Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20131218

How for some information is handled, collect it, and done for marketing purposes. It is at 2 30 p. M. Eastern also on cspan. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke about the Supreme Court through a conversation with a former u. S. Solicitor theodore olson. He breezily argued before the court he recently argued before the court in two cases. This is a 45 minute event. [applause] good morning. [inaudible] [laughter] [inaudible] audio. Someone will also have to control the microphone. [laughter] it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to ask questions of Justice Ginsberg instead of the other way around. [laughter] i want to thank all of you out there who planted questions with me in the hopes that i would ask those questions, but i probably will not ask any of those questions. [laughter] lets start with the Supreme Court of the u. S. You and your court handled the most difficult and most controversial questions of our day and of our society involving life, death, voting, property, race, freedom, and Campaign Contributions all of those things. What is so special about this Court Despite the fact that you decided controversial questions . The Supreme Court of the u. S. Is the most respected institution in our government and has been for a long time. Tell us about why that is . I would add that it is probably the most suspected high court in the world. One reason is that we have been involved in passing on laws and executive actions of constitutionality. In other countries in the world, parliamentary supremacy it wasnt until world war ii that courts abroad began to engage in judicial review for constitutionality. Just to take a few notable cases, when president truman decided that the country was at war in korea i could not risk a strike at a steel plant, he took over the steel mills. That was challenged. The courthouse, mr. President , you do not have that authority alone. You need congress to be with you. What did truman do . That is remarkable to many courts in the world. We have an Excellent Police staff at the court. We have no guns. We do not have our own purse. When the Supreme Court makes a decision like that, probably the most are medical and was nixon. Most dramatic one was nixon. The court said, turn over the tapes. And he did and he resigned from office. Part of it is the court has been at this for a very long time. It is accepted. The court made its decision. I dissented, as you know. I do know that. [laughter] the country accepted it. No one was rioting in the street. The election was settled. All of the members had one thing in common we wanted to keep it that way. We wanted to make sure when we left the court, it would be in a secure position as it was in when we became a member. That leads me to a question you do decide very controversial cases. Sometimes the dissenting opinions clash with the majority opinions with quite a high level of intensity. Yet the court comes back together every year in october after the final decisions are rendered in june. You all seem to get along personally with one another, notwithstanding the difficult and intense decisions that are made. Is that true . What are your relationships . It is the most collegiate place i have ever worked. Part of it is that we know we have to Work Together to keep the court in the position that it holds. To take an example, that was a marathon. We have the argument on monday. Decision on tuesday. Very soon after, we had our regular january sitting. We all came together. It was almost as though nothing had happened. It was the same. We were going on to the new sitting. There was a book written about the court called nine scorpions in a bottle. [laughter] i know that does not reflect the relationships that exist today. Some people felt that in past years, the justices on the court developed animosity towards one another. If that is true, what do you attribute the relationships that you have now . Different periods of the court were collegial. Perhaps most striking example of an on Collegial Court unCollegial Court was when president a president appointed to the court. Wilson had appointed one before. That person did not like jews. So much so that he would leave the room. Every time there is any justice, we would take a photograph. There is no photograph because that justice refused to stand next to another justice. There were animosities in the court. From time to time. In the current court, it is most collegial. It is wellknown that you and Justice Scalia are very good friends and have a wonderful relationship with one another, notwithstanding the fact that his judicial philosophy inured judicial philosophy cannot be can be quite distant and you have dissented from his opinions and vice versa. Is that true about your relationship with Justice Scalia . What causes that to be true . I met Justice Scalia for the first time when he was on the faculty of the university of chicago. I was teaching at columbia. He gave a talk that was about a famous case at the d. C. Cursus circuits. He was severely critical about that. I disagree with the most everything he said, but he said it in such a captivating way. [laughter] even now, you have been a consumer of our products [laughter] it is attention grabbing. Mine is moderate and restrained in comparison. [laughter] i find it attention grabbing when you ask me a question in the court. It gets my attention. [laughter] both you and Justice Scalia are opera buffs. You go to the opera together. Now i read in the paper that someone has written an opera about Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia. Did you know that . Is this true . [laughter] everything in the court is done by seniority. Even though im older by Justice Scalia, he was appointed before i was. Popper is called scalia ginsburg. The opera is called scalia ginsburg. [laughter] how can you write an opera about the two of you . I think there are a lot of people out there who would like to take a hand at that. Will it happen . This is a random page from the court. From the score. It does exist. An opera composed by a young man who advertises himself as a, composer, lyricist, and pianist, but he also has a law degree. In his constitutional law class, he was reading these opinions Justice Scalias opinions, my opinions, he decided this would make a great opera. [laughter] i will give you a sample. This is Justice Scalias opening aria. It is labeled rage aria. [laughter] the main refrain goes this way the justices are blind. How could they possibly office the constitution says, absolutely nothing about this. That is his opening. [laughter] my response aria is in the style of verdi. It goes you are fighting in vain for a solution to a problem that isnt so easy to solve. But the beautiful thing about our constitution is that like our society it can evolve. [laughter] [applause] im sure that everyone of us here are going to be wanting to stand in line to see the opera. [laughter] is it within a year . What is the plan . Is it a reading or a singing in february somewhere around baltimore. That will be the first time that the entire score will be played. Justice ginsberg, in 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Justice Sandra day oconnor to the court. She was the first woman to serve on the United States Supreme Court. There have been 112 appointments to the Supreme Court. You were 108. Is that correct . When you replace Justice White . 107 or 108. You are the second woman up proved appointed to the Supreme Court. What did it mean to the court when it finally had a woman justice and when you came onto the court, two women justices . You can say what it is like now with three justices being female. When santa was asked that sandra was asked that question to have a second woman, she said, you think i am glad that Justice Ginsberg is on board, you can imagine the joy of john oconnor to be no longer the lone male spouse. [laughter] she was there all alone for 12 years. A sign that women were there to stay came when i was appointed. They did a renovation in our robing rooms. Up until then, there was a bathroom and it was labeled men. When xander was at conference, when leaders were at conference, she had to go to her office. Things were changing. For every year that we sat together, and there only one lawyer or another would calmly justice oconnor. They would hear a womans voice and they knew that there was a woman and although we do not speak alike and we do not look alike, but now with three of us, no one calls me Justice Sotomayor or justice kagan. It is an exhilarating change. After sandra left and i was all alone in my corner of the bench, and i did feel lonely, now we are all over. I sit toward the middle. Elena is on my left and sony on my right. Sonya on my right. Those two women are not shrinking violets. [laughter] they are very active in questioning. It is wonderful for the schoolchildren who parade in and out to see that women are there. Theyre are part of the courts operation. You mentioned the oral argument process. I think most people do not know that the court hears about 75 cases a year in each case, except in unusual situations, is a lot of one hour oral arguments. Each side gets half an hour. Some people think that lawyers get up and lecture or give a speech as a part of their oral argument. It is not like that at all. Can you describe what oral arguments are like . Yeah. Let me Say Something about the 75 cases that we hear and decide on. That 75 comes from a pile of over 8000 petitions for review. From those, we select a very small number. The reason we do that is we see our job is keeping the law of the United States more or less uniform, whether it is statutory it everybody agrees, there is no need for us to step in. But when three judges are of different minds, that is when we step in. The 75 we get down to that way. The oral argument time as you said is very precious. The justices have come to the bench after having done reading. I think most of my colleagues start as i do by reading the opinions. I do that before i turn to the lawyers speech. I will know if they are giving an honest account of what the decision is. And if they are not, Justice Ginsberg catches them. Nowadays, we have many friends. So many that it is not possible for the justices to read all of them. My law firm has instructions. Everything is color coded. There are three piles. One is skipped. That is the largest pile. [laughter] another is to skim or read pages. That is not in the partys briefs. Then theres a small pile that says read. Those are the really good ones. People are not just saying, me, too. When we come to the bench, where rare well armed and prepared for the hearing of it we are very well armed and prepared for hearing the case. We ask the most difficult ones on which the decision may turn, that the kids should have a chance advocate should have a chance to address what is on the decisionmakers mind. Some lawyers resent our interruptions. They would like us to keep quiet and they would like to present their prepared appeals. For me, in the days that our i was arguing cases, a cold bench was the worst possible because i had no idea what was in the minds of the judges. Sometimes a question is asked not so much to elicit a response from the lawyer, but to persuade a colleague. Sometimes a justice tries to a sustained lawyer who is on the ropes assist a lawyer who is on the ropes by asking a helpful question. Many lawyers miss that cue because they are so suspicious. [laughter] but when i come off of the bench, i have a pretty good idea where my colleagues are on that case. We are sometimes talking to each other and talking through the council not to the council. Have you found that certain styles of advocacy by the lawyers working better in the courts . Justice scalia was here before this group a few months ago and talked about advocacy is written about that. You must have your own views about what works and what doesnt work. Could you say a word or two about that . I think they will prepared opening sentence is a good idea. You can get that out. Sometimes. [laughter] and then to ride with the wave and go where the court is taking you. Dont try desperately to get back to what you planned. I always have about 45 points. If im responding to a question, i would immediately pick up on the plan wanted to get across without leaving a pause that would invite another another question. This raises a question that many do not know. You are an advocate yourself before the Supreme Court. You represented cases and handled pieces involving the rights of women. And then. And men. And men. John roberts argued cases before he was appointed to the Supreme Court. Does it make a difference that you were yourself an advocate and you know what it is like out there . Or most of your colleagues have not argued . Justice kagan was the solicitor general. She argued a number of cases that one year. Doesnt it make a difference to have been an advocate . To me, it does. In this respect. I try to keep my questions tight. And not to ask a question as a professor with a question that goes on and on. I try to abbreviate the questions. Not cut into the lawyers time excessively. You appreciate what it is like to be in a room and to listen to speeches in the form of questions you avoid that yourself . Some of your colleagues have a little bit more of a broader latitude forward that. Yes. I have occasionally commented on that. We appreciate how precious that halfhour is. We try to be more disciplined. Observe a preceding in the u. S. Supreme court and then do what i am going to do in february and decide. There the justices sit in magnificent maroon, velvet ropes. They asked no questions at all. They sit through the entire argument. I think it would be hard for me to stay awake if i operated on that type of court. [laughter] could you comment on the confirmation process and then we will have some questions from the audience . When you were confirmed 20 years ago, the vote was 973. I did not look up who were the three senators who voted against you. But i bet you could name them. But the process has become very contentious. John roberts had 23 plus votes against him and more than 40 votes against justice alito. And you talk about what the process has become compared to what it was like when you were confirmed . Another justice and i were confirmed. There was a failed nomination. Justice thomas had a turbulent nomination. There is public reputation that had declined. There was a deliberate effort. There had been no women on the committee. They enlarge the committee by two. Two were added into the committee. I was nominated in june. Any senator could have put a hold on me so that my hearing wouldnt come up until the new term is underway. There were three negative votes, but none of the three try to stop the confirmation process from acquiring speedily. My biggest supporter on the Judiciary Committee was not Vice President joe biden. He was the chair of the committee. It was hatch. Not one senator asked me any questions. About that affiliation. My hope is that we would get back to the way it was. We spoke about justice alito. Justice kagan and Justice Sotomayor had many negative votes. A great man that i knew and loved said the symbol of the u. S. Is not the bald eagle. It is the pendulum. I think the pendulum has gone too far in one direction in the handling of judicial nominations and it should go back to the middle. I think we would all hope that. Lets get a hand to Justice Ginsberg. [applause] we have time for questions. There are two microphones. Go to one of the microphones and identify who you are. No questions from the media. And no questions on cases that are pending decisions or about to be heard. Thank you. My name is gary. Thank you to both of you for your historic leadership in protecting the rights of gay americans to marry. It was a terrific change that is necessary. [applause] thank you, Justice Ginsberg, for sharing your thoughts with us today. As an american that is part of the Business Community that is in trouble, there are lots of laws and ambiguous loss. We have example of how at t tried to buy a company they thought they could buy, but with great lawyers and yet they were stop by the government because at t business communities think they are following the laws, but they are either ambiguous or unclear. If you had a message to legislators in which you wish they could do something and you had a magic button you could press, what would you Like Congress to do differently than what they are doing today . To the first part of your question, there are many laws that are ambiguous, dense, can be read in more than one way, sometimes in more than three or four ways. In that respect, our congress does not stand up so well. There seems to be a lack of discipline. We need an Expert Committee go over the provisions and try to detect ambiguities. Sometimes ambiguities are deliberate because the question was a political hot potato. The members of congress are for to punt it to the court. To say what the law meant. I think people in the Business World who care, they let their representatives know if youre having a hard time because the laws are unclear. Justice ginsberg, my name is josh. My question for you, after same sex marriage, where do you see the future of equal protection down the road . Thank you for asking that question. The equal protection clause is my favorite cause in the constitution. [laughter] i think it shows the genius of the system. Go back to where it started. The constitution opens with some physical words, we, the people, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. If you asked the question who are we, the people that would include me because we were not part of the Political Community in till 1920. People were held in human bondage. Even white males in many places could not vote unless they were property owners. We went from an idea of we, the people that was rather confined and over the course of more than two centuries, that notion has become ever more expansive. People who were once held in slavery, native americans did not count in the beginning. Women. The equal protection clause has worked to perfect a more perfect union, to perfect we, the people. The Founding Fathers had an idea from the start. You heard the lyric from my aria that a constitution like our society can evolve. Comcast, business for business. Im very struck are your integrity as my perception of you has evolved over the years. Justice ginsberg, you have always been one of my favorites. Please do not take this as an endorsement of the policy i will ask about, but term limits that we give each president ial term, two nominations thank you. It is a good question, but highly hypothetical. Article three of the constitution says that the judges shall hold their offices during behavior. This has been a well behaved [indiscernible] [laughter] is that because everyone is watching . The notion is that the judges would become independent. One gave us life tenure. Two provided that our salaries cannot be diminished while we hold office. Most places in the world i would have been gone years ago. [laughter] 65, 70. So, it would take a constitutional amendment to change that. Our constitution is powerfully hard to amend. Proponents of equal rights amendment know as proponents of the likelihood that you could galvanize the public to amend article three and put in a fixed term some systems say that the Constitutional Council in france has a nine year nonrenewable term. In systems that have a relatively long term, the notion is make it nonrenewable so that the judges wont court favor from particular constituents. It is a real problem in the u. S. Come in state to dictionaries that are elected. Federal judges are all appointed and fit during this behavior. Should a justice plan his are her retirement for to coincide with the office of president s of the same party so that if it is a republican appointee that justice should wait until there is a republican president and plan his or her retirement at that point . Is that the sort of thing entering anyones mind . I think one should stay as long as they can do the job. He. Do the job. I suppose there were many people who wanted Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall to leave when a democrat was president. They didnt. The number one question is, can you do the job . Can you think as well . Can you write with the same fluency . At my age, you take it year by year. [laughter] im okay this year. That is for sure. [applause] good morning, Justice Ginsberg, and mr. Moderator. Im with the united postel service. We appreciate you being here. My question to you is how do you find peace within yourself if there is a case that has been argued and you dont agree with what the resolution is . How do you find peace when you go home to your family . I know a lot of times in the professional arena, we do not know how to find a personal and work balance. How do you find that . You asked two questions. One concerns when i end up on the losing side. There is a famous man who said it aint over till its over. [laughter] think of one case that was 54. I was with the four. My bottom line was we had the Lily Ledbetter pay act. The constitutional question takes longer. If you think of all of the great free speech dissents written around the time of world war i, that was a lot of the land today, although when they were written, they only spoke for two justices. Im always hopeful that is my opinion does not command a court today, it will in time. Did you ask a question about work and life balance . Yes, maam. I have two children. They are 10 years apart. When my daughter was in school, it was unusual to have a mother who was a working mom. 10 years later when my son was in school, there was a tremendous transformation in those years because there were many mothers who had paying jobs as well. That was in the late 60s and 70s. The greatest asset is to have a supportive spouse. Someone who thinks your work is as important as his. Sometimes one accommodates to the other, so my husband graduated from law school before i did. He had a good job in new york. Marty has been teaching at columbia and transferred to you accomdate to each other at different times in your life. Thank you. Last question. Thank you. My name is scott. Im with microsoft. I am honored, Justice Ginsberg, to be in your presence. You are a vibrant spirit and mind. I appreciate the opportunity to hear you today. My question is a recent president ial aspirant said that corporations are people, my friend. Referring to know particular case, i am curious to hear your thoughts on the personhood. We start out with we, the people in your earlier statement that corporations are becoming the people. Thank you. A corporation counts as a person for some purposes, but not for others. Corporations dont march to the polls. My answer to your question is sometimes they are considered a person. For example, an entity is entitled to due process just as an individual is. The same would be true for equal protection. You can single out one kind of business and say we will tax that this is more heavily than another. We are continuing to have questions about the extent to which a corporation should be treated in the same manner as an individual in cases where it is appropriate to recognize that a corporation is an artificial entity. It is not a flesh and blood person. This is a very busy time of the year for the court. Each of the justices spent an enormous time preparing for oral arguments and reading the briefs and writing opinions or dissenting opinions. I know how hard Justice Ginsberg works. I have every respect that she would take her time to be here with us. It is not her favorite hour of the day. [laughter] we owe her a great deal of thanks for her time and her thoughtful and revealing remarks about the court. Thank you, Justice Ginsberg. [applause] thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] on our next washington journal we talk with james andrew lewis. 230 a discussion on product in the 113th congress then a discussion on productivity in the 113th congress. Thomas mann from the Brookings Institute joins us. You can watch washington journal each morning at 7 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Front of theng in worlds first practical airplane. This is the third and final experiment to airplane that the Wright Brothers built. It survives today. Wrightrplane that consider the first practical airplane was constructed and flown. Phone this is also a plane that was built less than two years after the first flight to kitty hawk, north carolina. What is interesting to think about is that the wright flyer in kitty hawk flew four four times on one historic day. It was a proof of concept of power. Waslane behind me, the 1095 905 capable of repeated flights and landings. It had upwards of 40 minute. Is airplane could fly in graceful circles and do a figure eight and bend and turn and five very much like a modern airplane flies. His is very much a modern airplane capable of being with three independent axes of flight. There is more from the Wright Brothers Aviation Center next weekend as a book tv and American History tv look at the history and literary life of dayton, ohio. 2 anday at noon on cspan sunday at 5 p. M. On cspan 3. 12 republicans voted with all Senate Democrats on a twoyear budget manager. The Senate Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell voted against moving forward with the bill, which the house approved with last week. Here is some of tuesday Senate Debate. Budget. Dnt produce a the companies did not vote. Leaders prepared legislation that is now before us that has a number of problems in opinion. It is not the right way to have conduct to this process. , should beion is advance that this legislation or improved . Ed to be i believe they can be improved. I believe it should be improved. Elieve legislative and legislation that amends the budget control act of the United States that it successfully betain it ought not to lightly amended. I would suggest that we vote against it. We say to the leadership and senator reid that we want to have amendments on this legislation. We are about to have a significant reduction in the retirement benefit of disabled military personnel, people deserve 20 years in the united military. Their pay is going to be cut as much as 70,000. We need to think about that. This legislation, amazingly and disappointingly, it offers the ability of the senate to block entry in spending. We have a budget like the border today that allows an objection to be raised. It requires 60 votes in order to spend more than we have agreed to spend. This legislation amazingly perhaps the house did not understand the significance of it. It is very significant. We have loaded three separate times to block this legislation in the last year or so, successfully. We want to stay with the commitment that we made to the American People to keep spending at a correct level. Collings, there are a lot of problems with this bill. We should say to senator reid and the leadership here in the senate, the democratic leadership, that we must slow down and have a chance to have actual debate stop lets fix some of the problems. There are plenty of times to fix those problems and send the bill back to the house and pass it before the deadline of january 15. I thank the chair and i yield the floor. The senator from washington. We have lurched from one budget crisis to another. From one fiscal cliff to the next. When one countdown clock stopped, the next one got started. The uncertainty was devastating to our very fragile economic recovery. The constant crisis will cost us millions of dollars in lost growth and jobs. It is hurting our families and our communities. It is cutting off investments in growth and national security. After the completely unnecessary Government Shutdown and the debt limit crisis two months ago, the American People are more disgusted than ever. They are sick of partisanship and sick of showboating. They are tired of turning on the televisions at night and seeing elected officials saying, it is my way or the highway. They had no more patience for politicians holding the economy and the federal government hostage to extract concessions or score political points. When the government was finally reopens and the debt limit crisis was averted, people across the country were hoping that democrats and republicans could finally get in a room, make some compromises, and take a step away from the constant crises. That is why i was so glad that part of the crisis ending deal was creating the budget conference that many of us here on both sides of the aisle have been trying to start since the senate and house passed their budget seven months ago. The budget conference began at a time when distrust between democrats and republicans could not be higher. In two months to get a deal. Most people assumed that there was no way that this could be done. The chairman ryan and i got together and we started talking. We decided that instead of trying to solve everything at once, the most important thing we could do for the family we represent was to end the uncertainty and start rebuilding some trust. We werent going to spend the next eight weeks in partisan corners. We were not going to use what was said in the room to launch political attacks on the other. We were not going to try to tackle the larger challenges that we both knew were critical, what we were going to start right now. We focused on what was attainable. We Work Together to find Common Ground and we look for ways we could compromise and take some steps toward the other. We both thought that the least we should be able to do was to find a way to replace some of the acrosstheboard cuts from sequestration and agree on a spending level for the short term so we can avoid another crisis. I know some of our colleagues want to keep the sequester cap. Democrats and many republicans believe that it makes sense to replace these cuts with smarter and more balanced savings. Mr. President , we have spent seven weeks working on this. I worked closely with the House Budget Committee rating member Chris Van Hollen and my colleagues here in the senate on and off the Budget Committee. Im proud to last week chairman ryan and i reach an agreement on the bipartisan budget act of 2013. This bill passed the house of representatives on thursday. It was a vote of 33294. We had overwhelming support from democrats and republicans. I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to support this bill here in the senate consented send it to the president s about it can be signed into law. The bipartisan budget act its job and Economic Growth first by rolling back sequestrations harmful cuts to education, medical research, Infrastructure Investments and other areas for the next two years. If we do not get a deal, we would have faced another continuing resolution that would have locked in the automatic cuts over a potential Government Shutdown in just a few short weeks. Over the past year i have heard from so many people in washington who have told me that sequestration has hurt their families, their businesses, and their communities. Head start programs were shut down. Seniors had to wonder if meals on wheels would continue. The sciences, the doctors, investments and cuttingedge research were cut off and threatened. Construction workers lost their jobs. Small businesses declined due to cuts. Then the cuts from sequestration they were real, they were hurting, and it would only get worse. I am proud that our bill replaces almost 2 3 cuts of discretionary investments. As will not solve every problem sequestration has caused, but it is a step in the right direction. It is a dramatic improvement over the status quo. Over the last year, i have talked to workers. They have been very much impacted by these sequestration and very worried about how another round of cuts will affect their jobs and families. I have heard from military leaders who told me that and from companies that do business with the Defense Department. The uncertainty and the cuts were hurting their ability to hire workers invest in future growth. Im glad that this bill will prevent the upcoming round of sequestration and provide some certainty for the pentagon for the upcoming year. Secretary of defense hagel and secretary dempsey have expressed support for this bill, as have a last few years highlighting the impact of continued sequestration on national security. The increased investments we get from rolling back sequestration are fully replace of a smarter balanced mix of new revenue amorous possible spending cuts. The responsible thing to do is to increase investments now weller economic recovery remains fragile and workers are fighting to get back on the job. This bill moves is in the direction of exactly that. We have cut our deficit in half over the last few years. This bill adds to the 2. 5 trillion in reduction done since 2011, with an additional 23 billion in evenings over the next 10 years. The bill is not exactly what i would have written on my own. I am pretty sure it is not what chairman ryan would have written. I asked for three additional minutes. Any objection . Hearing none this bill is a compromise. Neither side got exactly what they wanted, and both of us had to give in. I was disappointed that we were not able to close a single tax loophole. I hope we could extend critical support to workers who are starting to get back on the job. I was disappointed that republicans refused to allow that to be part of this. I certainly would have liked to replace sequestration. I know it was difficult for many republicans to accept any increases in the bca cap at all. I know many republicans had hoped that this would be an opportunity to make benefit cuts. I fought hard to keep them out. This deal is a compromise. It does not tackle every one of the issues that we face as a nation, but that was never our goal. This bipartisan bill takes the First Step Towards rebuilding our budget process. Hopefully towards rebuilding congress. We have spent far too long scrambling to fix artificial crises instead of working together to solve the big problems we all know we need to address. We have budget deficits that have improved, but they have not disappeared. We have deficits in education, innovation, infrastructure, and there is much more we have to do to boost our economy. We must tackle our longterm fiscal challenges fairly and responsibly. So mr. President , i am hopeful that this deal can be just the first of many bipartisan deals. I hope that he can rebuild some of the trust and bring democrats and republicans together and demonstrate that government can work for the people we are representing. I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan budget act of 2013. Mr. President , i want to thank chairman ryan for his work with me over the last several months. I want to thank a number of members who have worked very closely with us including Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen and every member of our Budget Committee who work hard to pass a budget, start a conference, and getting by partisan deal. When we come back next year, i am ready to go to work. I will work with anyone on either side of the aisle who wants to build on this bipartisan foundation to continue addressing our nations challenges fairly and responsibly. It is not going to be easy, but the American People are expecting nothing less. Thank you. I ask for unanimous consent and that the rule be waived. I rise today to speak on the bipartisan budget deal. We have seen true leadership on the divisive issues. The legislation we have before us today is the embodiment of compromise. It is something that unfortunately has been absent in washington as of late. The bill sets forth the guidelines for spending for the remainder of this fiscal year. It also sets up the platform for the next fiscal year. This deal will set overall Discretionary Spending at 1. 01 trillion. It is halfway between the Senate Budget number in the house budget number. This number is also less than the 2000 spending level set for in chairman ryans 2011 budget. The overall spending numbers higher than what i would have wanted, but the house and senate Budget Committee chairman crafted a deal that produces 23 billion in deficit reduction. 23 billion with the deficit that we have been running is a mere pittance. All of us who are concerned about this country would like to see that number higher. But more importantly, they have produced a budget that will set in place some fiscally responsible spending policies and give as a way forward. Regardless of how each member of this chamber feels about the resulting policies, we should all recognize the importance of this agreement and thank the chairmen for their work to end this chapter of political disagreement. Although i would still prefer a grand bargain to solve our fiscal crisis, this deal marks the first step in that journey. Congress will now be in a better position to tackle the issues of taxation and entitlement reform in the short term. I truly hope that the committee will take this as a sign that does need to be what happens next if we will truly address our fiscal issues. The budget deal before us is not perfect. Theres a lot in this proposal to like, there is a lot to dislike. But one issue related to military retirement pay will have to be addressed after the passage of this bill. Im told by pentagon officials that this provision basically came out of nowhere. I think it is terribly unfair to our men and women in uniform. They should not have a disproportionate share in our deficit reduction measures. However, i feel confident that this issue will be resolved in the near term. I have had conversations with the chairman of the committee of armed services, as well as a number of other members, who are committed to making sure we address it and that we will come up with some alternative. This does not happen until december 2015. Many georgians have served with honor in our military. Our annual costofliving increase may appear insignificant on paper in this bill, but this is real money, promise to those who put their life in harms way in defense of this nation. I want to share to our servicemen and women that there is ample doubt to address this issue before takes effect. Im committed to addressing, and i will not turn my back on those who fight and have fought for this country. That said, this budget deal is a necessary and crucial step towards a functioning congress. With passage of this budget deal, we can close the vote on Discretionary Spending arguments for the next couple of years. We can turn our full attention to entitlement reform and tax reform. Congress will debate raising the debt ceiling once again next year. We will no longer need to provide additional flexibility for defense spending. This bill will give the Defense Community the resources they need and conversations with top officials at the pentagon and within the Intelligence Community over the weekend, they have urged the support of this bill as a way to address the current budget crisis. I am extremely sympathetic to both those communities and want to make sure that this bill does address the shortfalls, as well as the flexibility issues in the Defense Community, as well as in the Intelligence Community. I was pleased with the approach that the budget chairman took to not turn off sequester, but to instead extending mandatory cuts for an additional two years, the odds what the budget control prescribes. This is an 85 billion fix on the sequester that keeps it from going too deep into the Defense Budget. It has the potential for causing real problems within the pentagon and within the defense and intelligence communities. With this budget deal, we can also put in place a budget allocation. It will be a number that congress can spend on Discretionary Spending. This well, for the first time in several years, allow the Appropriations Committee to do the job it was intended to do. Our operators have previously been forced to make spending decisions without a top line number. And through continuing resolutions, they have no information and no guidance from congress. It is no wonder that are spending is out of control. When congress approaches the appropriations process to regular order, and not through lastminute continuing resolutions, this agreement makes that process more likely. The Budget Committee chairman has also made a goodfaith effort to attack the real problems on her budget i cutting money for mandatory programs rather than searching for more discretionary cuts. In their agreement, they took note of how often the federal government is giving special treatment to certain groups. They have taken efforts to curb that. Well many outside group attack these reforms, they are representative of the types of reforms that will have to be included in any future agreement to achieve entitlement reform. At the end of the day, that is where the real problem in our federal budget lies. Mr. President , this deal does little to address the 17 trillion debt. It is a start down that road and i truly hope that this will lead to more serious discussions on the floor of the United States senate and a solution for how we are going to see that 17 trillion repaid. This budget deal represents a partial completion of the work the American People expect from us. While far from perfect, it leaves much to be desired. The prospect of compromise on the single most important issue of our time requires the attention and serious work of every member of his party. I will vote for the passage of this bill because it lays the groundwork for the next chapter in our pursuit of fiscal sanity. For 3. 5 years now, we have been involved in seeking out a much larger debt and deficit reduction deal than what is currently before. We know that the American People are tired of outofcontrol spending. They do not understand why congress cannot address debt. It is not rocket science. We got a roadmap three years ago this month. I regret that the white house is not following the leadership of its own commission. This bill represents a small step towards the type of cooperation that will be necessary to comprehensively address our debt and deficit. It is my hope that this agreement will allow the effort to restart. Mr. President , i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a court. Earlier this morning, the senate voted to advance the agreement that passed the house last week. The legislation has been a topic of much discussion over the last couple days. There have been many arguments on both sides. While i appreciate the challenges, the house and Senate Negotiators faced in crafting these budget guidelines, i voted against this legislation because in my view, congress should continue to adhere to the fiscal restraints that both parties agreed to under the budget control act. I was the principal republican negotiator. Ive been particularly invested in that agreement. Ive been particularly invested in that. The budget declined for two years in a row since the korean war. This was hardwon progress on the road to getting our nations fiscal house in order. As i said, i fully appreciate what chairman ryan and chairman murray faced in their negotiations. There are clearly some good things to be said about their agreement. But in my view, we should not go back on the commitment we made under the bca. Nevertheless this has been a very important public debate. We are interested in having substantial debate on this or other substantive issues. Obamacare, which has been wreaking havoc on our constituents for months now, but which democrats seem entirely uninterested in discussing the democratrun senate has decided to a vote is attention to pushing through nominations. They would rather do that than spend time ceding political appointees to places like the department of the interior. These are positions that may be important, but are not in any way an emergency. They do not need to be attended to right this second. In the real world, millions of americans will continue to suffer under a law they told washington not to pass in the first phase. It is a law that washington democrats have refused to change. Our colleagues on the other side seem to think that they have no responsibilities to do anything about the impact of obamacare since the white house issued a press release declaring a partial victory. A partial victory in fixing the website. All of these approaches were a disaster. But the white house deflects on any problem that arises until people forget about the last one. What can some web technician they basically do nothing. We are now three months into this National Calamity. What are democrats doing about this National Calamity . They have issued a lot of powerful points and some have issued apologies, and they have mentioned private sector velocity, they have feared the political impact of leaving the wind place. There is hardly been any accountability for the massive consequences faced to the american consumers. In other words, they have not done much of anything. They have treated this whole thing like a Public Relations problem to get past, rather than a real life problem for middle class americans. They are engaged in a daily battle. They have one overriding goal. Protect the law. Nearly every day, we hear more about its painful impact. Since october rollout, millions of americans have lost their insurance plans. More than 280,000 have lost coverage in kentucky alone. So many are feeling the squeeze of this law. Folks like a mom from kentucky who told me that the annual out ofpocket expenses for her family rose from 1500 to 7,000. A man in another part of kentucky had a health plan that he liked and wanted to keep. It was 540 dollars a month policy that was perfect for his family. The government thought that they knew better than he did about the case of their family. He lost it. His is what he had to say. My plan is being eliminated because of the aca, obamacare. It will cost us 1400 next year. We can keep the plan until the end of next year, but we will have to pick a new one. We do not need the extra coverage for maternity, vision, or dental, but we will be forced to pay for. Then he continued. These changes are absurd. Most people in this country who are content with what they had are now paying for what obama is trying to do for a very few. He closed his letter by asking me to work to work to repeal obamacare. Every american should note that we are not going to give up this fight. No matter how much the other side tries to distract the countrys attention, we will not be fooled. We know that you will not be either. The folks that each of us were sent here to represent, not the government, should be the ones choosing plants that make more sense for their families. What our colleagues on the other side referred to as junk, that is because it is beyond offensive to the people we represent. There is a lot of ivory tower thinking that goes on in this city. Theres way too much of it. It is time for our Washington Democratic friends to climb out of the ivory tower and see the reality of their ideas in action. To witness the failure of their policies firsthand. It is time for washington democrats to drop their refusal to change anything of substance in obamacare and it is time for them to listen closely to the people in the first place. Here is what so Many Americans are saying. Here is what they are saying. They want democrats to start working with republicans to improve our National Health care system in a positive way, to help us implement real patient centered reforms that can lower costs and improve the quality of care. We were sent here to solve problems, not to make them more. That is what obamacare does. Lets get rid of that mistake and start over with real reform. Lets Work Together and we can do it. The senate panel will look at Social Security and pensions. This finance set security subcommittee hearing is live tomorrow morning at 10 00 eastern. Later, the Senate Commerce looks at how personal information is handled, collected and sold for marketing purposes. Watch live coverage at 2 30 eastern also on cspan. Today comesoing on down to two words. They are not my two words. Fundamental transformation. Those are obamas words. I ask a couple of questions. When you look at the constitution, does the president have the power to fundamentally transform america . Of course not. Why would you want to fundamentally transform america . It means you dont like america very much, do you . You dont like capitalism, private property rights. You dont like our constitutional system very much. When you keep hearing this fundamental transformation, change is hard, we need more time for change, you need to understand this is a direct attack on our constitutional system. That is what he is talking about. Sunday, january 5, best anding offer author radio personality mark levin will take your calls and questions in depth, live for three hours starting at noon eastern. Tvs tv in death book indepth. We want to know what your favorite books were in 2013. Join other readers to discuss notable books published this year. Go to book tv. Org and click on book club to enter. Senator tom coburn released his annual report on what he calls wasteful federal spending. The Oklahoma Republican took questions at this 25 minute briefing. Good morning, and sorry to keep you waiting. I just voted on a bill that raises 68 billion in spending. Whether you agreed my opinion or not is not an issue. If you look at the 700 billion in deficits and the debt, some grown up in the room has to question whether or not we are spending money wisely and effectively. 30 billion of what i would consider stupid or poor judgment when it comes to spending money in a time when we have very little money to spare. We have also had the Defense Department and people in nondefense Discretionary Fund screaming about the cuts. Theres nothing else to cut. That is not true. Congress is probably going to pass this bill, the house already has in the senate probably will today. It shows you that congress does not have its eye on the ball. We are not spending money in an appropriate way. We still provided money to study romance novels. We provided money to the state department so that they could encourage people to like their facebook page. We even help nasa fund studies of us, congress. My contention is my congressman focused on doing its job of setting priorities and oversight and cutting wasteful spending, we could have avoided both the government shut down and the budget deal that we are now considering, which actually grows the government and raises the burden on the american taxpayer. My favorite point in the program of this is that they spent millions of dollars on airplanes and as soon as they were delivered they ship into the desert. This is the same agency that will leave 7 billion worth of equipment in afghanistan. It is wasted, valuable equipment. But it is too hard to utilize it in some other area of the world. This is about why the American People have lost confidence in government. Why congresss rating is at 6. 0 . We would rather borrow money than cut spending. That is the truth. The American People have a right to expect much more from us than that. We embrace increasing the burden on the American People because we wont do our job. It is republican and democrat alike. Now i will take your questions. Yes maam . Can you tell us if anything has ever resulted has congress ever taken a look at the military . What is happening with these airplanes for example, they are not going to be transferred. They are going to get used to eventually, but not in a way that is most efficient. It is interesting if you dig into the background on these airplanes, they were bought the military comes up with all sorts of reasons why they dont want to use them. The Afghan Military wanted to use them. So we will give them to them. Were going to waste another 400 million by giving these aircraft to them. Here is my point, does congress hold the Administration Accountable . Does it hold itself accountable . Who makes that decision and are they still the ranks that they were . Are there supply problems . If there were, why are we holding the contractor accountable. There is no accountability and that is a function and result of poor leadership. I will give you a controversial one that didnt make much sense. Political science funding of studying congress, it is pretty obvious what congresss problems are. The American People have figured it out. Should we be spending money that we dont have . We passed that last year. We got rid of Political Science funding. Much of the chagrin of the Political Science professors around the country. It is not whether something is good or bad, it is whether we are to be making those decisions on a time when there are not when we are borrowing significant amounts of money. If we had a surplus, and we asked what shall be of the surplus, what is the appropriate thing to do . We are not in a surplus. We are in dire straits. We will not recognize now and in the short term the way you get out of trillion dollar debt is cutting a billion dollars at a time. Cut 30 billion at a time. Whether you agree with me are not that some of this should not have been done, you cannot disagree with everything. Should we have eliminated a bunch of these things instead of raised 24 billion off the American Public . Im just wondering in regard to the budget, some people are saying, it allows us to return to regular order of the budget. Should congress start looking at something . They could have already. We could have done appropriations bill last year. Why did we do them . Why did we not do then . They came out of the committee. You are asking the wrong person why we arent doing regular order. That is a decision fully made by the majority leader. He chose not to put Appropriations Bills on the floor. The one he did put on, he pulled after two days. Function ofr is a leadership, not a function of a budget deal. We had caps on. It was the sequester caps. The congress willingness to live within their means is not there. Republicans and democrats alike. The department of defense appropriators do not like our spending. But they will not do the hard work in eliminating the foolishness that is in the expenditures every year. If you actually did the oversight, this is not hard to do. All it takes is someone willing to say, maybe we ought to get rid of these aspects of the bill . It comes down to leadership. Committee leadership, subcommittee leadership, it requires people to do the right thing for the right reasons. You highlighted a bunch of things that have to do with the military. Given that we are supposed to be scaling down in 2014, and you expect more cuts for the military . We have not begun to uncover where the waste is. If you look at the military, and you put in modern management techniques, which she did, and we continue this process of improvement that is leadership exerted by one woman in her branch. She led that. What we ought to be doing is praising generals that actually the lead and get out and do the right thing with the right skill set and save the American People money. In my mind, if you wanted to save 100 billion, you could do it without any difficulty. It would not affect our readiness, our training, or our supply. We listed that. It has actually gotten worse, not better. A lot of people would agree about finding efficiencies, but what about the appropriations deadline being in january . Can you address this issue . I think committees of congress ought to be charged with doing oversight first. I will give you a great example of the labor and work worst committee in the house. We put out a study on job training. We got all these jobtraining three of them do exactly what the others do. They took 36 programs and converted it into six. As of last year, we have done nothing with that in the senate. Here is a way to save billions of dollars a year and it hasnt been considered in the Health Committee and the senate. I would go back and make the point that the charge i would make to the Appropriations Committee is to oversight and find the waste. Where can you consolidate programs . Where can you streamline things . Given where we are today, what we have tried to do is create new programs. We have not looked at the programs we have running but that will be addressed in the 2014 budget . It could be. You bet. If you want to oversight this, if you want to read some of the 50 reports that we put out the last five years, if you were a curious appropriator, you might find some valuable information in there. The problem is, like everything else, no one looks at it. It is hard work. Somebody doesnt get money. What does that translate into . It means somebody is not happy with me at home. The real problem is that most members of congress are more interested in getting themselves reelected than they are in fixing what is wrong with the country. I wondered what the debt ceiling will it come up again . What is your approach to that . Do you think that you should in exchange for voting to raise the debt ceiling . The American People do not believe that there is a debt ceiling issue here. Has it never not been passed . It is a lie to tell the American People there is a debt ceiling. Every time the career politicians in the town figure out a way to increase the debt ceiling. If in fact, you did the 1. 0 rule that has been posed and you cut the budget by 1. 0 every year, in 10 years you would have a balanced budget and you would not have to increase the debt ceiling. That does not say anything about reform to the taxpayer. I have not voted for a debt ceiling increase because i do not feel it is honest with the American People. It is meaningless. We should not spend money we do not have. We ought not to spend that money because all were doing is decreasing the standard of living of the present, upcoming generation. In 3 trillion in spending, and we should be able to find 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 . All we did was put up with this book i didnt include the second or third 200 of things that most reasonable people say, that is not good value. That is not wise spending. The question is, where is everybody else asking the questions as we continue to borrow ourselves into oblivion . 700 billion, think about that. What is going to be required of this country just to service that 700 billion . To me, this is a moral issue. It is a political issue. It is not a political issue. When you are spending money you do not have on things you absolutely need and the results of that is lowering the standards of living for young people in this country, i think that is immoral. It is not just wrong, it is morally wrong. We should not be irresponsible with their futures. That says nothing about how we take advantage of how this country has is partly been set up. It is a beneficial place to start a life. A follow up. Do you think other republicans are willing to leverage that vote . Will other republicans do you think of the republicans are willing to leverage that vote . I do not know. Historically, i have not been a good spokesman for other republicans. Lets put it that way. What will congress do there are a lot of Research Projects in these reports. Are those decisions made through a competitive grant process . What can congress do about that . That is a good question. Historically it has been a problem with congress. You can take the Affordable Care act if you want and say that it is a great example. When congress legislates, if you watch the legislative process, most of the time they legislate without having the knowledge of what theyre doing. But they lack the knowledge, they leave up to the bureaucracy. And that is 80 of the time. Real legislators know their issues, and other programs, knowhow they were, and direct agencies on what to do. That requires work. You need to know the programs. Like the program we are getting ready to reauthorize. I know that program. I know how it works and i know where it is not working. Were going to be very specific on what we tell Homeland Security to do. That requires hard work. Most people around here do not want to go to the depths of knowledge or law. That is why you have the nih giving grants out for things that would seem to be very questionable to the commonsense person and the average american. It is because we have not reined in their power to do those kind of things. When we reauthorize and we re appropriate, we want to make sure that something comes into our district that is not seen as an earmark. We will not do anything about how to make a judgment that is based on sound principles and good finance. The problem is congress. You cannot blame the bureaucracy, you must blame congress. Is wasteful spending got better in your time here . People are looking at it more appropriately. I am not sure i can quantify it. The budget is larger than it was. We are twice the size we were in 2001. The budget in terms of total dollars is twice as big. Whether the wasteful spending is twice as much or not, i am not sure. Whether washington knows or not, the American People know it. If you look at all the surveys of what they think is wasteful spending what are they to think . Were going to get airplanes, and half of them we will put in the desert. What do they think about that . It does not fit with common sense. It is not a good enough answer. It will not be a good answer in the long run, because it will directly impact these ended up the standard of living. Back in black, we put out 9 trillion worth of savings. Can you find one or 2 trillion and not raise taxes or spending . What we have done is what the career politicians want us to do. That is what will go down on the senate floor today. Financially it is stupid for the young people of this country. On the defense side, where any of the amendments that you are hoping to see incorporated . My amendment will not be considered. I think what we ought to do is hold contractors accountable. There are three sides to defense spending. There are things that have nothing to do with defense. We ought to get them out. It is not fair to say the Defense Budget as this, when 10 of the budget has nothing to do with defense. Number two, how do we buy major Weapons Systems . You will not solve the problem of cost to the pentagon until you make it where the contractors in this country have capital at risk. We do not have any capital at risk. Then you see the f35, and the contractors are making money every time the dollar goes over. Until they have capital at risk, they know how to milk the system. There is no penalty for milking the system. This has been going on since 500 hammers and 600 toilet seats. There does not seem to be any progress. How is this going to change . This is not going to change it. The only thing that will change it is for the American People to quit sending people up here with the motivation to reinstate it. The reason i am a term limit senator is that i dont want to fall into that habit of making that decision based on what is best for my political career, rather than what is best for the country. Term limits is something that has to happen in this country. If we had really strong term limits, the people who would be here would not be the people who are here today. It would be a different set of people. It will be people who know the hard knocks of life. They knew that life wasnt fair, and they would apply the judgment that they learn from life in terms of the rest of it. You have an elitism in washington that absolute stinks. It comes from careerism. You are talking about professional organizations, and i was wondering if any progress is made on that . They put out a nice piece on it that talked about the fact is, if youre in a state that has a Pro Football Team runs a progolf tournament, the career politicians are afraid to touch it. That is 100 million. That hundred Million Dollars that is given to these very elite groups of people in these major leagues, it is money that you are paying in taxes to make up for it. The fact that we do not have another cosponsor speaks volumes about the cowardice in washington. Here is a tax earmark specifically for some of the most welltodo people in the country. And i cannot get a cosponsor . What does that say to you . I would recommend that you go and look at what espn did on it and how they lay this out. It is a sham. It goes back to the question that the gentleman in the back asked. I love football, but i dont think that a person making 40,000 a year should pay more in taxes because the elites get a special tax break to take him millions of dollars each year. We are asking a regular joe to have less so that they can have a whole lot more. It is not right. It is not any different than earmarks in a spending bill. What do you think about the argument of it being a trade association . Im sure is like the Real Estate Agent and architects around the country. They work on commission in terms of their compensation. On the destruction of weapons, i dont know but i imagine that in some of these cases it would cost more to bring them back home then to destroy them. They dont want these falling into other peoples hands. What that says is that we will not need them again in some other areas of the world. It also speaks volumes about our ability to contract. Go read the history of what happened in afghanistan and iraq and read the cigar report associated of military per torment and the fact that we rush to build all of these emirates that we could tear them up and cut them up, but we might need them somewhere else. Some of it is the consequences of making a good decision now based on what was a stupid decision before. When the history books are written about iraq and afghanistan, it will be a case history and what not to do in terms of how you supply troops and how you do it. Can you comment on the cost of the obamacare website . Where did that come from . It is all footnoted. 60 Million Dollars is in advertising for the website. We have 319 Million Dollars in terms of the actual cost. It is close to 600 million. I am not critical of spending a lot of money to get the website built. They will get it fixed. The incompetence of rolling it out, nobody could not be critical of that. And you talk to people who actually do this for a living, and know how to do it, we will pay fourfive times more than what it should cost. That is waste. Competency is what is lacking in washington. In members of congress, and in the heads of a lot of agencies. Their political jobs, instead of competency jobs. If we took the people who actually ran Large Organizations and brought them into run Large Organizations here we dont do that. We bring in people who have political experience. Then we put them in a position of responsibility. The goal is for competency to be able to do the job. It is not any wonder that we fail on both capability and leadership when it comes to a lot of positions and agencies. Thank you all very much for being here. I appreciate it. Months after 12 people were killed in washingtons navy yard, the senate Homeland Security Committee Held a hearing on the security of federal buildings. That is next on cspan. Then, remarks from Supreme Court justice ruth ater ginsburg. Later, Senate Debate on the federal budget deal. I am standing in front of the worlds first practical airplane. This was the third and final experimental airplane that the right road was built. It survives as the second oldest of their airplanes today. This airplane was considered the worlds first practical airplane and was constructed and flown in less than six years time between the time they built their kite and the success of this particular airplane. This is also a plane that was built less than two years after their first flight at kitty hawk, north carolina. What is interesting to think about is that the flyer in kitty hawk flew four times, just four times on one very historic day. They were four very important flights and they were the proof of concept of powered heavier than air flight. The airplane behind me is a 1905 wright flyer three. It was capable of repeated takeoff and landing, repeated flight of not just for a few seconds at a time, but upwards of 40 minutes by october of 1905. This airplane could fly graceful circles, figure eights. It could bank and turn and fly very much like a modern airplane flies. This is very much a modern airplane capable of being controlled through three independent axes of flight, pitch, roll and yall. More from Wright Brothers Aviation Center next weekend as book tv and American History tv look at the history and literary life of dayton, ohio. Saturday at noon on cspan two and sunday at five a. M. On c span 3. From lawte panel heard enforcement officials about the September Mass shooting at the washington d. C. Navy yard. 13 people died during the shooting including the gun man. Several others were wounded. The building where the incident took place is slated to receive repairs and modifications. The senate Homeland Security committee is two hours 25 minutes. Good morning. The early bird. Good morning, mr. Chairman. You sent in good voice today. Welcome. Thank you for joining us. Some of you, thank you for joining us again and again. It is nice to see you all. This is an important hearing. This is the second in a series of hearings that will enable us to take a closer look at federal security for federal facilities. Alexisonths ago, aaron entered the Washington Navy yard with intention to inflict pain and suffering on anyone in his path. We do not know now and maybe we never will why this tragedy came to pass. Hopefully, the Lessons Learned from it will provide a foundation for preventing future tragedies like this one. Take a moment to recount just how aaron alexis got the access to the navy yard that allowed him to enter the facility that fateful morning. In 2007, aaron alexis joined the u. S. Navy. As with other service members, background check was performed and he was granted a lowlevel security clearance. After an Honorable Discharge in 2011, alexis was hired by s whose contractor confirmed that he possessed valid security clearance. Securityf that clearance and that job, alexis was provided with an id card that would authorize his access to certain facilities including building 197 at the Washington Navy yard. Shortly before 8 00 a. M. On six number 16th september 16, he drove to the front gate of the navy yard and displayed his access card. He was admitted by security, park his car and walked to building 197. By entering that building, he encountered two additional security layers, an automated turnstile which required a valid access card and an Armed Security guard posted near an entrance. Unfortunately, these measures were designed primarily to prevent unauthorized access and not to screen for weapons. Officials probably thought that the people working there were trustworthy because they had security clearances and had been vetted. At minutes after alexis entered he began shooting coworkers using a shotgun that he had successfully concealed. In the wake of the shooting, many began a review of security practices and procedures highlighted by the attack. Our first oversight hearing looked at the security clearance contracts that federal agencies have implemented to determine who should have access to Sensitive Information and facilities. At that hearing, we explored ways to improve the process and were reminded that quality cannot be sacrificed for speed. The purpose of todays hearing is to look at how we physically secure federal facilities from attack. In many instances, security measures began long before a person approaches the facility. Alexis was able to maintain his security clearance. He was trusted as a contractor and granted access to a navy yard complex. Aaron alexis exploited this trust and hurt a lot of innocent people. In the aftermath, it is only natural that we wonder if all people entering a federal facility, even employees should be screened in some way. Should we to i often used phrased from Ronald Reagan, trust but verify . Workplace violence and Insider Threats are just some of the mples of the many does undesirable threats facing our facilities. There are many other threats that agencies must attempt to detect and determine. Shooters,n to agencies must develop countermeasures for explosive devices, biological weapons and other types of assault. Todays hearing will examine federal agencies efforts to maintain effective layers of security at their facilities and prevent future attacks against innocent people. Security is not just about protecting the structure of a building. It is about safeguarding the millions of innocent people who work and visit these facilities on a daily basis. Todays hearing on the Facilities Security is about honoring the memory of the 12 men and women who died on september 16 earlier this year. That incidentom and doing all that we can to prevent a similar tragedy from happening in the future, people who work with me know that one of my Guiding Principles is, if it isnt perfect, make it better. Our goal today is to figure out how we can do a better job protecting people at our federal facilities. We can start by asking some fundamental questions. Howt, we need to ask federal agencies determine what threats are to their specific facilities. As we know, not every facility is the same. Large federal buildings in big may be targets for terrorism because of their size and what they symbolize. The more likely threat is securitya small social office or irs taxpayer second, wecenter. Should ask our federal agencies properly assessing and prioritizing these risks. As we all know, the world around us is constantly changing. So is the nature of the threats that we face. As a result, methods for security should always be under observation and assessment. Because the nature of the threat continues to evolve, the methods we use to secure our homeland must continue to evolve. That leads me to my final question. How do agencies respond to these evil thing threats . For onee that may work facility may not work for another. Not every facility might be able to be built 50 feet or more away from the nearest public road to protect against a vehicle threat. I also want to know if federal agencies are sufficiently sharing breast back best practices. Is the department of defense working with civilian agencies . Senior officials at a facility are responsible for determining which security measures should be implemented. Civilian officials on a local Security Committee may have little or no training in security matters. A Commanding Officer for a military installation may have years of experience and education in security matters. Most importantly, i want to know what actions organizations have undertaken since the Navy Yard Shooting to improve security in federal facilities. Departments and agencies bear responsibilities for securing federal facilities. Energy. Department of it also includes the federal protective Services Component of the department of Homeland Security. It is responsible for protecting federal facilities owned or leased by the General Services administration. There is no doubt that the federal protective service has a difficult mission. That Agency Employees only about 1000 enforcement officers to protect more than 9000 civilian federal facilities. Federal facilities. These facilitys are spread out all over our country. While Effective Services are was possible for assessing security at these facilities, and lacks the authority to let the security measures. The nadir prevents installing metal detectors and xray screening equipment at a facility, but it is the local facility Security Committee that decides whether to authorize and pay for those recommended security measures. As a repeated