology never stops and that our commitment to
protect and defend the american people is our 1st responsibility and i believe that having a preeminence and technology globally is in the furtherance our national security as we protect our privacy. congress, there is legislation here about a commission. commission could be a good idea, or it could be a foregone conclusion depending on the composition. so as you may no, a number of my members, democratic members of the judiciary committee have come out caution against any backdoor not just because it could invade privacy but npr security. everyone has a role. i think if we have a commission we have to have a
short time frame so that we can get it done. the fbi has been very specific and saying it is about this one case, then you have district attorneys around the country i think we have to be very careful as to when we are using, taking extraordinary means to that have the door open. >> 's of the information not be available to the prosecutors chasing drug cartels? >> the case before september 11. intelligence is where i have been for a long time. the four september 11 if we were going in for a security issue and found out that somebody did a domestic
crime, that is not our business. the some of that was relaxed. >> is not enough money? do you think that it goes far enough? >> i think it is reasonable, that does not mean good, reasonable start. i think that we will need much more. infrastructure issues, health issues, education issues that have to be dealt with. i don't know if you came to our hearing, but it was fabulous and we have been briefed and briefed and briefed in terms of the impact on the brain of little children are unborn children and prenatal children that the impact on
the brain is such that you need to have remedies and fresh fruit and vegetables, education, headstart, all of these kinds of things to make sure that these children are not at a disadvantage. there is nothing in the bill on education. that is in addition that i would like to see. the recognition the more may be needed. seventy-five rest of the country for infrastructure concerns and about 54 largely for flint. it is a start, but there are
areas that have not been addressed and more money will be needed. one of the things we are doing is try to take inventory of our national needs in terms of water because they made a very bad decision in michigan to unleash the flint river water to be part of the water supply for flint. terrible. it was wrong. the condition wrong. the condition of our water system in the country needs to be subjected them to see where we can make our best investment as part of infrastructure. >> just want to quickly clarify your take. it sounds like you are siding with apple. sympathetic to our security concerns and say that
preeminence in technology is one of our security strengths. there for privacy and security. everybody on both sides of the conversation for security and privacy. there is a hearing right now i would be interested to hear further testimony and also i think next week there will be a hearing, but some of this will have to move quickly because we have to have an answer for this and address it because people are waiting in line to decide whether they are domestic cases should qualify for any backdoor encryption from the discussion began as a strictly security measure focused on one particular case. a good discussion for our country to have.
imagine our founders at the time after the establishment of our country, and they had good cause. they had first-hand experience in terms of homeland security, privacy bless them for the time they give us to deal with this. >> the fbi seems to thinkthere's something in the fundamental that similar attacks. ii understand, but in this particular case there is an urgency. >> my review, i respect him enormously, observed his leadership in the justice department, whatever the
next is. i have the highest regard for him, but his statement was predicated on the idea that we owe it to the victims of san bernardino to get to the bottom of this. i think the point that you make that if we could find out something in this phone that could prevent another tragedy is something that was not in his statement and maybe it wasn't because if we could find out what is in everyone's phone we could prevent a lot of things. the pace of innovation. it had its own momentum as
well as the contribution that our area makes the national security of our country in so many ways, many of them technological. i hope that we can come to five the same law school about cases make bad law. maybe using this case and that one discrete way might not make law that we have to enlarge the issue. i don't mean for profit. i mean, for dominance. which i think is a strength. thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> a family of deeply religious catholics, proud of our italian-american heritage, fiercely patriotic americans and staunchly democratic around the corner. where i spent my youth a long time ago. children's books about mahatma gandhi. i used to go there almost every day. have you ever been there?
it is a fabulous place. she is a spectacular leader. and it is just going to be wonderful. >> did you suggested to the president? >> no, i didn't. he didn't ask and i didn't tell. [laughter] but i could. if you want to and further maybe -- no. >> what if they refuse to hold confirmation hearings? >> thank you all. [inaudible conversations] >> god help us. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> in his press briefing the 2017 budget. this is 15 minutes.
>> matthew barroso, capitol police as a tremendous responsibility to protect the members and the staff in the press and all the visitors and capitol hill he brings decades of experience to federal law he has a trust in the conference of the police force and therefore he has might as well. i want to thank outgoing chief died for his service. i want to commend all the men and women of the capitol police to go above and beyond every day. i've gotten to know them very closely and it is amazing what they do every day and all of us who work here in the capitol should show and express our signs of gratitude.
second, i want to talk about oversight. essential to protecting taxpayers in preventing executive overreach. just this week the appropriations committee held a hearing to press the va inspector general on the poor care of veterans are receiving. energy and commerce announced it will hold a hearing on the virus next week. that is just half a dozen examples of things we're doing each and every day to hold this administration accountable for the american people. of course we are focused on not just being in opposition party but a proposition party which is why we are
taking the next steps in developing a bold agenda that we will present to the american people. task forces are releasing mission statements that will lay out the goals and principles which will guide work and we are holding forms for members to offer ideas. this is truly a bottom-up process. you can read the mission statements and track the progress of the project. with so much a stake we need conservatives to run a bold agenda. you will here me say this all year long. most people agreemost people agree with us. we feel obligated offer the american people a clear and compelling choice so that they get to decide the direction the country is going to head, and we want to offer a better waya better way forward. with that, happy to take your questions.
opposition to where you want. the republican agenda. >> i've set a hundred times will be able to present a unified front. that is my anticipation. i have also said 100 times we will comment on what is up and what is down in the day-to-day. thatday-to-day. that is well on its way with a long ways to go but we will work with whoever our nominee is. i'm focused on getting this place working,working, regular order, a bottom-up approach during congress the way i think the founders intended and a very excited
by offering the country a very clear and compelling choice. >> a different way. >> you only get to replay what i just said. >> you want to give the country a choice, but how can you present that we are nominee has no interest in pursuing? >> will cross the bridge only get to it. whoever our nominee will be always find a way to make unified front work. they are republicans and have individual ideas and gravitate from the same principles and will be applying them and offering people a choice and i am excited about the prospect here in congress. >> on the democratic and republican signs.
when you talk about laying out broad strokes, might not be able to practice. but isn't that the problem? i understand the mechanics. >> leading the voters down the primrose path. >> i find half the time kind of explaining the way our constitution works giving civics lessons, some people may have let others to believe that just with congress we can rewrite laws are just with congress we can overturn laws we did not like. the after member, president obama can remember the super majority, in his 1st term with 60 votes in the senate. and they are able to cram through on unsuspecting country and the rest is
history. then in 20102014 the american people push the republican congress back in the majorities. we are doing everything the constitution allows to keep this a ministration honest call them accountable. that ideas getting worse and following forward, but at the end of the day if we're going to pass laws repealing and replacing obama care, fixing the problems with.frank, whatever it is made to pass a bill through the house, the senate, passed the filibuster and the need to present decided in the law. that is our system works, what a constitutional republic functions like. and so this is why the project is important and why the conversation we have to have with our fellow countrymen is if you want to break this gridlock, liberal progressive president conservative congressman in the country to settle this for us to move the country
in the election 2016 to break this impasse so that we can get these in the law. a lot of people are extremely frustrated. we think the country is on the wrong path and the pres. is leading the country in the wrong path. we need a pres. we can work with the pass new laws to put us on the right path which is why the conversation we're having with the country, the whole thing is up for grabs. if you don't like the direction america is headed thanthat change these things, fix these things, help us get us on the right path and we owe you a better way forward. ..
what is behind that? we don't always get -- you you know we have divided government a lot. does congress -- >> that's not my role to get in on commenting on the presidential election, but barack obama had a trifecta with harry reid and nancy pelosi. he passed through an agenda that is far to the left of where the american people are. he passed an agenda that i believe is keeping wages down
and hurting the economy. it's making america we weaker and harming our military. it's not helping us get people out of poverty. that agenda that he was able to pass, we think that's the way to go. we believe we owe it to our constituents to offer them a better way forward and that is exactly what it is all about. but this is congress. we don't sign bills into law. we write them and pass them to the president to be signed. we need a president we can work with to put these reforms back on the right track. >> it's the same thing we do every year. we are about a month ahead of schedule so we feel good about our timeline.
kevin mccarthy is going around meeting with various chairs. every time he writes a solution, it affects affects the jurisdiction of the other committees. they're having sessions with our members. we are getting input and talking with the various committees about how to put together a budget resolution. we are pretty on track with those kinds of recommendations. it's going to be up to the members. we will lay out a plan. like i said, i'm not the top down, cram it down your throat have a guy. were going to leave it to the leadership and the membership. the membership will be making that decision. do i believe we should pass the budget and we should have a fully functional appropriations process? of course i do. i think it's very important but this is the decision will make jointly. >> can i ask you about transportation infrastructure? he's involved in romantically
involved with the airline lobbyists. is it appropriate for him to have these kind of relationships? >> i can't, and i'm not. >> comment on that. >> would you be open to allowing this bill to come to the house during your time a speaker? >> my position has not changed. i'm a regular order guy. >> you have a small but influential group that are asking you to move forward. how would you have this conversation about overpromising or getting yourself into a
situation -- your studious guy, you're chairman of the convention. there's there's a lot of scenarios that you versed yourself and do you plan on doing that? >> no. the house rules. i see this is more of a ceremonial role that i have. i'm busy trying to make this place work. >> what about the apple encryption issues? >> tomorrow house majority talks about republicans legislative agenda for 2016. we will have live coverage from the bloomberg government
breakfast at eight am eastern here on c-span2. then a house hearing on 3-d printing technology and its effect on jobs, manufacturing and the economy. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend on c-span2. here are some of the programs to watch for this weekend. saturday at 7:30 p.m. eastern, david randall of the national association of scholars talks about some of the books incoming college freshmen that are asked to read for the first epic class. on sunday night at nine on afterwards, former nsa and cia director michael hayden gives an inside look at national security in his book playing to the edge, american intelligence in the age of terror. he is interviewed by former cia director in the clinton administration. >> it is literally the outside of the envelope for electronic
communication. as you said, american law enforcement has been able to look at the outside of the envelope. the supreme court decided that the phone call, who you called and when and for how long also is essentially the outside of the envelope. >> watch tv all weekend every weekend on c-span2. book tv for serious readers. >> there is a house hearing on the pentagon's budget. they talked about the obama administration's request for a $582 $582 billion in defense spending. secretary carter talks about the need to counter threats posed by russia, china, north, north korea and iran. congressman chairs this two and a half hour hearing.
members for being here. i'm pleased to welcome the secretary of defense this is second appearance before the subcommittee. i'm convinced there's nothing they admire more than strengthen nothing they have less respect for me weakness, especially military weakness. they were referring to the postwar leadership in moscow but the same could be said today. i fear that as they examine this
administration budget request, they have to be breathing if i have relief. one year year ago on the same room, we were told by the gentlemen of the joint chiefs that our last year's budget request represents the lower ragged edge of resources they need to carry out the strategy. the budget request before us today is almost exactly the same amount as last year but they now claim to provide robust funding for this department. mr. secretary, lower lower edge or robust funding? they are justifying a shrinking army and marine corps, a smaller navy and older air force and we face more serious threats from more sources than any time since world war ii. russia occupies crimea. china is building islands in the south china sea.
they are militarizing them and this administration suggests cutting an already inadequate budget. many of our days in afghanistan have been reversed. the taliban and and isis await our departure. iraq is barely better. iran's global terrorist network just received a massive transfusion of money and begins to challenge us in iraq, yemen and across the middle east. syria is a living hell on earth and getting worse by the day. we have seem to be deconflicting with both nations, hardly our allies. isis has a major franchise in libya. hundred and 60 miles of mediterranean coastline. terrorism is like a cancer across the world and this budget
does not do enough to halt its spread. moreover, many of us are concerned that this budget mortgages future military capabilities to pay for today's urgent requirements. mr. secretary, our commander in chief claimed in the state of the union address that we spent more on our military than the next eight nations combined. if these dollars and sense are the only measurement that we measure our armed forces and the strength of our global leadership, our adversaries measure our strength based on our military capability and our national will. currently those adversaries question both. members of our subcommittee feared this repeatedly from foreign leaders and hear this as we travel aboard and meet them at home. they continually test us without
consequence. mr. sec., i also want to bring to your attention, the concern that many share about the activities of the national security council. it's come to my attention repeatedly that the rules of engagement for our special forces and rules of engagement for our conventional courses are being micro managed right out of the white house. i'm sure you would agree that the battlefield decision should be left to military professionals. in closing, i can assure you that the bipartisan majority stands ready to provide our commander in chief with the resources that are military needs to meet challenges from russia and china to defeat the islamic state, al qaeda and other lethal terrorist groups, with or without the strategy that the law requires. in fact, the 2016 required 16 required the administration to provide a strategy that counters violent extremists in syria by last week.
we are still waiting. now, having said that, i'd like to turn the microphone over. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate you holding the hearing today. secretary carter for being here and welcome to the hearing. i think each of you, i think you for your commitment to service. chairman, i wish to express my continued concern created by the budget control act. admittedly i use much of my time in the 2016 hearing for a sane purpose. although much has changed in the past 12 month, including the enactment of the bipartisan budget act of 2015 that mitigated the cap for two years,
it's hard to argue that the department of defense defense or any federal agency is now appreciably better position to plan or budget for the future. it pains me to think about how much less efficient the department of defense has been over the last six fiscal years as it has been forced to carry out our national defense strategy in an increasingly unstable security environment that you have described. we are navigating the unpredictability of sequestration, government shutdown, budget caps and continuing resolutions. even the most clairvoyant among us camp perceive the problems looming in fiscal year 2018. the bca was sold as the deficit reduction reduction tool, yet the congressional budget office projected the cumulative deficit will be 5 trillion more than the
office projected in august 2015. the prolonged inability of congress and the administration to find a consensus needed to replace it in a full austerity policy that truly address long-term drivers of our deficit, but growth and mandatory spending is an abject failure. despite the ongoing efforts to renegotiate, i am optimistic that they will provide some help in this appropriation process. we have a number. i hope the subcommittee under the chairman's leadership will be able to make the difficult and deliberate decisions needed to prioritize. sec. carter, you did state this is a major inflection point for the department. further you have indicated i was
pleased to announce both those sentiments but based on the outcomes of the last budget request, i am skeptical again of any strategy, plan or program that is relying on caps in future years. i certainly understand its motivation between dod's decision to assume more funding in the out years. however i am worried that that assumption may not come to fruition. i assure you that i am committed to working with my colleagues to find a lasting solution to our fiscal problem. in conclusion, i would simply also observed that i appreciate the much anticipated plan for the closing of guantanamo bay detention facility was transmitted to congress earlier this week. i hope the plan is considered on its merit rather than to be
rejected. mr. chairman, think you for holding the hearing. gentleman i look look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. mr. rogers, chairman rogers. >> thank you mr. chair. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. thank you more importantly for your years of service to your country. we appreciate that very much and we thank you for being here this morning for what is the first hearing of this subcommittee for fiscal 17. we have 21 hearings across the committee this week and you are one of which that we think it's very important. the fifth-year and the role of the subcommittee has been able to pass the defense appropriations bill out of the house. i am confident we can do the same this year. we know our troops and their families are depending on it.
our only hope is that when we pass a bill through this committee and on the floor the house and send it to the senate, that they act. they have refused to do that for the last several years. consequently, we get into a negotiation about necessity to keep them from closing down the government. it's time the senate acted on a bill. amazing. under your leadership the men and women who served in the u.s. military answer the call time and again and leave their loved ones and put themselves in harm's way, execute challenge missions abroad and we are mindful that our responsibility to support our allies in need and respond to threats from our enemies imposes significant demands on our troops. this committee appreciates their dedication and willingness to serve and your leadership admits
the unprecedented challenges facing our nation this day. the global security environment continues to grow increasingly complex. it's also unpredictable. the mounting threats we discussed this time last year still with us and in some cases have increased. two years after the russian annexation of crimea, russian aggression remains a threat. the sovereign states in the region and a considerable influence across the middle east. the islamic state maintains its hold on population centers where it terrorizes innocent lives which created an unlivable situation for countless syrians, iraqis and even libyans. we've seen this conflict force the migration of millions of people, precipitating an
unprecedented humanitarian crisis across middle east and europe. meanwhile, iran and north korea continue to rattle their sabers while china exerts military strength in the pacific. today we will discuss many of these threats and how your budget requests and our ability to defeat them. we continue to hear rhetoric from the administration that appears to minimize or just flat out misunderstand the reality and the magnitude of the threat that we face from violent extremism. just this week, the president had asked us to close the guantanamo bay detention facility at a time when the threat of terrorist activity at home and abroad shows no sign of abating. they are fighting for the transfer of known terrorists out of the united states custody.
the they're going to countries where we cannot control their return to the battlefield. he asked the american people to allow them to be detained on american soil. as the president made the case that they will be subject to strong security measures in other countries, a prisoner was arrested on terror charges. they tell us that 30% of the prisoners released from the facility have reengaged in terrorism. yet the president continues to argue that releasing these prisoners will make us safer. that's twisted logic. once again, i am perplexed by the administration's decision to continue to prioritize this misguided campaign promise
despite clear direction from this congress, not to mention the implications for national security. with active duty set to decline further until 17, the convert to station we will have about responding to threats across multiple regions with enemies with very different missions and capacities becomes even more of a cop located matter. the challenges you face are well documented. the demands they place on our troops and leadership are great. i look forward to discussing how this committee can best equip you to lead in these uncertain times and respond to threats of american security around the world. this committee remains confident in your ability to lead and protect our troops and to ensure the safety american troops at
home and abroad. we appreciate your service and commitment to the nation and our service men and women across the world. >> indeed you have our full support. along with the remarkable women and men that you represent. the best of america. we are so proud of all volunteers doing remarkable things. the mr. sec., the floor is yours. thank you for being with us to this will be put into the record. >> thank you chairman. thank you. and to all of you, thanks for what you said about the troops. that means it all. that's what i wake up for every morning. i'm sure that's true of the chairman as well. they are the best of america and we are very proud to be associated with them and i'm
very pleased to hear you say the same thing. it's good for them to hear that as well. thank you all very much. and thanks for hosting me today and in general for your steadfast support. i'm pleased to be here with chairman dunford to discuss president obama's 2017 defense budget which marks indicate a major inflection point for this department. i'm also pleased to be discussing the budget first before this committee which has been a leader in securing the sources the department needs. in this budget, we we are taking the long view. we have to. even as we fight today's fight, we must also be prepared for what might come 10, 20 or 3030 years down the road. last fall's budget deal gave us much needed stability.
i want to thank you, all of of you, your colleagues for coming together to pass that agreement. the bipartisan budget act set the size of our budget which is why our budget submission and my testimony focus on its shape. changing that shape is fundamental if carefully considered ways to adjust to a new strategic era and sees opportunities for the future. let me describe the strategic assessment that drove our budget decisions. first of all, it's evident that america is still today the world's foremost leader, partner and underwriter of stability and security in every region across the globe. we have been since the end of world war ii. i was in brussels the week before last meeting with nato defense ministers as well as ministers of the counter isil military coalition. i can tell you they all
appreciate the leadership from the department of defense of america. as we continue to fulfill this enduring role, it's also evident that we are entering a new strategic era. today security environment is dramatically different from the last 25 years. it requires new ways of investing, new ways of operating. five eve all strategic challenges, namely russia which has already been mentioned, china, north korea, iran and are now driving dod's budget. i want to focus on our ongoing fight against terrorism, especially isil which we must and deal a lasting defeat. most immediately, the tumor in iraq and sue syria but also
>> to. >> end ultimately the sec the tumor into two parts whenever iraq and the other syria. this is just the most recent example of kobe are enabling local forces to deal with isil as a lasting defeat. next to of the four challenges affected the recognition have a great power of competition. to be a strong and balanced approach to deter aggression we have not had that certificate portion for a
quarter century. the other challenges in the asia dash pacific but behavior aggressively to continue the of rebalance to maintain that a regional stability to allow 72 rising and prosper for america's future. with north korea that is on the peninsula to remain ready to fight tonight. the other is iran.
and before getting a nuclear weapon and they must still teacher iranian aggression to fight the influence of the friends and allies of the region especially israel with that of an breakable commitment dod must address to address all five of these challenges as part of this mission with two postures with enhanced capabilities. to confront these five challenges we will be across all remains with the areas of cyberor electronic warfare or space for our reliance on technology has given us great strength and opportunity but also to folder abilities the vacancy
to exploit. our approach to detour the most advanced competitors must have the ability to ensure any one who starts a conflict will regret doing so. to be clear that military will fight differently. we must be prepared for a full spectrum. we must demonstrate that they have the capability to win to show that they can dominate the conflict russia and china are the most tests for stressing competitors including any access systems
we saw at in syria as well. in in some cases we don't is desire a conflict but the their country and all in need to say to work together with imported nation's public don't blind ourselves to their goals and actions it because of this dod has elevated the importance in planning and budgeting. in my written testimony to make critical investments to help us better address these challenges to 3.$4 billion
triples the strike capacity of 12 tomahawks through 40 talks. and to invest in these three domains of $34 billion in 2017 to help build a force of next generation electronic timbres to prepare for the possibility of a complex that extends in space. we will continue to ensure the dominance of all domains. the budget also seize this opportunity for the future. that is the responsibility i have to my successors that it is just as strong or more
so than the one i have the privilege of meeting today. to build new bridges to the innovative system where we're also making our contingency plans more dynamic in every region. why we are building the force of the future. as good as our technology is nothing compared to our people. end as well as toward to support military families and to expand access because the poet to taxpayers to spend our defense dollars as
wisely as possible we're pushing for needed reforms. to further reduce the overhead to propose new changes in let me close of a broader shift of the budget. we saw how the luxury of just one opponent. that is what the budget is designed to do. it sets the size of the budget to focus on the shape we hope you approve it. so maybe looking at the difference but i want to
reiterate that the budget meets our needs. end to jeopardize the ability could to listen in that stability this year to sequester the caps in future years. that is why the biggest concern is strategically is congress with the sequestration to sustain all the critical investments over time. we have done this before.
but also in other areas of the all volunteer force. across bridges of beverage across multiple administration is that is essential today to address the security challenges that we face to seize the opportunities within our grasp. and america's military will continue to defend our country and make a better world for generations to come. general thank you for your career. to a the moderate to
represent the joint force with civil servants to read our single most important is thanks to your support. with your support to adapt while simultaneously investing in future challenges. we should never send americans into a fair fight but maintain a force to reassure allies and partners with that capabilities to restore full spectrum readiness craft and united states from traditional state actors and on state actors. and with those strategic challenges that secretary
carter has already addressed continuing to addressing capabilities to reduce our competed - - competitive a vantage. and that falls short with the threshold of military response. including russian action in the you trade and activities and iran's activities across the middle east at the same time not a state actor such as al qaeda in isil threat our homeland and their partners and allies. giving the they would change the way of life. derecognize successful execution of with capabilities the deterrent be made effective to require modernization therefore those needed for safe and
secure nuclear deterrent we make investments to anti-competitive the advantage off was further develop capability zaph in the contest -- and the contested domains of space. we do that in the fiscal environment that has hampered our ability to use resources most effectively. they have absorbed a hundred billion of cuts with sequestration in induced risk over the past five years to invest in the capabilities unless we reverse it with the most critical investments required for the competitive vintage lowe's resources
provided by the bipartisan budget act to address the five challenges. it does so by balancing three major areas of investment in to rebuild readiness after extended period of more. with adequate funding levels from over a decade of war. with cyberspace investments it will be several years to replenish the stock of munitions. the f-117 budget puts us on the right trajectory with the death in flexibility in readiness response, that any
future fight is not fair thanks for the opportunity of forge your questions. >> we talk about prisoners being released to guantanamo that is disturbing and makes me quite angry. there has meant some speculation to the naval station of guantanamo can you assure us that there are no plans for a change of operations in the historic role? >> i know of no such plans and ours is opposite if you're talking about guantanamo bay naval. it is not about that is a
strategic location. the detention is a separate subject. the reason to have a conversation with the congress of that detention facility is precisely because there are people there that cannot be safely transported it to be somewhere in the united states and then to ask congress to work with us with that the tensions facility precisely in
recognition. >> but my question had to do with the future. is there an announcement that will change? >> i will focus on the middle east and working very closely with the contingency account that historically is still aimed to do a pretty good job of all aspects of that accounting kid you say very briefly of the troops in the region. give your review of force protection in may i say
rather expensive investment and their capabilities even after all of these years as to how capable they are and the two areas mired in controversy and here is the focus. and then ask the chairman also. and there are others insurance initiatives about russia. we very much appreciate your support it real understand
than national unity government and we cannot read and write. to read the fbi as security forces is growing of they have many capabilities in the plan is to stick with them. end we request funding for the afghan security forces and the plan is tink to continue to do that in the future. and that whole strategy was
security forces to have to be elections to go through a very turbulent period. and with an intelligence source so forth that is more importantly to maintain in the effective care is some platform it is a significant threat. certainly not as quickly as we wanted. to have standards if you see secretary carter was the deputy moving forward today the standards have been incorporated it reflect the
investment with syria and iraq. >> with the lack of success and to talk a little bit about that? >>. >> we have a lot of people on the payroll. >> the endeavors of iraq is syria is still relatively new. and it was recently demonstrated in the anbar province so i would tell you four months ago we did not have that campaign with iraq but we do have an time and with that anbar province
also the extraordinary successful between iraqi and syria to conduct operations but syria itself of those partners we have on the ground and those of just recently took down isil and the caliphate location in to cut the lines of communication so from my perspective there is work to be done to significantly reduce the freedom of movement to isolate the major areas of concentration did we do that from the partners we have changed -- trade over the past year there is much work to be done with that trajectory.
>> thank you for your assessment. >> i would continue to reiterate my concern to make sure we are on schedule for the for initial statements of 2017 if you could respond to any major investments to be made whether or not day are fully funded fiscal year 17. in the industrial base i am very concerned. are there any particular sectors of the industry's or components that it has a problem with? from the department of the acquisition brings this
problem to mind of what can be done it is said a budgetary standpoint? henry long share that concern is the unparalleled quality that the world has ever known. it does depend on the healthy industrial base. that stability that you have provided is simply having a knowledge of what the budget will be two years in a row. to manage programs and a basis that that depends that
state in the game. invest sacred sector and why we have started to manufacturing the institute's the private partnerships because it is the problem overall to make sure we maintain competitive a vintage relative to other parts of the world and there is some products that we cannot outsource because he cannot fully trust them. to make sure we have control
of the components. of the investment ever industry every year of research and development with the industrial economy to manage it well so the strength of the bass stayed strong. is there anything we can do to make sure there is no more degradation as far as manufacturing? >> if i may i will come back as to try to highlight what we have done a very much on the mind of the logistics'
to build itself into a maritime power. meanwhile to be. -- provoked by their neighbors to the west using that as a justification to aggressively pursue their own interest regard to territorial disputes in the south china sea. and what is your thinking in the process in light of these fairly recent developments with the importance of china's place of the naval force? and the assessment has changed over time. and that china is doing exactly as we say. with a land-based military
focused on defense a territory. in the united states policy has been the last 70 years to remain that power in asia pacific that is what it is about. with the high end of naval warfare aircraft can strike fighter it ended recognition of that. in the recent there noticed is a because united states is doing something in over
change a bad strategic aspect that china prevents to have a peaceful and stable environment that is where the miracle has occurred of the united states to a would-be a new security structure we have provided that. does that threaten our ability to tie line? >> if those treaty obligations is more of the threat grows from china and the more we have to adjust to the operational approach.
into the pacific so those developments and as you described so with this budget we are focused on capability developments to maintain the competitive vintage also with those most modern capabilities like the f25 and f-22 so i share that concern with those joint capability development to insure was secretary carter said is true to meet the obligations there is no doubt in my mind they have a competitive bid to joe for china today.
if we were not to maintain that investment profile with the current budget we will said unable to look into the pacific. >> they say what they are doing is to intimidate their neighbors what do say to that? >> that is definitely intended to dominate the neighbors also partly strategically directed at us because we provided the security structure. i am not one of these people that police conflict is inevitable but we have provided the environment to
help china develop freely with taiwan in southeast asia to provide that environment we're not about to keep china down we'll look for anybody to dominate the region we are a pacific power in we're there to stay. with half of the world's economy. >> thank you for your service secretary carter i know there is some discussion before i arrived in the budget but what problems are created what is
said to for your budget? can you carry out the department's mission with the f-117 request? >> with the budget that we have proposed with the bipartisan budget agreement that stability is important to us and then start to do things inefficiently and shore in the contract time and we can plan programs for the long run and stability
or for our people is bad for morale people say what is going on here? i don't think it is fair to our people look at our families trying to plan the future look at the volunteer force and then i worry around the world those who say can you get it together to have a budget? and that is why i am so grateful end to have a bipartisan budget of which we submitted.
>> and the secretary's comments that we can meet those obligations alluding to his opening remarks over the last few years his ability to be paid in the future. that we will continue what we have done there is no way fiver seven years from now to have the same conversation about china beverages said with the chairman. to have a coherent long-term view of the year. london to be efficient with the taxpayer dollars. but lower importantly in the near term but we have to do
those innovations in to achieve that balance to one for some three or four years. things here question. a question on cybersecurity. please describe the press very risk from department of defense is to increase the capability to be initiated in those primary elements. and had is the support your efforts?
the highest priority has to be defending our own networks because that is what stitches together the ingredients of the military so all operations as it comes together in the network and then to spend effort on that. and cider can be a tool we can use against our enemy. for example, right now i cannot go into detail in cyber, is operating against isil. these are people that are not part of the open in
culture and the internet should not be used for that purpose. as part of the campaign against isil if there are other kinds of attacks on the homeland potentially in in terms of the investments because the services all have cyberefforts to put it into the operation plan and we have the room is investment with our systems of tens of billions of dollars all of which is
modernized to put into the cloud that could be better defended and we have increased it the recognition with the importance of cyberto focus on the future. >> i will be very quick with the primary risk to protect our own capability is critical but we also talk about opportunity as well. so that second question to defend our own network to support the defense of our nation as well as the capabilities to take the fight to the enemy which obviously not in this venue but to talk about that cybernation force we did build those teams the issue
refocused on providing the training but those are true the other areas to enhance that effectiveness. the budget is focused on enhancing the capability over the last few years. >> thinks general to as we do that we have partners to play an increasing role. to be cumbersome and bog down it has been with the executive branch since march march 2015 it is one sign of
many to drive out the partners elsewhere with russia and china for assistance that the relationships are critical path to preferred -- with the current action with a long time to teach a client's this isn't just the duty issue for you play a significant role in the process. what you doing to expedite the request and what changes be made and. >> that export helps the industrial from when others make investments those are the investments with
aircraft and to make them less expensive for us. id how important that is in it makes them stronger. they are friends. we don't want to do everything yourself so we're trying to get other people to be in the game with that capability into absolutely right. and for all those other reasons the speeding up and the approval process and i talked to secretary kerry about that that this is an important positive thing for a american defense so they
can help themselves lynette with the counter par with the chief of defence as a great partner with to prosecute that curt fight it has been critical for the last two decades and they are incredibly frustrated those are the countries we should be keeping close with those valuable allies from the u.s. perspective and we should live for ways to expedite because they will go elsewhere to build in dropper ability and one of the ways you do that is the commonality of the equipment if you buy that chinese aircraft ahead makes it incredibly difficult to put
coalitions together and to require the effective coalition. to read sure we have that we have to make it easier. >> if there is anything we can do to help speed that up please let us know. ha -- with the uprising of egypt except military to military we kept that going we need to do that to make it faster and smoother. >> you have many smart
decisions one as principal deputy assistant secretary beginning your career in my office. >> thank you for that. he is fantastic and i rely on him and i am grateful for him. >> mr. secretary but part of the debate on the budget i want to ask about the software and how we educate our troops with that intellectual talent that we need. to work of professional military education speaking with general oh dear now he
went through a variety of issues when dash odierno said we have situational awareness but that includes awareness of culture and logistics' when you kick in the door who's behind it so i would like you to comment there are redoing enough to invest in the software? are some of those challenges the we are too busy to learn the don't allow was to make those investments in what can we do on his obligations that we have? >> while we are acknowledging people come with like the technology also for your service in this body with your loyalty to the department of defense
>> i think we feel most passionate about is professional military education of our people. once we get them we need to develop them because the world changes in technology changes the skills that they need changes in order to retain them they need to feel like they're building their skill set that is crucial and when you talk to folks what would it make you leave? if you sit around the dinner table there are a lot of things that they talk about but the big one is that it
was part of society today and not so much in the past is companies recognize that it didn't end when they were kids you have to keep up or the world will pass you by that is true everywhere and in companies they try to do that it is critical for the military to keep the skills sharp to make them motivated. one of the things we are addressing in the budget is every time there is little shaken the budget i was asked about the consequences of turbulence of the kraft many did you have to grab it that is a bad way to manage yourself that we have to do that one of the things you grab is education funding
that is penny wise pound foolish and i thank you are absolutely right i will stop at that point. >> actually may also ask you to comment on something you have worked on to shape a sharper in better mind in the military? >> i became aware six years ago from the marine expeditionary force looking for ways to enhance the resilience at the time and i gather briefing who at the time made it clear that that will help us of consequences
like posttraumatic stress in deal with those challenges and focus its so i think there is a lot to that in there is a lot of promise to enhance those capabilities. >> thank you for all you'd do you are an important part and i am proud to know you. secretary carter only five of our nato allies have kept their obligations as strong and stable europe are more importantly from u.s. citizens the european reinsurance initiatives funding what steps are you
secretaries of defense with the decline in european defense there are that are increasing their level in think of the united kingdom as one and of course, our allies around the world but japan and the australia so they are getting stronger but in general to be invested in the european reassurance initiative the plan is to work with them and to do that we need their participation and assistance with their own capabilities. kept its equipment there permanently but the approach to increased force presence is rotational rather than