tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 20, 2016 7:00pm-12:01am EDT
intelligence committee, but move out and come back to us. we need to build our systems in such a way to accommodate that. >> so, with that, it's a wonderful way, i think, to end our conversation. i want to offer my personal thanks to director clapper for taking time at the end of a long day to do this. the name of the series is securing tomorrow. in a lot of ways we are going to secure tomorrow, but one of the most important, obviously, is to have a good intelligence agency that operates within the law and have good oversight and experienced people running them. i think we all want to thank you very much for coming and sharing this time with us. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you very much. [ applause ]
or satellite provider. the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture opens in stores to the public for the first time on saturday. american history tv will be live from the national mall 8:00 a.m. eastern leading up to the outdoor ceremony. speakers include president obama and founding museum director, loni bunch. also, first lady, michelle obama, george w. bush and mrs. laura bush, chief justice roberts and david scorton. live saturday at 8:00 eastern on c-span 3. c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, california democratic caucus chair will discuss zika funding and campaign 2016.
pennsylvania congressman charles dent will be with us to talk about government funding and pennsylvania's role as a battleground state. the new atlantis contributor on why science should focus on real world issues. watch c-span's washington journal at 7:00 a.m. join the discussion. air force general john hyten has been nominated to be the u.s. strategic command. he testified earlier today. general hyten outlined the threats facing the u.s. from russia, china, iran and north korea. this is about two hours.
e. hyten to be commander of the united states strategic command. we congratulate you on your nomination. we thank you for your decades of distinguished service and your willingness to serve, once again. of course we know today woul not be possible without the support and sacrifice of your family and friends, some of whom are with us this morning. as is your tradition, we hope you take the opportunity to introduce your family joining you today. general hyten threats o to the united states and allies have increased recently. we confront security challenges in the world and in domain including nuclear, cyber and space. this new strategic challenge has implications for stratcom. scholars and strategists warned we have entered a quote, second
nuclear age. this is not something the united states has chosen and indeed there are those that derrive nuk lar weapons. the reality is europe and east asia, there are nations that increasingly believe nuclear weapons are essential to their survival. others are enhancing the role of military weapons in their doctrine and their use on the battlefield. pakistan developed tactical weapons. not to be outdone, india continues to modernize its nuclear triad under the best of circumstances, the iran nuclear deal gives iran a free hand to develop nuk lar weapons in a decade. north korea's fifth nuclear test
earlier this month is the latest reminder that it's boyd dictator remains intent on developing the capability to strike our homelands with nuclear weapons. there's china, which continues to modernize its nuclear forces placing a new emphasis on mobile missiles and submarines. perhaps the most pressing challenge you would face if confirmed is russia. russia's aggression in ukraine and actions in syria take place under a nuclear shadow. russia is threatening our nato allies with nuclear strikes, modernizing the strategic forces, developing a nuclear ground launch cruise missile cape l of ranging europe and fired sea launch cruise missiles against targets in syria. targets that could be against nuclear warheads and european and u.s. targets.
we have to face the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. that's why no matter what president obama may have hoped for when he came to office, the united states cannot seek to reduce the role of nuclear weapons on our national security strategy, providing a modern, credible deterrent is more vital than ever. strategic command face long term challenges to that goal. in the next two decades, u.s. nuclear submarines, air launch cruise missiles, heavy bombers and nuclear capable tactical fighters will have to be withdrawn from operational service. having been extended well beyond the service lives. modernization programs are in place to replace these systems but there's no slack left in the schedule and a considerable bill to pay. according to official figures,
the department of defense plans to devote $234 billion over the next ten years to operate and modernize our nuclear forces. this amounts to just 3% to 4% of our budget each year. any investment is subject to the oversight of this exit tee. today's congress supports the modernization of the u.s. nuclear deterrent. i'm concerned future reductions in funding could delay or harm the relacement systems, increasing strategic risk at a time russia and other countries continue to modernize their nuclear capabilities. just as nuclear threat continues to change, so too have threats in space. indeed, america superiority in space is increasingly at risk as the director of national intelligence told the committee
threats of military civil and commercial space systems will increase in the next few years as russia and china progress in developing counter space weapon systems to deny, degrade or disrupt u.s. space systems. director clapper stated that russia and china seek to exploit our dependence on space to achieve effects. they are investing significant resources in developing a range of capabilities including anti-satellite missiles, jamming and cyber capabilities. fortunately, in recent years, the defense department experienced a, quote, counter space awakening. after years of prodding from this committee to enhance its focus, i'm pleased with the department's efforts to respond to russian and chinese threats in space. one of your top priorities would be to put strategic command on a
war footing for space because, if our adversaries choose to extend more into space, we must be capable of defending ourselves there. finally, beyond space and nuclear forces, the third component of strategic command at present is cyber. this committee has been extremely focused on the complicated issue of cyber. i think many of us agree with your assessment from your advanced policy questions, general hyten, the growing importance of cyber warrants the elevation of u.s. cyber command to a unified combatant command. we would be interested in your views on timing and the importance of continued coordination between a future unified cyber command and strategic command. icon congratulate late you once again on your nomination. senator reed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to join you in welcoming general hyten. thank you for much for your extraordinary service to the
nation. shortly, you will introduce your family. they are a huge part of your success. i would like to welcome your wife and children. they have sacrificed and supported you throughout your career. we all appreciate that. general hyten, you have a service, well qualified for the nomination. the commander serves as principal military officer who advices the president on the nuclear deterrent, space and cyber capability and global and missile defense requirements. as is said, it must be safe, secure and effective. there is one additional facet, and it must be ready. you will be responsible for articulating and managing the ready iness of the triad and threats to our nation. the upcoming modernization which
must be executed in a cost effective and timely fashion. once confirmed, i want to hear your thoughts on this issue in detail. strategic command deploys our space assets and mitigates threats. given your background, you are qualified for this task, but there are other areas you have to lead including missile defense, electronic warfare, cyber warfare, isr and long disstance strike. integrate the capability systems supporting these complicated missions so they mutually reinforce each other and define and fix gaps that exist between them. i look forward to hearing your views and working with you in the future. i must apologize, there's a banking committee hearing going on in a few moments. my departure will be simply to go there, nothing else. thank you. >> general hyten, we have to ask standard questions of all military nominees.
if you would just respond, i will go through this rather quickly. in order to exercise the legislative and oversight responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other appropriate committees of congress are able to receive testimony briefings and other communications of information. have you adhered to applicable laws, regulations governing con flicks of interest? >> i have, sir. >> do you agree when asked to give your personal views even if they are different from the administration in power? >> i do, sir. >> actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process? >> no, sir. >> your staff complies with deadlines for requested communications including for the record and hearings? >> yes, sir. >> co-operate and provide witnesses in response to congressional requests? >> yes, sir. >> will those witnesses be protected from their testimony
or briefings? >> yes, sir, they will. >> do you agree to appear and testify upon request before this committee? >> i do, sir. >> do you agree to provide documents of copies in electronic forms in a timely manner and a dually constituted committee and the basis or a good faith delay or denial in providing such documents? >> i do, sir. >> thank you, general. welcome. >> thank you, sir. >> please proceed. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. chairman, senator reed, members of the committee. thanks for the opportunity to come before you. it is an honor to be nominated for this. mr. chairman, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to introduce my family. my family is truly special to me. they are, as senator reed said, the reason i'm here. the most significant of them
all, sitting behind me, over my left shoulder is my partner and wife, my wife of 27 years, laura. she is amazingly beautiful and the finest person i have ever known. if confirmed, this would be our 15th move in the united states air force. every place we go, she supports airmen and their family. the soldiers, sailors and marines will be very lucky as will the people of home ha and the surrounding community because of laura. in spite of the deployments and the separations and challenges of a military life, we, she, raised two incredible children who are with us today. sitting to the left of her mom is our daughter katie who flew from boston last night. a graduate of pepperdine and has a master of law and diplomacy.
she works for a nonprofit in cambridge in conflict resolution. >> at least she didn't go to r harva harvard. >> i tried, sir. she did not like. she went to the west coast and never wanted to go to boston. >> she's smarter than her father. >> yes, sir. no doubt about that. >> you are in trouble now, general. >> senator, i have been in trouble a long time. next is our -- yes, sir. next is our son chris who flew in from colorado early this morning. he arrived at 3:00 this morning. he has his degree from texas lutheran in physics and math. a college all american in golf. he's currently living his dream as a golf professional in colorado. he does live the dream life, there's no doubt. each of them have grown into fine citizens and their mother and i are proud of them. one minor disappointment, my little brother, scott, from
huntsville, alabama, he hoped to be here, but he was delayed enroute. he wanted to represent all our family and friends, especially those in alabama. my parents, still living in huntsville, my sister in scottsdale, arizona. my parents and sister could not travel today. i know they are watching along with laura's mom and family in california. thank you mr. chairman. thank you for allowing me to introduce these very, very special people. >> thank you. >> now, on to the business of the day. first of all, i again need to thank the president and the secretary of defense for nominating me for this position. i want to thank the chairman for expressing his confidence in my ability to serve as a commander. if confirmed, i look forward to working closely with the committee, the congress to address the strategic challenges. the significant problems we face can only be worked through open,
honest and timely communications. you can expect that from me. first and foremost, in today's complex volatile security environment, we must never lose sight of the advantage that our strategic forces provide. the nuclear force must remain safe, secure, effective, ready and reliable. as potential adversaries upgrade it is essential to move forward and modernize the triad and ensure plans are integrated with combatant commands. we face challenges in space and cyber space. in space, things continue to grow as potential adversaries and encounter what has become a critical advantage for the nation and allies. we must not only be ready to respond but move to build a more resilient space enterprise. in cyber space, cooperation across the whole of government and the allies, partners and
friends to prepare, defend against and respond to cyber attacks. it's to work with cyber commands as well. u.s. strategic command has global responsibilities, missile defense, joint electronic warfare to name a few. if confirmed, i pledge to focus my best efforts working in sync with force to the department and the nation come rehencive -- support of u.s. national interest. throughout a 35 year career that is well beyond anything i expected. i have gained invaluable operation and command many diverse missions. i have a deep knowledge in many missions, lesser than a few. if confirmed, learn and understand the missions and to lead every day to the best of my abilities. if confirmed, i hope to live up
to the expectations of the men and women of the u.s. strategic command and leaders that came before me and my current boss. he has been a truly remarkable leader and commander. he's been a great boss. he's taught me a lot. it's important to me to thank him for what he's done. it's humbling to be considered for a position with an amazing legacy in history. mr. chairman, let me close my remarks with a quote from a great american who reminds me what is important. that would be our son, christopher. years ago he said it loud enough for a lot of people to hear, dad, i have been watching you ever since you made general. i have noticed, you don't do any real work anymore. you just have people. i have to be honest, it upset me when he said it. i feel i have a difficult job. i work hard. i have to deal with some really difficult decisions in today's
crazy world. but the more i thought about it, the truer it is. the real work is done by our people. the sons and daughters of this nation. the soldier that is stand watch every night. the amazing warriors deployed into harms way every day. if confirmed, i'll be lucky enough to have the opportunity to lead and serve longer. mr. chairman, senator reed, members of the committee, thank you again. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general. yesterday you and i had, in a classified setting, a conversation that i have been thinking about ever since. i know there are a lot of things that you can't say in an open hearing, but is it correct to assume that our adversaries, specifically the russians but also the chinese are attempting to or have achieved an ability to cripple our operations in
space? >> senator, i believe they are building those capabilities today. we have an amazing force structure in space. both the chinese and the russians in particular have been watching those capabilities employed on the battlefield. in response to that, they are building counter space capabilities to deny us those in conflict. >> so they are -- they are developing capabilities specifically designed to cripple our capabilities in space? >> yes, sir, they are. >> it's certainly not something the united states of america is doing? >> we are not going down that path, senator. >> so, again, i understand that this is an open hearing, but shouldn't we be really concerned about especially the last few years, the increase in capabilities that both russia and china have displayed, have
demonstrated that if used in a certain way could, literally cripple a lot of activities in space? i'm very aware that there's certain sensitivity to some of your answers, but i'm not sure that the american people and even members of this committee are as aware as they should be of this emerging challenge. >> senator, it is an emerging challenge. i believe, as you said in your opening statement, in the last few years, the united states and the department of defense moved out to develop responses to the threats we see coming from china and russia. i believe it's essential we go faster in our responses. we have worked with national reconnaissance office and all our joint space forces developed what we call a space enterprise
vision that looks at the future and says this is what we need to operate in a world where conflict extends into space. i think it's a good vision. the vision will always change. we'll continue to share that information with your committee, sir, and we'll continue to work with the congress to make sure we can build the capabilities we need to respond. >> well, i'm not one who enjoys these classified briefings, but i'm seriously considering when we come back having a classified briefing in our committee because the information is deeply disturbing and i say with modesty, i keep up with what's going on in the world, but i was not aware of the significance and depth of the challenge until our conversation yesterday. do you think that we have a cohesive strategy to counter
this challenge or do we need to do a lot more? >> senator, i think we have a cohesive strategy of what that end state looks like for the united states that will allow us to continue as we can today to defeat an adversary that wants to threaten us in any domain, as well as space. i have concerns of our ability to move fast enough to build the capabilities we need to respond to the specific threats i shared with you yesterday, sir. >> in other words, what they are developing in a short period of time, months and a few years is now taking us immeasurably longer time. >> we are moving much slower in certain areas. we need our industry and acquisition process to move faster, sir. >> the russians modernized each leg of their strategic triad by
2020. 70% of their forces replaced with new systems. russians violated the inf treaty developing a nuclear ground launch cruise missile, expanded their deployment of air and sea launch cruise missiles not limited by the star treaty in which they can target the u.s. in concert with their invasion of crimea. they threaten us why exercising forces near territory and developing an under water drone to cause damage to the united states coastal targets. what does this suggest about the role of nuclear weapons in russia's nuclear strategy and what should the u.s. do in particular in response? >> senator, i think there's two elements in the response to that question. the first element is if you look
at what russia has been doing over the last number of years, i think it's in direct response to what we have been doing as a nation over the last 20 years. they are modernizing what they see. they have watched the amaze zing conventional force we have developed that can significantly dominate any bottlefield in the world today and i believe they are concerned about their ability to respond in a conventional arena. therefore, i think it's logical from their perspective to modernize their forces, including nuclear forces in all arias. i think the second piece to the answer is they have also watched the power of our alliances, the power of our partnerships. they are challenging the status quo across europe and crimea and a number of areas, pushing and creating tension within our
partnerships and alliances, which is another significant advantage the united states built over 20 years or so. >> i thank you, general. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to ask a few questions, maybe one before i leave. general hyten, responsible for synchronizing our electronic war efforts. years ago, those were jamming radar and now cyber is a big part of this domain. can you give us your thoughts on the interaction between electronic warfare, the traditional as i suggested, cyber and also the role of cyber command? give us your thoughts. >> yes, sir. so, i look at the problem in the following construct. i see cyber as a domain. cyber is a place where we conduct missions. one of those missions we conduct
is electronic warfare. electronic warfare is basically trying to control the electromagnetic spectrum to your advantage. we have significant capabilities in the electromagnetic spectrum. those capabilities have also had less focus than they should have over the last number of years. i look at it in my own service where the electronic missions in the united states air force have not had as significant a priority as many of the areas as we have gone over the last 15 years of conflict in the middle east. if i'm confirmed as commander, i can pledge you i'll continue to look across the entire department of defense, all our capabilities to understand electromagnetic warfare, the role in cyber space. >> thank you very much, general. i look forward to working with you.
again, i apologize my departure. >> if i might take a minute of your time, north korea, are they developing the capability to hit the united states of america? >> i believe they are developing that capability. i think kim jong-un has made it clear of that development. in the news this morning, there was a news of a test of a new very large rocket engine. a rocket engine that he said would be capable of going to the orbit in space. if it has that capability, it can reach the united states. i'm very concerned about that. i haven't seen the intelligence report, i'm commenting on what i saw in the news this morning. >> general, i think there's going to be a lot of redundancy in the questions you are going to be asked up here. we've had people come in and testify to us as to the fact we are not keeping up where we
should. we are not advancing far enough ahead. james clapper from several years ago talked about what we are looking at. admiral hayny testified before this committee. we are not meeting the critical investment time lines to ensure our agent platforms and weapons to maintain superiority. we heard from admiral winfield last year for the house committee when he talked about remaining margin we have for investing in nuclear deterrent. we hear this all the time, then have the non-public meetings, we hear it worse. chairman referred to that. so, i just look at this and i know that we are concerned when we talk about china and russia. but, i personally get more
concerned on what you touched on, north korea an iran. these people, they want to kill everyone in this room. in the case of north korea, it's run by a guy that is mentally deranged. this is scary. you are getting into the toughest job in the united states of america right now. i'm very much concerned about it. we know that russia and china are actively modernizing their nuclear weapons and delivery systems. north korea continues to develop land and launch ballistic missiles and conducted the fifth and largest nuke test two nights ago. i think it would be a good thing for you to give us as much of a detailed assessment in this setting as you can on north korea and iran.
>> the way i look at the threats across the world, senator, i think that russia is the most dangerous threat. china is a close second. the most likely threats and the most concerning are north korea and then iran because north korea is very unpredictable. it's hard to tell exactly what they are going to do. i want to caveat the unpredictability a little bit. if you look at what they are doing with their missile programs as well as the nuclear programs and where we are today, it looks very beginning. but, if you look at it when you think back to where we were when we started flying missiles and getting those capabilities, we had failure after failure and we ended up getting there. what concerns me the most is they will get there. they will get there.
once they have those capabilities, what are they going to do with them. that's my biggest concern. if i'm confirmed that will be at the top of my list to figure out how to best respond. >> i'm glad that's your biggest concern. it's mine, too. back when this administration first went in, i was critical. they cut the '09 budget and cut the missile defense by $1.4 billion and delayed the or terminated the third missile defense site in the czech republic. i can remember being over there and talking to the president of the czech republic, which i have a lot of respect for. he made the statement to me, if we do what we are talking about doing here in poland and the czech republic where it's going to enrage the russians to the point, we are taking a risk. are you sure that you are not going to pull the rug out from
under us? we pulled the rug out. i have talked to a lot of people in private that talked that wasn't a good idea and i'm not going to bring that up now. i'm saying, i didn't like the way we were headed back there at the beginning of this administration. then we went from 44 of sites from alaska down to california down to 30 and i think now we are going back up now where we started? was that a necessary drop in increase? i think it was. so, i just would -- would just say that it's a tough job you've got. i'm very much concerned about it. i'm hoping we'll have an opportunity, members of this committee and members who care in the united states senate to hear from you on the versions.
so we'll know exactly where we are. the chairman mentioned it and i wanted to re-emphasize the importance of that. >> senator, i'll say that if the chairman asks if any of those senators ask, you'll have my top attention and you'll have a rapid response. >> that's great. thank you. >> yes, sir. >> general hyten, first off, congratulations on your nomination. it's an incredibly important post and i want to thank you for your service and thoughtfulness to our questions. i want to start with the nuclear deterre deterrent. d.o.d. spent on nuclear weapons mods earnization. at the same time, they spent $8.5 billion to service the stockpile and support our nuclear labs. in total, that's roughly $24
billion or about 4% of the base defense budget. so, another way of looking at that is we invest about four cents out of every defense dollar in our nuclear deterrent, which is served as an insurance policy that prevented a war over seven years. i want to get your perspective on how to pursue the modernization of the nuclear arsenal and infrastructure and ask, in your opinion, what will be your biggest challenges to maintain that stockpile as safe, secure and reliable as well as ready as senator reed mentioned. >> senator, i think it's essential that we always maintain a fully ready nuclear capability. there should be no doubt that the nation needs that capability, it's a backstop for everything we do as a military. one of the duties i will have as
a member of the nuclear weapons council chaired fwi secretary of defense of logistics. nsa is also on that committee as well as vice chairman. through that committee, we will look at the nuclear weapons stockpile and make sure it is always safe, secure and reliable. the last year, i got to visit the three big national labs. los alamos and i go there for space reasons in my current position. but, when i'm there, because i'm curious, i ask about the nuclear stop pile and they explain how they are certifying the stockpile every year. if i'm confirmed, it will become more important to me and i'll look deeper. >> sort of a related question, obviously other members brought up how much the nuclear landscape changed in recent
years, the proliferation we have seen over the last couple decades. has that nuclear landscape changes, how should that generally inform or change our nuclear posture in the world? >> i think it's important that as we look at the international situation concerning n inin ini weapons we don't get focused. we need to look at the tactical nuclear weapons. the chairman mentioned them. we need to look at the nonstrategic nuclear weapons and look at it as a total. a nuclear weapon is significant. it doesn't matter how it's employed, tactical, nonstrategic, strategics. its's an event in the world and we need to look together. >> thank you. in your written response to the committee, you state that the operation response to the space program has been a successful
path finder to response in quoting you, we must infuse this thinking across the entire enterprise and the space industry, end quote. i agree with that estimation. i would love to ask you to expand a little bit on how you would pursue that goal and as commercial capabilities for the launch market become operational, how would you intend to leverage those services to enhance the d.o.d.'s access to space as well? >> in my ways, it goes back to the chairman's comment, his opening statement and my response about the need to go fast. the need to go fast is so important in today's world. many of our traditional processes are slow. in my ways, i don't like the term operation nally responsive. i think we are operationally
responsive in everything we do. the thing about ors is it goes fast. it goes much faster than other processes. those are the processes we need to transition into the broader space community. then, if you look at the commercial sector, the commercial sector has been on the verge of something special for a long time. i think they are about there. both on the launch side as well as the satellite side. i think in the not too distant future, we'll have u bik wittous communications and imagery. if that is the case and on the commercial side, we need to take advantage of that. the most important thing is persistence. we may be able to achieve a lot of that persistence even though we don't get as high of a resolution from those capabilities. >> thank you. i couldn't agree more. i look forward to working with you on that. that encapsulated much of what
we have to do in terms of reacting quickly. the last issue i will bring up quickly is trusted supply of strategic trusted microelectronics. nsa requires a trusted supply of strategic hardened microsystems if tr stockpile. our military weapons systems however, do not have a trusted supply of micro electronics. it's an issue the secretary is aware of. what are your thoughts on the microsystems capability in the government to meet the specific requirements of the military and the nation's nuclear stockpile? do you see opportunities there to partner with the private sector to achieve that goal. >> you have to be partnered with the private sector. they are going to generate the supplies one way or another. i am concerned about the depth
of our industry in terms of how many suppliers we have, how are they certified? how are the parts controlled. as a commander of strategic demand, i'll be a demanding customer. if i'm confirmed to make sure that we continue to look at that problem across the board. senator, i agree, that's a concern we need to monitor. >> thank you, general. >> welcome, general. it's nice to see you and your family here today. i appreciate the visit that we had in my office earlier last week and your candor in the information that you provides. in 2011, the president committed to modernize the triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems including the air launch cruise missile. to its credit, the proposed budget supporting the nuclear
modernization and senior leaders such as the secretary referred to that deterrent as the bed rom of national security. i believe that correctly stressed the importance we follow through with these plans. do you agree that we must modernize all three legs of the triad, including the air launch cruise missile or do you think the plans should need to be reconsidered? >> i agree we have to modernize all three elements of the nuclear triad. i can't state my support any stronger. if i'm confirmed, i'll continue to state that in all forums. >> thank you. some observers argued that a penetrating bomber armed with nuclear gravity bombs ovuates the need for stand off weapon such as a cruise missile. do you think the weapon systems are depliktive? >> if i'm confirmed, i will look into it in more depth.
from my 35 years in the military, i believe you need the flexibility that an air launch cruise missile with long range strike can provide you. there's always a challenge to a bomber. it doesn't matter how stealthy that bomber is, it doesn't matter how capable that bomber is. i believe a long range strike option, advanced cruise missile gives the president flexible that is part of the try sad. i recommend we purcey that option. >> when we were in my office, i told you when i was visiting with a previous commander, he gave such a really great definition and explanation of why we need a triad and the importance of each leg of that triad. you have just touched on that. would you like to expand on it?
>> after a week, general cano used to be my boss. after we talked i said senator fischer said you had something brilliant about the triad. >> did he remember? >> he said i'm sure it was bril yanlt, but i don't remember what it was. he did send me a couple speeches. the fundmental piece of his wards are each element provides a cig nsignificant attribute th so important to the security of our nation in the triad, the bombers are the most flexible. the submarines are the most survivable and they are the most ready and responsive. each is essential to the security of our nation. that's why the triad is so important. >> thank you. admiral hainey testified before
this committee earlier this year. the 2017 budget supported his requirements but there is no margin to absorb risk. do you agree with that assessment? >> i agree with that on the air force side, certainly, senator. let me just say i'm not as fully versed on the navy programs as the air force. i see it in the corporate process. i'm concerned about the just in time nature of our strategic nature. if i'm confirmed, i will look hard on the navy side. i have talked with the leadership and many people in the business and they are all concerned on the navy side as well. >> thank you. your predecessor and other senior commanders stated that further reduction in our nuclear forces should come only as a result of bilateral negotiated and ver fiable agreements do you
agree? >> yes, ma'am, i do. >> nuclear reductions. seems to me the more modern and responsive our nuclear enterprise is, the less need there would be to retain those legacy systems, yet, on the other hand, failure to modernize could give us no other option that we retain significant stockpiles. what is your view on that? >> i think if you -- there's been five terms that various senators, including the chairman have talked about today. that is safe, secure, effective, ready, reliable. if you look at those five terms, that's describes what we have to do to modernize our capabilities to make sure they are always there. what you can't have is one element drop off. you can't have the weapons readiness drop off.
the weapons have to be ready. they have to be safe and secure all the way. the united states, and any nation that has nuclear weapons is responsible for making sure they are all safe and secure po control. i think that applies to any nation and one of the reasons we need to modernize to make sure that's always the case. >> thank you, general. i thank you for your service and your willingness to continue to serve in an important position such as stratcom. >> thank you, senator. >> thanks, mr. chairman. thank you for being here, and thank you for your long and distinguished service along with your family's. i am here as a father two of sons who also went to harvard and also became military officers. neither in the air force, and one sout nis out now. one is still in the military. it's a tough career choice for harvard graduates and i congratulate you on making your
choice and serving our country with such dedication and ability. so, thank you. i want to ask about one of the legs of the nuclear triad deal, replacement program. and you have mentioned the survivablity of our submarine forces. means of delivering and defending our nation delivering a profoundly important deterrent. let me ask you, are you committed and will you commit to fully supporting the ohio replacement program? >> yes, sir, i will. >> and will you commit to being an advocate of it because it will take advocates in a time of increasingly threatened fiscal resources, and a very expensive commitment that is necessary to being an advocate of it. >> i'll advocate for all of the elements of the nuclear triad. all three. >> maybe you can describe for
americans why the ohio replacement program is so fundamentally important to our nuclear chain. >> from my background, i'm not as deeply versed in the navy's nuclear capabilities as i am the air force. nonetheless, i've looked at that recently to some level, and i'll share my thoughts with you, senator. my concern is that we'll reach a point in the not too distant future where the existing navy submarines will not be able to effectively and safely conduct their operations because of the age of both the reactor and the ship. and we never -- we can never reach that point. that's why the ohio class replacement program is so essential because by the time we reach that point, it is essential that we have a new submarine to replace it. >> thank you. i want to shift to the cybersecurity area, which is related to our capabilities in space, is it not?
>> yes. >> there was a column recently written by david ignatius entitled "the cold war is over, the cyberwar has begun" and it reflects a growing sense that one of the great challenges, if not the biggest, ahead in the immediate future is our increasing confrontation with other powers, notably the chinese and the russians, most dramatically and recently the russians in recent hacking over their capabilities in cyber and their apparent willingness to use them against us. do you have any thoughts about how we can work to improve our response to cyberattacks with a coordinated reaction from our
spire governme entire government. how can it best work with the department of defense to shore up our security system both in space and here, and i might add that the chairman and i recently in a hearing confronted a number of our security leaders, admiral rogers among them, with this kind of question. and i left, frankly, somewhat worried about the ability of this country to respond. >> so much of that question is best discussed in a classified forum, but i'll share my top-level thoughts with you, senator. from a big picture perspective, if you look at space and cyber, and my current job we have space and cyber in the same command in the united states air force. a lot of the effects are the same. it's to provide information
pathways for information, deny adversaries information in times of conflict. that's what we do in space and in cyber. but the difference is the cost of entry into cyberspace is very low. that's the attractiveness for potential adversaries because the cost of access is so low. so to respond to it, you hit the most important thing. it has to be a whole government response, all the way through. from a military perspective, i'd like to get inny to point in cyberspace where we treat it like a domain where we conduct operations. we tend to contaminate that discussion with a lot of legal implications which are extremely important. that usually work through the fbi, the department of homeland security, a number of elements. that's why it has to be a whole government response. but from a military perspective, it's essential that we look at cyberspace as a place where bad actors are. we need to be able to identify them. and if they are threatening the united states, we need to be able to eliminate that actor
from cyberspace. it's the same as any other domain. it's going to be a very complicated process, though, because it is important, as an american citizen, my privacy is just as important to my as it is to every other citizen. noms, we have to figure out how to treat cyberspace as an operation domain. you're right to be worried because in many cases we're not fully embracing the military aspects of it. >> thank you very much. thank you for your service. i welcome that answer. i'd like to pursue it in another setting. my time is expired, but this is an important topic. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chair. general, welcome. in your opening comments you quoted your son who i think graduated with a degree in physics. my son graduated with a degree in physics and said almost exactly the same thing about me. i just have people now. but i welcome you and congratulate your family on
being here today. i've got maybe some ground level questions to ask. one is on the current status of the gps ocx project. it's about five years, looks like it's right now 61 months, 5 years or so, past due. can you talk a little bit about your position on the significance and importance of that project? >> so i was quoted in the press, senator, calling that program a disaster. i think any program that's five years late and a billion dollars overbudget meets the definition of disaster. it's horrible. and it's embarrassing to me that we find ourselves in that kind of position in today's day and age. we should not have that kind of program, but we do. the concern i have is the legacy program we have right now has significant information assurance vulnerabilities. basically, we're plugging those holes as fast as we can, and the best way to do that is with
people. and that's what you were talking about. people are our most valuable resource. we have to divert a lot of people to secure that critical capability for the united states and the world. the ocx program would fix those problems. i've told the under secretary, if he thinks that program will succeed, i'll support it. if he thinks it will fail, i'll support the termination of that program. it's up to him. right now he buildielieves that program will succeed and they're doing three-month deep dives in that project but we're going to watch it closely. >> the people involved in it to the extent the people involved in what is now a billion-dollar overrun and five-year delay that we need to make sure we have other sets of eyes looking at that to make sure the decision to move forward or to cancel the project is one that has independent objective input. i have a question about the
current arsenal. this question came up last year. we have some weapons that i understand are reaching a point where they wouldn't be used. and they need to be decommissioned. can you talk a little bit about that issue and where you are on it? >> i am not as deeply versed in that area as i would be if i'm confirmed and become commander of strategic command. i can guarantee i'll get into that in a significant depth. looking at the capabilities we have, we have issues on the weapons deliveries platforms, whether that's's submarine we were just talking about, the icbm or the bomber, whether it's the long-range strike capability with the new cruise missile. we have issues with our nuclear weapons that we have to continue to look at and figure out how to modernize. if i'm confirmed, i'll work closely with the national labs and national nuclear security administration to make sure we
watch those capabilities closely. and then we have some -- i have some concerns on our nuclear command and control capabilities aging out as well. and i think we need to watch closely those capabilities and make sure we modernize those along with the rest of the enterprise. >> thank you. i have a question about unity of command. i think you lean more towards unity of effort. ides like to have you talk about why you do that in the context of something along the lines of one of our satellites get damaged by an adversary. who is in charge in reacting to that threat? that would be one part of the context i'd like you to answer the question. the other one, i think you were part of a war games shriver 15 and it would be curious to see if there were any challenges exposed concerning that coordination in command and the context of unity of effort
versus unity of command. >> so senator, i'm probably one of the biggest believers in unity of command in the world. when we started down this project to figure out how we command and control space capabilities, i was a vocal opponent to the construct. i honestly didn't think it would work. but, you know, we all have a process. we all have bosses, and we decided we'd pursue the unity of effort construct with the intelligence community, the national reconnaissance office and see if it would work. and to my surprise, it actually did work. the record of the nro and director of national intelligence made sure that if we had to make a decision quickly, that decision process would work very effectively through an operational center and the commander and strategic command would be the one to explain it to the united states if we had to go down that path. we ended up in a very good
place. i have to admit, i was a little surprised as we went through that. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to put a finer point on your son chris' observation. i worked here 40 years ago as a staff member and was once called upon to set up a hearing and called the office of management and budget for a witness from the administration. the fellow said we'll send you the deputy under secretary of such and such and i said i don't really understand these titles. can you tell me who this guy is? and his answer will be the title if i ever write a book. he's at the highest level where they still know anything. the bad news is you and i are now above that level. deterrence has been a theory and a doctrine that's served this nation well for 70 years. it's been a huge, hugely successful theoretical construct.
but the problem is, it seems to me in the modern day, is it rests upon a premise of rationality on both sides. does deterrence -- the theory of deterrence work against a mad man, or a suicidal fanatic? do we need to be thinking about deterrence 2.0 because of that potential lack of rationality on the other side that wouldn't be concerned about the destruction of their country or perhaps they're possessing nuclear weapons and don't have a country to destroy. >> i think we need to look at deterrence 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and deterrence in the 21st century, i think is fundamentally different than it was in the 20th century. deterrence in the 21st century involves all elements of national power. not just nuclear deterrent. involves space and cyber and conventional forces, it involves offense and defense on the strategic side of the house. you have to look at the
integrated defensive capabilities if you're talking about responding to north korea or iran, and that defensive capability because an essential element of our deterrent posture. >> we also have to think about who we're deterring. and what works. what would -- what would be the -- again, deterrence is an idea, mutually shared destruction but you have to tailor it to the other side. >> and you do. and i finishing ythink if you lh korea, the unpredictability is the hardest to deter. how do you deter somebody or something that is unpredictable. it's very difficult. that's why you have to have a defensive mechanism that will ensure if they wanted to attack the united states, it will fail and leave the president all the response options with the rest of the capabilities. >> they have to know that. >> they have to know that so we have to make sure that is readily transparent to all the world and all our adversaries. >> we have both the means and
the will. >> to defend ourselves and to respond, if need be. >> a few months ago, a froup of us went on the national airborne operations center and the thing that struck me as we went through a nuclear attack scenario simulation was that in that situation, a, there's a very limited amount of time for decision-making, and, two, only one person makes the decision. the president. there's no check and balance. no congress, no required consultation. is that correct? >> that is correct, sir. that's the constitution. >> and it is -- that's the sole responsibility of that person who will be making that decision in a matter of minutes, i think the exercise we were in there was 28 minutes. if it was a missile coming from offshore would be 5 or 10 minutes, is that correct? >> yes, sir. like i said, i love the constitution. i swore an oath to defend the
constitution. in article 2, section 2 is one of the reasons i'm here is because the advice and consent clause in the constitution requires me to prepare for the senate to be confirmed before i move on. it also establishes the president of the united states as the sole commander in chief. >> and it could hold in the hands of the president the future of our civilization. >> two big elements in that clause in the constitution. one establishes the president and commander in chief and the other is advice and consent of the senate. >> but it doesn't apply in this. >> the commander in chief is the commander in chief. >> [ inaudible ]. >> -- co-equal branches of government, okay? executive, legislative and
judicial. and the president proposes and the congress disposes. so i understand your point about the commander in chief. this administration has done more to ignore the congress of the united states than any administration that i have been associated with. >> going back to the naoc, command, control and communication, are you satisfied when talking about modernization, the focus is almost always on the triad. it seems this san area that also needs modernization and strong consideration. >> yes, it does. the big challenge as we look at command and control in the united states will be the cyberthreat which will be much different than when we created the current. >> should cybercommand be
elevated to a separate command? >> yes, i believe it's time to elevate it to a separate command. >> thank you, chairman and thank you, general, for your service to our country. i want to follow up to the answers on your advanced policy questions. what are the most serious strategic threats facing the united states today. and among your answers you mentioned the increasingly provocative and destabilizing behavior by potential adversaries like iran. what i wanted to ask you is why do you believe there's significant concern about the adversary of iran and the impact of the pursuit of their ballistic missile program which they've done quite aggressively even post-jcpoa. >> so i think you answered -- you provided part of the answer when you started talking about the ballistic missile program. there's three elements that concern me about iran in the
last year. element one, they continue to be the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world. that should be enough to cause the nation concern. second is their continuing pursuit of new ballistic missile program and testing ballistic missiles over the last couple of years. and then third, a statement after one of the tests early in march this year by a member of the iranian military that said we're building this capability to threaten israel. so we put those three statements together, and you look at the technology they're pursuing, that's why i'm concerned about iran. >> and their ballistic missile program from what i hear from your testimony, you believe this is a real threat to israel. is that true? >> they stated that it's a threat to israel. >> and what about, though, also our forward deployed troops in the european area and also our european allies? i assume it represents a threat
to us as well? >> it does. >> and would you agree with what dni clapper said when he's repeatedly testified that tehran would choose ballistic missiles as its preferred method of delivering nuclear weapons? >> i agree with that. >> and so i think we also need to focus on making our own homeland when it comes to their testing and development of ballistic missiles, would you agree with that? >> i think that has to be part of our missile defense. i believe that's the misful defense architecture in the pacific and needs to be in the atlantic as well. >> whoen we look at their even - they've been even post-jcpoa agreement, testing ballistic missiles on multiple occasions. do you believe that their activities are inconsistent with the u.n. security resolution 2331 which calls on iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons,
including launches using such ballistic missile technology? >> that's more a policy question, but from a military perspective, i find that kind of behavior extremely destabilizing and threatening. >> how are we going to address their testing issue? what do you see your role in your command and ways we should be more aggressively pushing back on iran on something of deep concern to us and our allies. >> again, senator, a lot of that question is for the political realm. my job is to, if i'm confirmed as commandered stratcom, will be to provide military advice to the president, military advice passed by this congress. i think you're asking for my military advice. my military advice is that we always have to make sure that our capabilities to respond to an iranian threat are visible, powerful and ensure and the deterrent discussion a little while ago that no adversary will want to take us on, at least they will think twice and reconsider their actions before
they do that. that's the job as the commander of strategic command and if confirmed, i'll take that seriously. >> in the political realm, i would hope -- i've introduced legislation to impose real sanctions on iran for their ballistic missile program. i've been very disappointed the administration is, from my perspective, pretty much ignoring their testing of ballistic missiles. i i wanted to follow up with you. would love to have you come, if confirmed, to visit new hampshire because we have the 23rd space operations squadron at new boston air force station, and new boston operates the largest air force satellite controlled network, remoets tracking station and they provide stratcom with very important satellite command and control capabilities. so i wanted to extend that invitation and hope you'll take me occupy it. >> i've been to new boston many times. one of the most beautiful bases in our country. it's a hidden treasure, but they
do an incredibly important mission. there's amazing airmen that do awesome work up there. >> we're glad you're very familiar with new boston. they'llb an important asset to you in this new position. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank your family. thank you to all of you. stratcom recently provided a requiremented letter related to hypersonic weapons systems. and specifically conventional prompt strike. are your familiar with that? >> i'm familiar with the broad topic. >> and i know some of this information is sensitive, but to what degree it is possible, what are your thoughts on the importance of making progress on conventional prompt strike? >> i think that from my position today as air force base command, i think that has a role to play
in the future. if i'm confirmed as strategic command, i think that i'll need to work with all the combatant commanders to make sure we get the requirements right. i see a significant role in terms of our ability to double any target on the planet without having to move into the nuclear realm. i think there's a powerful requirement there, but it's just not a stratcom requirement. it's a requirement that i think awl combatant commanders will have to be involved in developing to make sure we get it right before we start going down that path. >> the sooner cps transitions from a dod risk reduction project to a navy program of record, i think the sooner that's system will reach its initial operational capability. what is your view on the ideal timing for cps from stratcom's standpoint? >> i think from a commander of stratcom perspective, i think yesterday would be a good answer. i don't think there's -- if we
had a capability to provide prompt strike, just think how it would fundamentally change the equation to go back to senator king's question about what deterrence is. because now you have a conventional capability that can deter and nuclear capability that can deter. i would like to see that answer be yesterday. >> the air force general i think has an historic opportunity to leverage research and development, common parts and lessons learned from the navy's recent program to reduce risk, enhance savings and field an extremely capable follow-on to minuteman 3. there's been some difficult back and forth on how best to leverage commonality across the two services, but when i go back to my home state of indian anaval surface war center crane, our navy and air force personnel are working very closely on this.
and we're doing incredible work for the air foerks particularly in the area of radiation, hardoned electronic parts. i know collaboration between navy and air sfoers happening on a daily basis at the staff level. if confirmed will you work to establish commonality and collaboration across the air force and navy strategic programs to reduce cost and risk? >> so if confirmed i'll advocate for that. the commander of stratcom is not in the direct acquisition realm. that would be the service chiefs for the most part. i'm a huge believer as we build things for the future in particular, to make sure we can leverage commonality across those capabilities. i'm not a big believer in trying to go back and insert commonality in retrofitting because almost always that costs us an enormous amount of money. every time we modernize, whether it's a component, subcomponent or entire weapons system, we should look at commonality as much as possible. >> do you have any idea at this
point where you see the greatest potential for commonality and collaboration? >> i think the greatest potential will be in the missile technology of the future, especially the microelectronics side of the missile technology that will go into the future ground base strategic deterrent element they are implementing to leverage ground force from navy programs. >> let me ask you this, i think we're coming on a battle wave of cost and modernization around 25 to 35 which is a ways off but we also have an obligation to try to help at this point. last year admiral haney said it currently represents 3% of dod's budget and the figure could grow to 6% in outyears under current plans. how do you see the defense budget flexing to accommodate the things we need to do and how to prepare the next administration for success in
this effort? >> senator, i think the nuclear triad is affordable as we go forward in the future. but it should not be looked at as a blank check. i actually -- i don't like when i see the numbers that show up in the paper of a trillion dollars or $85 billion or $500 billion. i don't like to see those numbers. they tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. if we say it's going to cost that much, it ends up costing that much. we need to define our requirements, figure out what we need to build and then within the defense budget, because it is the backbone of what we do it is everything that our defense department is based on, we have to modernize the triad. and i think the money will be there to do that. but we still need to do it smartly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> general, thank you for the effort you made in very thoroughly answering some advance questions which i've had a chance to review on page 24 of
your answers with regard to electronic warfare and spectrum operations. you say among other things, russia and china have each committed significant resources to electronic warfare capabilities and dedicated military operators. and then you talk about their layered advantage that each of these countries has attained. would you explain what their layered advantage is and enlighten the committee with regard to china and russia in this regard. >> senator, if you look at what china and russia have been looking at themselves for the last 20 years, they've been looking at the united states developing incredibly powerful conventional military that without a doubt can dominate any battlefield in the world. and so they have taken those lessons and started building
capabilities to respond to that. one of those lessons is in the electromagnetic spectrum. they see us dominating that. ution gps, satellite communications. they see us basically conducting information age warfare where in the not too distance pass, industrial age warfare. developing layers of capabilities in the elect romagnet, cyber and space to gain a strategic advantage in those areas. our job is to make sure they never get an advantage in those areas but it's clear that's what they're trying to do from my perspective, senator. >> will you further say with our increasing spectrum dependence, assuring access to and freedom of maneuver within the electromagnetic spectrum can no longer be guaranteed, this san area we must improve. what suggestions will you have for us in that regard? >> i will continue to advocate if confirmed, for improved capabilities in each of the domains i just described. space, cyber, as well as the
elect romagnetic rect rum. we have to build resilient capabilities to fight through and respond to threats. it's no different than a threat to an airplane, a threat to a ground system, a threat to a ship. the navy has a layered approach in how they respond to a threat to the fleet. we need a layered approach in how we respond to threats in space, threats in cyber or threats in the electromag nettic space. >> it can be achieved through redundancy, through prolifration of capabilities, it can be achieved through defensive systems that can defend you against such as anti-jam capabilities to allow you to fight through a jamming scenario, which is an electromagnetic spectrum operation. >> i read a novel awhile back, i think published in 2009 entitled
one second after by william forshten. i wonder how fanciful that is. i don't know if you've read that novel, but the concept is there's an electromagnetic pulse which shuts down our entire gps grid and electric grid. and renders this country pretty much defenseless. how big of a layered approach would russia or china have to have to accomplish that, and is this just fanciful science fiction that could never happen, or is it something we need to be prepared for? >> i haven't read that book, senator, but -- >> i've i've described it. >> yes, you did, very well. the concern is an electromagnetic pulse that goes off in space. that's the concern. it is the most dangerous threat that a space officer, which i am right now, is concerned about because it is the most threatening and the most damaging. but if a nation in the world
does that, they now reached a very significant threshold, and the response of the united states could be broad and very -- and more likely not a response in kind but a response in another domain. >> it would be more damaging than a nuclear bomb, would it not? >> it is a nuclear bomb, basically. it is a nuclear bomb in space. that's what creates the electromagnetic pulse. >> who has the capability of doing such a thing now, if they were mad enough to do it? >> anybody with a nuclear weapons capability and a launch capability into space. >> and how prepared are we to respond -- to prevent, not to respond in a mutually assured destruction manner, but to defend against such a thing? >> our nuclear command and control architecture, including the space elements of missile warning and satellite communications is very well positioned to respond and operate through that scenario. we built that into our scenario. the rest of our infrastruct
surnot as well prepared to respond. now the good news about gps, for example is that it is a global architecture, and we can go in another forum into the details, but there would be slight degradation of a single -- if a single electromagnetic pulse went off, it heals itself as it comes over. so i don't want to get into too much technical detail, but it's fairly resilient because of numbers. our missile warning are very resilient because of the defensive capabilities. it will allow the united states to fly and fight, but the concern is what does it do to our civilian infrastructure. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations, general. i would just say that your upcoming new position, if you are successful as you've been in selecting your wife and raising two fine children, you're going
to do great. >> thank you, sir. >> with that being said, sir, the whole procurement system, b-52, we built in in '52, came into operation in 1955. built 744. still in operation, okay. we did total upgrades for $1.1 billion over that period of time. maybe a little bit more. then we come along and someone makes a decision. we're on track to spend $1.5 trillion. and we had the f-15, f-16, f-18. how come all of a sudden -- we're trying to get rid of the warthog. the others doing what they do. we spend $1.5 trillion. and it makes you think of president eisenhower saying, be aware, be very concerned about the industrial. as you know, his comments as far as what we do in procurement and defense. how do we explain that, and why is a 15 and 16 and 18 not able to be upgraded and continued
service? >> so, senator, it's really not a question for me. it's a question for the commander of air combatant commander. i do have some opinions. i'll be glad to share those opinions with you. the f-15, f-16, f-18 are fourth generation aircraft. going up against a modern 21st century threat, they cannot penetrate many of the threats that we are going to have to be able to penetrate. >> what generation is a b-52? >> b-52 is at least a third generation weapons system. and, oh, by the way -- >> still the most efficient and cost effective. >> it is because of the cruise missile because it can't penetrate either. we'll need to penetrate with fighters. we need a fifth generation fighter. we have to have it for our airmen to fight and win in any conflict in the future.
one of the reasons we need a b-21 is because the b-52 cannot penetrate. we'll need a penetrating capability out of the bomber and fighter. we'll need to handle any threat scenario. as for the cost, it should not have cost that much. i think any american who looks at the cost and is proud of that cost has not seen the big picture. it cost too much. but that capability is critical. and it will be awesome on the battlefield. it will create an advantage for the united states for decades to come. >> i have a question being asked by west virginians every day. does the president of the united states have the absolute ability and power to call for nuclear strike? without any input from congress, legislators, any input from generals whatsoever to negate that? he or she alone can call for that strike? >> my job as a military officer
is to follow orders of the commander in chief. >> so there's no checks and balances. you don't check with someone else to make sure. if you get that order from the president, then it's a go order? >> the president of the united states will ask me for my military advice. i'll give it as strongly and powerfully as i can if i'm confirmed, but he is the kch compa commander in chief, or she is the commander in chief, and their orders will be followed. >> so that person, whoever the president may be, has the ability, sole ability to call for a nuclear strike? >> they are the commander in chief. >> also, i'm very supportive of the national guard as you might know. i would like to know how you see that your sister the national guard's performance in space, missile defense and cyberoperations, how they can be more effective. >> spectacular. but in many ways we've just scratched the surface. if you think about many of the missions we do in space and cyberspairx they are stateside
missions. it's perfect for the reserve. some of our most impressive cyber units are guard units because they karn leverage the civilian workforced in civilian population. the guard and reserve are stepping up into the space area in new and exciting ways. i met with the head of the air national guard and head of the air force reserve. we're looking at new ways to expand both space and cybercommand. as the -- if i'm confirmed as commander, it's a total force problem, everything that's we do. and we'll leverage the total force in every way possible. >> do you think we're exercising every option and opportunity we have to enhance that with the guard or that more needs to be done? >> i think there's always more that needs to be done. i'm not exactly sure what that is but i just looked at the potential that's out there and realized that i think there's even more that can be done. what we're doing, a tremendous amount. >> thank you, general. >> i think you ought to read the
constitution. nuclear strike, depending on the circumstance, would require a declaration of war. only the congress can declare a deck la -- approve of a declaration of war. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and, general, thank you for being willing to take on this task. thank you to your family for being here and for all of the service they've also provided. there was discussion earlier about north korea and the eratsic behavior of north korea's leader. and we saw as you pointed out just this morning that they tested a new rocket engine to launch satellites. it's the latest in a succession of nuclear weapons tests and ballistic missile launches as they steadily increase their nuclear stockpile. can you discuss what you see as
stratcom's mission and operations to, as we look at what we can do to deter what's happening in north korea, if anything? >> i think we have two roles, if i'm confirmed as strategic commander, that we have to play. role number one is strategic deterrence and assurance mission for our allies. and i kind of lump those both together. the ability to deter our adversaries n assure our allies thad they are defended by the capability of the united states. i think it's extremely important. the second piece of that puzz cell to make sure we provide the right kind of ready forces that can allow the united states in concert with the other joint combatant commanders to respond to those capabilities across the board. >> senator inhofe earlier talked about the missile defense system in eastern europe as being one
of the actions that might have contributed to russia's aggressive behavior. do we see that the thad missile system in south korea has the potential to produce that kind of a response from north korea and from china for that matter? >> i am not sure, ma'am, if i can properly assess how china or north korea would look at that. from my military perspective, the thad missile does not change the strategic deterrence equation because it provides a point defense capability against a close-end threat. doesn't impact the ability to effectively operate. >> do you think that's clear to china and north korea? >> i think we have done everything in our power to make it clear. how they perceive what we've said and what they believe, i don't think i can comment on that, ma'am. >> there was a very interesting
segment of "60 minutes" on sunday night. i don't know if you saw it or not. it was talking about the nuclear deterrent. and one of the people they interviewed was former secretary of defense william perry who -- they were asking him if there had been -- ever been a close call in terms of someone launching a nuclear weapon from the united states. he pointed to an incident in 1977 where someone put in a training tape that was misinterpreted. as you look -- and the reason i think that is so -- has so much resonance right now is because i think this campaign for president probably has had more discussion of nuclear weapons and who should control nuclear weapons than any campaign i remember since 1984. so as you look at the current nuclear command and control structure and architecture, are
there any concerns you have about the potential for something unforeseen to happen for somebody to make the wrong call and a weapon to be launched inadvertently? >> i believe ours is the most robust architecture that can be created by man. i think there are multiple checks and balances through the system that you have men and women in the loop that can respond to those kind of anomalies and make sure if it is an anomaly they can report that up. nonetheless it was created by man. if it's created by man, there's no way to create perfection, but that's why we put so many checks and balances in the system. all the way up to make sure if we do have to give a recommendation to the president of the united states, that recommendation is clear and based on solid data. >> one of the concerns that i
have heard from folks in the foreign policy arena is that unlike during the cuban missile crisis and much of the other periods of our history, we don't have the same kind of communication channels between us, our military leaders and the military leaders in russia. i don't know if -- they didn't suggest that china is in that category as well, but certainly said that was true of the united states and russia. do you share that concern? >> i don't have enough information to really comment on it, except to say that i'm a big believer in military to military relationships. and i think that if we have military to military relationships with allies, friends, and potential adversaries, we're in a better posture to defuse the situation if something should happen. if i'm confirmed, i'll find out
the details of what relationships there are right now, and then i'll advocate for improving those relationships in the future. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, general, congratulations on your nomination. i think you're highly qualified. i want to also -- as we talked about, i appreciate your example at all alma mater and what you did there and stand for. sometimes our universities in this country need to see and respect the military and rotc, and i think you are a great example of that. i want to just continue on. i know the discussion has been a lot about missile defense. and i want to continue on what senator shaheen was talking about and senator inhofe. do you believe it's part of our job and your job if you're confirmed as combatant commander and the senate's job to anticipate threats to our nation and then be able to address
them? >> sir, i think it's the responsibility of any public servant to look at that always. my primary job if i'm confirmed as a combatant commander will be to make sure our forces are ready to respond today, but i have a secondary job to advocate for capabilities to respond to future threats in the future and, if confirmed, i'll take both of those jobs very seriously. >> so it's my sense that's we talk a lot about north korea here and the threat, and it's definitely a growing threat. but i think that the american people probably continue in general to see that maybe most members of congress as a regional threat to japan, korea, to the region. today's -- there was a "wall street journal" piece today that north korea successfully tested a high-powered engine for launching sat lied and intercontinental ballistic missiles. do you believe in two to three
years the leader of north korea is going to have the ability to reach the continental united states with nuclear weapons? do you think that's just a matter of time? maybe not two to three, maybe three to four, but don't you think the american people soon, maybe within your tenure, if you are confirmed, are going to wake up to the fact that this is not a region al threat. this is a direct threat that a crazy dictator from north korea has the capability to range our country with intercontinental ballistic nuclear weapons. do you think that's going to happen within five years? >> sir, i can't put a date on it. i've talked extensively to the intelligence community over the last couple of weeks. i don't have a confident date, but -- >> you think it's going to happen -- >> it's a matter of when, not if. >> shouldn't we start preparing for that now? >> we should. >> so the american people won't wake up and say, my gosh, nobody
has even thought about this. >> i think we are thinking about it, and we have to be prepared for it. >> i think we're not doing enough in terms of missile defense to prepare for this inevitability. can you give me your sense right now with 40 ground base missile interceptors in alaska, a couple in california. a new ladr system being deployed. do you think we're doing enough in terms of missile defense to be able to anticipate a threat that we know is coming? literally a dictator who has no stability in his mind being able to range our country with nuclear weapons. are we doing enough? >> i'm a big believer in missile defense. we're doing a lot but i think we need to do more. i think that the number of interceptors we have, we have to constantly look at that abillities of that force to
respond to the size of the threat. i think the force of size is correct today. i have concerned about the size of that force in the future. if i'm confirmed, i'll take a hard look at that along with command and pacific command to make sure we understand what that response option is. >> i'd like to work with you on that issue. i think it's a critical issue on the issue of defense for our nation. a lot of senators are interested in it, and i don't think we're doing enough to be ready for a threat that we know is coming. and if that, you know, if we're not in that position to tell the american people, hey, we knew this was coming, and we took -- we took decisive action to create a strong missile defense, i think that's not what we should be doing, any of us. can you just describe in terms of the technical aspects how important lrdr -- we often talk about ground base missile interceptors but the raider
syste -- radar systems we're trying to deploy. >> they're important. you can't target a weapon without the sensor. you need the sensor to queue that. that starts with the overhead infrared capabilities. hands off to radars today. the radars we have are old. they need to be modernized. one of the most critical radars we're building is the long-range discrimination radar. clear in alaska to be able to respond to that threat. it's a critical element of any future architecture in that part of the world. and we also have to look at the space base element. we need to be able to broadly use the global nature of space to be able to add a global tracking capability because that not only allows us to track but allows us to operate weapon systems more efficiently than just firing many at one time. >> thank you, general. i think you are highly qualified. i look forward to voting in
favor of your nomination -- confirmation. >> thank you for your service. thank you to your family. i want to start with a little bit about the b-2. in august of this year, we deployed the b-2 from whiteman to guam. at least the second time this year that we have deployed these aircraft to the u.s. pacific command area of responsibility. in march 2013, two b-2 spirit bombers conducted a long-range precision strike by flying more than 6,500 miles to the korean peninsula and returning to the continental u.s. in a single continuous mission. i know that you understand how important missions like this are to demonstrating our commitment and our capabilities and what an important role they have in deterrence, particularly as we look at the actions of north korea. they continue our adversaries continue to develop advanced systems which eventually could
hold even our homeland at risk. i know there's been a lot of discussion regarding the affordability of maintaining -- upgrading nuclear triad. there are some improvements in the communications systems of the b-2 spirit which will extend the viability of this flexible, dual use platform. what would be the consequences of a delay in completing the communication upgrades to the b-2? >> senator, i think we have to look at the communication upgrades of the b-2 in concert with the entire bomber force. right now it's probably the most important element of our bomber capability. so that capability is extremely important to maintain the viability now and in the future. but i think the best answer that we owe to this committee and to the congress is natural. it looks across the entire bomber force. i think that's a question the air force should answer but as
the commander of stratcom, what i'll advocate for is an effective bomber force to handle all the threats we have in the future and then it's the air force's job to say then we have to upgrade the b-2 or wait for the b-21. right now the b-21 is a little too far off to respond to that. but i think the answer has to be across the entire bomber force. >> we have to make sure we don't make the same mistake as we did with the we started pulling back on the fa-18s and hornetses but because of the implementation of a system that was way over budget and way out of time. as a result, we had vulnerabilities on our aircraft carriers we shouldn't have and we're continuing to scramble to make sure that we don't have those. i want to make sure that i make that point. in addition, i am really proud of the 131st bomb wing at whiteman of the missouri national guard. was the first national guard unit to be certified to conduct a nuclear mission.
this is -- took a tremendous amount of work at whiteman and a tremendous amount of commitment on the part of the active air force at that base, along with the missouri national guard. do you -- can i get your commitment today to continue this integration and continue to allow the guard to play this important role going forward? >> so, senator, i'm a huge fan of the total force were. the guard and the reserve provide a huge capability to our forces worldwide. so i pledge to constantly advocate for full integration of the guard and to all our military forces across the board. if i'm confirmed as stratcom, it will be inside stratcom. >> and i alsome menwant to talkt missile defense as it relates to north korea. the first ballistic missile defense test against an icbm
missile range target will be conducted this fall. first time this has happened since 1984. a second ground base interceptor was scheduled for fy 2017 but due to budgetary sdrin arary co will -- it was scheduled for 2017. it will have to slit to 20 season. a gao report found a system delayed or removed 40% of its planned flight tested in reprioritized the testing of polite plan because of the fiscal constraints we placed upon the military. if we don't stop playing games with what we need to invest in our military as it relates to oco and spending money off budget, what is going to be the result in terms of our capability, in terms of ballistic missile defense, particularly in light of what north korea is up to?
>> senator, i think we desperately need a missile defense capability. it's got to be robust, tested. our adversaries have to be concerned that it will work if they operate against it. if it's not, it's not there. therefore, just like in every other element of our defense department, i think we need stable funding, close working relationships with the entire congress, especially this committee, to make sure we understand exactly where we're going. i'm concerned if we go back and you had a hearing last week on readiness that if we go back into a budget control act level, that many of those decisions that we'll make will be bad decisions for the security of the united states. >> thank you very much, general. congratulations. >> thank you, senator. >> general, you are an outstanding choice for stratcom. you have been an outstanding and
have done an outstanding job as the head of air force space command. a subject that i understand a little bit about, and i just want to say that for the record. we thank you, and i look forward to you being our combatant commander. would you characterize your thoughts on the need for modernization of our nuclear arsenal, as well as our nuclear command and control. >> senator, i think it's -- i think all three elements of the triad are essential to the security of the nation. i think it is the foundation of what we built our entire defense posture on. each of those elements of the triad are aging out at a similar time. in order for us to have an effective triad in the future, we'll have to modernize each element. we'll have to modernize the
capabilities for icbm, we need an ohio class replacement program on the -- cruise missile, the long-range strike option. each of those has to be pursued. they have to be pursued in an integrated manner, and then we have to pursue the nuclear command and control piece on top of that. the nuclear command and control is the most inportent piece of the puzzle. and as we continue to focus on the delivery platforms which are essential, we just can't take our eyes off the nuclear command and control capability. without those we can't successfully have a nuclear deterrent. >> and specifically, do you have any thoughts on the modernization of -- i said the nuclear arsenal, meaning the nuclear weapons. >> so i think as we look at the nuclear weapons, we have to
consider the environment that we're going to operate in. we have to consider how many nuclear weapons that we need. we need to take a whole approach to looking at the existing goin approach to looking at the existing nuclear stock pile and what we need in the nuclear stock pile. ideally i might like to have flexibility across platforms with those nuclear weapons. it's really a conversation meant for a different class piaificat forum and i'll just say if i'm confirmed i'll work closely with the national labs as well as the other elements of the nuclear weapons environment to make sure that we have a solid plan going in the future. especially given the test environment that we're in. >> thank you senator.
>> earlier assessment that the growing importance of cyber warrants u. s. cyber command from a unified command. is it also your professional military judgment that maintaining a relationship with the commander of cyber command sa er is also in the best interest. >> that's my belief, sir. i believe that right now. there may be a day in the future where that's not the case but today is not that case. >> i thank you that that discussion continues. i was going to talk with senator reid and other members of the committee but i think they may asking you to come back and not maybe this week but later on to brief us on the information that you provided me with yesterday
>> after a very long campaign. why should he be our next president of the united states? >> help education funding. >> my name is natalie. i'm a senior and i'm a medical laboratory science major. and our health care system. and my question is as president of the united states what would you do to help alleviate some of the tensions that are building.
>> money out of politics. >> on cspan. >> the race gender age and education of the electorate a look beyond the numbers who is supporting donald trump or hillary clinton and why? the polling and analyst and also the director of the university of san francisco washington d.c. program and a professor in the department of politics at usf. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. >> let me begin. in terms of who is supporting donald trump who are among the base of his electorate. >> so let me start with clinton
first. he is getting overwhelming support from ask an american and solid support from hispanics and if you add the population together hillary clinton has a margin of almost 50% over donald trump. she is winning folks with a college degree and also winning women. for trump, his margins among the groups supporting him tend to be less but he is winning among men. he is winning among older voters. 65 plus. he is winning among white voters and he is especially strong on average, averaging all the polls we had by close to 30 point with white non-college degree people.
>> trump is doing well with the noncollege educated so there's the spot of white college and then the other age groups -- they'll get the broad range but youngest voters for clinton and oldest voters for trump but the 35 to 49-year-old for clinton and the 50 to 64-year-old slightly for trump. >> you're calling this the bloomberg politics code decoder. what is the methodology and with so many different polls for example the la times has donald trump ahead. the latest from nbc news shows hillary clinton is ahead. how do you make sense of all of that. >> i think what you hear for a lot of folks is don't pay attention to any one poll. and there's lots of great sites out there that are all the
polls. it's the demographics of what people sometimes call the internals but winning elections if you're a campaign manager is about maximizing shared performance and getting polls right is about getting sharing performance right so i found myself when a number of polls came out and i say never pay attention to a single poll. of course i do. you look at the internals and i wanted to know how many dems did they have or whites did they they have or nonwhites did they have. often it was impossible to find so i wanted to build a tool that would bring it out in the open so that people cannot only see what the assumptions were of individual polls but in the same way we averaged the top horse race number. we should average assumptions about the demographics of the
survey as well. >> older americans have a much higher rate than americans and it should be supporting hillary clinton but will they go to the polls. >> they're pretty sophisticated multiquestion models and do it in tirget ways and not who young people will vote for and who younger people will vote for but how many there will be. what proportion of the electorate they will comprise and it's a function of how many there are and exactly as you said, whether or not they turn
out. and we also provide an average assumption about what the shape of the electorate would look like and what we found when we average all the measures of partisanship. and a 5% advantage in party i.d. which is a little less than what democrats enjoy in 2012 and they have a party iflt d. >> these three numbers available online at bloomberg politics dol particularly interesting. 222 million. the number of eligible voters in 2012. and only 130 million actually voted four years ago.
>> and 55 and 60% of the eligible electorate. and 55 or 60%. and it's huge. >> so let me conclude what you compose in your essay what is the shape of the american electorate. >> listen, that's the big question. as i said before we have a pretty good idea of what particular groups are going to do. the key question is, are african americans going to come out at the same level that they did for
barrack obama. >> a professor of the university of san francisco. his work available online at bloomberg politics.com. thank you for being with us. >> pleasure to be with you. thank you. >> local law enforcement officials will be on capitol hill to talk about their counter terrorism efforts. they'll also talk about the attacks in new york, new jersey and minnesota. live coverage from the house homeland security committee at 10:00 a.m. >> supreme court justice elaina kay gan talked to students at the university of arizona law school about the inner workings
of the court and talked about hunting and the impact the staff has had on the court. from tucson arizona this is just over an hour. >> cell phones off. welcome, welcome, welcome to the 2016 mccormick lecture. i'm here on behalf of the society that honors j. byron mccormick and supports this annual lecture on public policy. he served our university and this state in many capacities but particularly three that matter to us tonight. he was the president of u of a. he was dean at the college of law and he was special advisor to the arizona board of regents. the society was born almost four
possible. it's a special conversation for court justice elena kagan. here to introduce you tonight is mark miller. >> thank you dean. welcome and thank you again. you're with us today. thank you to all the friends of the college, our awesome students and the members of the community who are here for what i know will be a memorable conversation. i understand you have questions, you should write them down on
cards and pass them to the center. please do that and we'll have time for those questions or some of those questions at the end of the conversation. as i was contemplating the visit and my opportunity to introduce her to you it occurred to me that i should kech sketch her very substantial accomplish ms before she joined the court and the contributions she has already made to the work of the court. i kept in mind the conventional wisdom that the more important and familiar a person is the harder it is to do it justice in their introduction and therefore the shorter the introduction should be. after all, who introduces barrack obama by saying after his time as an illinois state senator he -- justice kagan's biography reflects a passion for public service and unwaivering commitment to public justice.
the daughter of a schoolteacher born and raised in new york she studied at princeton and oxford and enrolled at harvard law school not as a grand career plan but because she wanted to keep her options open. how wise. even then. law schools are to expand lives options. after her graduation she worked in the u. s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit and then for justice marshall of the u.s. supreme court during the 1987 term. after clerking she practiced at williams and connolly in d. krflt and began her teaching career at the university of chicago law school and later at the harvard law school. she served for four years in the clinton administration as associate council to the president and deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy between 2003 and 2009 she served as the dean of harvard
law school. and and nicely captured it. when you haven't changed your curriculum in 150 years at some point you look around. in 2009 president obama nominated her as the solicitor general of the united states and as the first woman occupant of that office she served for a year until her nomination for the supreme court. she took receipt of the bench in
2010 as the 112th supreme court justice. she has emerged as a powerful and reasoned force on the court. and also renowned for her sense of humor. during her confirmation hearings when asked about allowing cameras into the supreme court she replied she would have to get her hair done more often. as a member of the court she is widely recognized as one of its best riters and this is in a field of considerable talent. her readable opinions she earns the respect of contemporary law students by describing her approach as trying to create vivid ways of explaining that they'll stick with people. for example, an opinion that dealt with whether a fish was a tangible object, the court majority concluded that it was not. justice kagan's descent included this line, a fish is of course a discreet thing that possesses physical form. see generally dr. seuss one
fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish. even as her opinions are accessible to the public an opinion element of maintaining public trust in the courts she prings a scholar's perspective. she follows her dr. seuss reference with an exhaustive exploration of decisions that have the phrase tangible object along with a detailed description and quote as icing on the cake already frosted she uses the legendary history of the statute. there's something for everyone in her opinions. in oral argument and the case involving video games she achieved cultural icon status by demonstrating her knowledge of the video game mortal combat which i spelt with a k and was celebrated as being the hippest justice. so we laugh at this.
we smile at this but it demonstrates her careful preparation for each case and an awareness of the need to understand context and contemporary culture. >> help me welcome her. >> some people might say it's a low bar to be the supreme court's hippest justice. i don't know, maybe i'm not one of those people but some people might say that.
it's really a pleasure to be here. it took awhile to arrange this. >> thank you for putting up with me. >> come again next week. >> speaking of the visit was postponed the second time because of the death of your colleague and good friend justice scalia. that was just a few days before she was scheduled to come here. first our condolences even though he was a close friend or the fabric of the court. and first on a personal level and what you're missing and what you gained from justice scalia
and second i think you've said it has -- it has effected the court as an institution and finally, i know you talked about this already, in other venues, what is his legacy going to be in your opinion? >> well, it was a big shock to all of us. and it was a very sad year for the court because of his death. he had been incredibly generous to me. in his 5.5 years on the court at the point he died and we had become i think really good friends. we had known each other a little bit because he had gone to harvard and dean of harvard i hosted him on various occasions and we sort of had the beginnings i think of a friendship but on the court we became pretty close. i admired him enormously.
i add mierd the work he did. and can i tell a story. and we have to know each other on a personal level. and comes the weekend did not say let's go hunting. and i had visits with that. and if i ask people what do you think they really want to know about. and people guess various things and hands nou down they have
and all of these questions with them. and one of the senators from idaho and hunting and gun culture in his community and he was talking to me in particular about his own hunting. he has a ranch out in idaho and was telling me, he said, you know, i just don't understand how i can go back to my constituents and explain to them that i'm confident that you're going to see what they think is important here and it's like my 60th interview and i said you know senator i really understand that. on the other hand i grew up in new york city. this is not something that i have any knowledge of or experience with but i'll make you this promise -- no i said to them, i said but here's what i'd say. i'd say, you know, if you ever want to invite me hunting on
your ranch i'd love to come. this look of abject horror came over him. the white house staffer had fallen off the sofa so i realized i might had gone too far. i brought it back a little bit. i didn't mean to invite myself hunting with you but i said here's the thing i promise you that if i'm lucky enough to be confirmed to the court i will ask justice scalia who i knew and he knew to be a great hunter, to take me hunting and he thought it was so funny. he was on the floor. he had a great, great sense of humor and he said okay we're on and he took me to his gun club and he taught me how to shoot and taught me about gun safety
and he said okay you're ready and he was so generous. he has this group of hunting buddies and we went bird shooting near virginia and i quite liked it. i enjoyed it and then, you know, he would take me a futiles bird sho -- few times bird shooting in virginia. we came out a few days here, in this here. in one of those big square states. we tried to shoot antelope. we went duck hunting -- where? georgia. no, no, it was mississippi. we went duck hunting in mississippi. i really don't confuse all of
these states all the time. you know, we have these great trips together and gave me a great opportunity to get to know him. not just on the court but as a person and he is, was as generous and warm and funny as a person could be and i so hugely appreciated all the time that guilty or innocent to spend with him and very grateful for that. so i miss him a lot. what was the second question? >> how it's effected the court. >> you know, i think, we are a small institution. and what we understand and no
matter how much we disagree with each other or argue with each other there's a kind of -- we are all very important to each other and i they the institution is very close because there's so few oppenheim us and we are bound together by important work. and i think anybody's departure really changes the court but i will say, you know, that's true but justice scalia more so. he was such a powerful personality. a powerful presence on the court that was true at oral argument. all the world could see that. when he died there was a period in the court where we all had to figure out what we were going to do in oral arguments because there was a gaping hole he left and we all had to kind of adjust and try to figure out how to fill that hole and -- excuse
me -- also very much in conference. he was a big voice. he was, you know, he is so smart, so persuasive. so vocal. so i'm going to say what i think. so the loss of that voice -- i mean, has meant that the institution operates differently. and adjusts their roles. and our role to the 8 person court which i sympathy the third part of your question but we also had to adjust because justice scalia was gone and that means that other people have had to take over like what he does and have to respond differently.
because he is not there. >> justice o'connor wrote about the absence of marshall and how everything shifted and she found herself speaking up where he wouldn't before because of the void. >> the third part was the legacy part. >> yeah, the legacy. different people will point to different things about justice scalia's legacy. some people will surely point to his very original -- he was the first originalist on the court as being reported. that's not a methodology that a share. and to be quite frank it's not a methodology that will prove to have more length and maybe other people would disagree with me on that but i don't think that's where his truly long lasting legacy is. his truly long lasting legacy is
an area of statutory interpretation where he changed the way everybody does statutory interpretation. it's not just that he had his own distinctive method of interpretation. he really just moved the whole field and i would say justice scalia sometimes kept on arguing with people about how to interpret statutes. he should have declared a victory and gone home because the way that the court does statutory interpretation if you look at cases from the 70s and the 80s before you got on the court and you look at the way we do interpretation now, it's like night and day in terms of the emphasis we give to the text in term of the way we treat legislative history. in terms of the questions we ask as well as the answers we give
and justice stevens and justice briar were the last hold outs but they now are sort of and everybody else has moved in his direction even if not all the way. i think that that will not change. his critique of the way he used statutory interpretation and his powerful rational for looking at the text and his grounds for being suspicious i think that's here -- if not for good, everything is a pend yulum and
swings back and forth but i think for a long time. >> speaking of, you've been in professional positions and there's a scholar writing about presidential power and other issue with the court playing a heavy hand or working in washington and the executive branch and i'm interested in the changes you have seen over this period from '87 in terms of the way the court operates. and these little devices. it's amusing and that's the rest of the world.
and they're like under some false name and we don't use them. >> in general the way we communicate with each other is astonishingly old fashioned. so i clerk on the court 1987. what happened between 1987 and now? well the rest of the world has had a communications revolution. the rest of the world had a technology revolution. not so much the court the way we circulate memos is we print them on a heavy ivory paper and we hand them to someone in our chambers and they walk the copies around the building so we don't use e-mail. we don't text.
we don't -- the second circuit for some reason continues to use fax machines. we never used fax machines. we still don't. so we're pretty old fashioned when it comes to the way we communicate with each other and we're pretty old fashioned i think when it comes to how we b absorb information. >> but it's the same way we absorbed information for decades and we read briefs. if you want our attention put it in your brief and otherwise most of us won't see it. >> i think the institution generally -- i was pretty amazed when i came back in 1987 and it had been over 20 years when i
came back as a justice. i was pretty amazed at how the processes that the court uses, the procedures, the way the court works and nobody changed the rules and i they the theory is this worked pretty well so it's by nature a conservative institution in the way it operates and i think properly so. it works pretty well. >> he almost single handedly changed oral argument. if you were at the court listening to an oral argument it
would have been a very sedate affair. the lawyers would have gotten up and had a lot of time to present their case to talk about what they thought was important. every once in awhile somebody would throw out a question. the questions were more often that than not and justice scalia came to the court and he was having none of it. he thought i read your briefs i don't need to listen to you resite your briefs and i have some serious questions and he started being really aggressive and so must have so that the story goes is that in his first year he is is the junior justice and nobody is doing this and he is throwing out question after question after question and justice powell i think leaned over to justice marshall and said do you think he knows that the rest of us are here? but what was interesting about that is that everybody else started doing it. if not the ones that had been there for a long time but
certainly the new people. first off he was right. you have read the briefs. why do you need to listen to them resiting everything that you already know? most people have serious questions for the lawyers. that's their opportunity to ask it so, you know, if nothing else, he had to do it because he was doing it so couldn't just let one person do it right? >> so now you go to the court and oral arguments are fast and aggressive and the lawyers hard to get it in and speak at all. it's question after question and you better be fast on your feet and you better think that's what your job is. it's not to recite your point but respond to the justices. it's a real change. it's just by different
personalities being up there. >> and again justice scalia. >> he was absolutely critical in that. >> so for the people here interested in hearing about your docket, the court gets thousands of petitions every year and got it down to 75 or maybe 80 tops. tell them about how that process proceeds and to what extent within opinions you might pull your punches at times decide a little less the virtues within a case put let's go with the mechanics first. >> well, we get about 8 or 9,000 petitions a year and only take about 75. it's 101 or more. no, a lot of them are not all that serious. very high percentage of them are criminal appeals. very high percentage of them are
nonlawyered. and, you know, for the most part, you sometimes see a genuine issue in those petitions but not frequent. >> but we do take every petition seriously. all of our clerks are part of it and a clerk will get assigned to each petition and every petition gets a write up by a clerk. not necessarily by one of yours but by somebody and writes up a memo saying whether there's anything here and you hope that even in the petitions that are hardest to understand that there's a clerk who is, you know, sort of seriously evaluating whether it's underneath something here. and he takes everything
seriously. and every week you have to figure out whether any of them should get us. >> and what we call circuit splits and that's when just different courts of appeals in different parts of the country are deciding this differently. so some of those might be, you know, pretty important issues. some of them might not be particularly important on their own but we think they are important because we think it's just unacceptable that somebody gets a different kind of federal law in one state than they do in another. so i would say over 75% of our cases are taken because they involve what we call a division of authority among the circuits.
the other 25% some of them are cases that raise such important issues that we think we ought to be the court that decides hem. so for example, any time another court invalidates a federal statute we'll always take that case. for the theory that congress shouldn't be invalidated except by us. some think the same is true when a court invalidates a safe statute that that's also grounds for us to take the case and so sometimes there's an increasing set of cases. by now about five a year where there's no circuit split because there can't be a circuit split because it goes to a specialized court which is the federal circuit so all of our patent litigation which we're taking more and more of is things that two to the federal circuit and
they are a split within the court really does what a circuit split does outside that circuit. and then just there are some cases where people feel had is just an important issue that we haven't looked at in awhile or where people feel this is an important issue and we got it wrong before and we ought to correct ourselves and nobody else will do that because they're all too scared of us. properly so. they shouldn't be correcting us. only we should correct us. so that is sort of the cases. >> right here in arizona we have several dozen indian tribes each with their own legal principles and systems. and i'm interested in the more general problem which is when there's an area that you didn't
teach and work on its a complex area with that. how do you approach it with your clerk? how do you approach it yourself? >> well it's one of the great things about the job honestly is at least for me now even if my 6th year there's still areas where i don't really have all that much background and where the opinion will be my first opinion in a field that's incredibly complex. sometimes arcane and we're trying -- had month experience before i came to the court so you mentioned -- i did an indian law case a few years ago and i'm thinking i did a big water case and that was certainly an area of law that hi no experience with. incredibly important. if you live on the east coast you don't think about it. exactly. exactly.
this is in kansas, nebraska and colorado. >> and just this past year and electricity regulation and i don't know about you but i didn't know much before i started. and agencies to get the substance right. this is pretty meaty and substantive. just going through and see this issue before. that would be pretty tedious. so i love that part of the job.
the opportunity to learn new fields of law and some of which are -- i always liked when i'm a law student and law professor. i liked complicated things. i liked trying to figure out ib sanely complex statutes and that's what people gravitate to in haw school and that's what i did gravitate to. so i enjoy that but it's hardment and you're never quite sure that you're getting it right. you kind of think it's sort of insane. people that know this so much better than i do but what i really would like is to pick up the phone and call a few of the people and say i want to check this with you, all right? and you can't do that and they'll tell you that you got it
right. >> so building on the point and also building on your point about the anecdote about going from door to door and finding out or promising to go hunting, right? experiences may matter. not being from a square state and that one right into the ground here. so you have had all of these rich professional experiences and we look at the court as a hole and almost all of you appellate judges, if you are from a nonsquare state, from a hand full of schools there's three women now that quit.
>> there's not very much racial or ethnic diversity on the court. which of the american people think about that in terms of the possibility? >> well there are ways in which the court is not a diverse institution and i think, you know, more than gender or race or ethnictiy it has to do with the cultural perspective. if you look at the number of years spent on the line from the court it's really super high. from washington d.c. to new york to boston and many members of the court spent a large part of their lives in that neighborhood and those that happen chances are it's lived in california.
so, you know, we all have the same experiences like that. but there is -- i think a lack of geographic diversity. and if you were creating a court of nine people from scratch you would say well you should have a couple of east coast people and a couple of midwest people and a couple of werners and stuff like that. but nobody does that. and you're doing it one at a time. and so other considerations and there's a lot of conversations that they have in their head when they make these appointments. so might come to the fore and low and behold you wake up with a court that is not diverse in particular respects.
>> i guess there's two reasons you might be concerned about that. one reason is you think it effects decision making and the other reason is because you think it effects the way the citizens of the country interact with the court. >> now it's true that people are the person you are because of all the experiences that you had and that person is deciding cases but i mean, i tell you the truth of the matter is i think that most of the demographic, geographic educational characteristics don't play all that much of a role in decision making. so i think, you know, people always ask me three women would be different if there were five women and, you know, maybe
something. so i don't think that those traits, you know have all that much to do with the way we decide cases and we do have a lot to do with the way the court is perceived as an institution and the fact of the matter is that people see people like them and they imagine share their set of values and that's a natural thing and they feel more comfortable in that if that occurs so. >> i think isn't it great that there's three women here and they're all very vocal at oral argument so all of these girls and all of these boys are watching this and they are
getting messages and see the court in a way they can relate to and whether it's about gender or ethnicity or geography or what law school you came from or any number of other things and soy think for that reason it is important to take these things into account and for that reason i wish that the court were a little bit more diverse than it is. >> so we talked earlier about the interpretation. >> i keep on doing this kind of, you know? >> it's not the easiest chairs. >> i'm not a big fan of legislative history and you talk
about his impact in the court of shaping that. we talked not toward the on going discussions that framed so much of the first year of law school and much of the legal career which is over constitutional interpretation. >> i wonder if we could focus in on some of the terms. not technical discussions but we get so caught up thinking about due process for equal protection for these grand concepts. it causes a special heat to the debate. >> i'm not an originalist partly because of what you said. i don't exactly know what it would mean or how it would work or why it should work to go back to people in 1789 or 1868, how exactly they would have applied
it. >> they wrote these words in 1789 the first amendment. these are are very general broad phrases. they don't tell you all that much and when you really, i mean, one way to do it is to say, well, what an equal protection of laws or due process of laws or the very few sparse words of the first amendment mean to the people that wrote those? and we'll just do the exact same thing. >> when you create the list of dos and don'ts that would come out of that method very few people are comfortable with doing that. it turns out that their dos and don'ts whether it's about the first amendment or due process clause are not ones that we could conceive of. they're just so foreign to our
time and these are smart guys and at the they didn't sit down like here's what it means to have he equal protection of the laws. it means, you know, this kind of distinction is okay but that kind of distinction is not okay. feel free to send your children to segregated schools but don't feel free to do some other thing. what they thought those words meant. maybe not even they thought those commands should be in a constitution. they understood this world was going to grow and develop and that the world in 2016 was not the world in 1868 or 1789 and they wrote a constitution that could -- i mean, it's a brilliant document in part because it can apply to different times and different situations. and sentiments among the
american people. so that is to say it's all up for grabs. i mean i think what we do is we like the equal protection clause, which, you know, certainly had nothing to do with women, which certainly had, you know, which even with respect to race, did allow things like segregated schools in 1868. they framed those in ways that step by step by step in incremental ways responding to the changes that happened in a society, but also relying on the prior decisions of the court, the interpretation of those words could shift and the document could be relevant and meaningful in a different time
than the original founders. >> we're going to want to give time, it's building again on the dean's points, you said once the role of the court is "to be the guardian of law, interpret the law, not a political role or voice to public opinion" i know you know maybe the farther from the court there are the more true this is. they look at cases like hobby lobby, second amendment cases, et cetera and they pulled back and they seedy visions within the court and i think it's hard for them to accept that the court isn't a political institution, especially when you divide five-four, four-four. to add the second point, the big elephant in the room is patiently waiting for action on his nomination and no -- no nominee has ever been stalled for this long and nobody thinks
it's likely that anything is going to happen on it until after the election. so, what would you like the american people to know that might make them more confident about the claim that they're not subject to political pressures, undo political pressures. >> i think we're not subject to political pressures. once you get on, you're subject to political pressures, you know, presidents can -- presidents can nominate whoever they want and then the senate has a rule, an important role in confirming people. so the political process surely is rushed to bear in nomination and appointment of supreme court justices. you know, if we're getting, you know, congress and the president can act more responsibly or less responsibly in carrying out that role, but they should have that
role. it should be right that the political process, at some point, gets to weigh in on the people who become justices because after those people become justices there really aren't any political constraints or political pressures. and i think all of my colleagues would say this, i mean, i think none of us think about, you know, was the president like this or not like this, or was congress like this or not like this. it's utterly irrelevant to us when we decide cases. similarly, although courts in different times take broad public understandings into account, i mean, nobody thinks about the polls, nobody thinks, you know, if i took a vote of the mesh people, here is how they would come out on this question. we shouldn't do that because, you know, our role is,
essentially, to provide a check on the political institutions, on the political process, on majoric impulses and to say, you know, to police body of rules and to be able to say here the political process has gone too far, here the majorities don't get their way, that's the role of the court and there's nothing anybody can do about it when we exercise that role. there's no way to punish us. you can only impeach us for crimes not for doing what we're suppose to be doing. we're pretty independent operators. now, you suggested that the country might perceive as political because we're divided with respect to certain questions, and that's fair enough, that's an important question. i guess i would say two things, the first is i think people don't give us credit for how often we're not divided. i mean, we take those 80 cases
that we talk about and probably 65 of them are not divided in any of the ways that people think follow political views. you know, about half of our cases we decide unanimously, you know, notwithstanding that other courts have disagreed on the question, notwithstandings that these are often extremely difficult questions. we, you know, eight or nine people with really fully developed world views, still manage to find ways to come together and unanimously agree. you know, many of the other cases that we do, they're 6-the, they're -- it's hard enough to count whether to count to eight or nine as i'm talking. but there are some set of cases. and to be, you know, frank about this, there are often cases which are of real asal -- people
feel we divide and divide in relatively predictable ways. and that is true, so what causes that. i guess what i would say i don't think it has to do with any kind of partisanship, in a sense i'm giving a vote to this president, or i'm telling this president to stick it someplace. it doesn't have to do what we think of this party or that party or this political figure or that. it has something to do that we use different constitutional methodologies, the people who are originalists are going to predictably have different views of certain issues, involving the due prosays clause or some other constitutional provisions than other people who are much more, you know, we don't love to this
p one point in time. we loved to the history of the nation of the court and as presidents. we do understand that what's very bid in them and not what's for bidden by a particular constitution provision change over time, as circumstances change. we're doing to reach different results if we use those different kind of methods. even beyond that, i would say, there are different views of the important, i mean, related to that, but maybe even beyond, you know, people would describe the principles underlying particular constitution provisions differently, and that goes going to lead to different results on, you know, you can name the kind of issues that we're talking about, whether it's religion or abortion or some race issues or
what not. this is all to say that there are substances division in the court, you know, in a way. i don't think i would like the court if everybody talk about interpreting the constitution in the exact same way. i think it's the better institution because it has different views of constitutional interpretation on it. i think people should understand that those differences are not partisan differences, they're differences in view of how you interpret the constitution and what -- what principles you think it stands for. >> i think it would be good if we can take a few questions. >> great. >> from the audience and if we could bring up the light and then, dave? let's see if i cannot fall after i get to the edge of this stage.
>> how do you use your law clerks and has this changed during your time on the court. >> i basically use them the same way now as i use them when i got on. my first year was a little bit of trial and error. i experimented with different ways. i think by the end of my first year i was comfortable in how i did it. i -- lauren, by talking to people, so principally i use them to talk to me about cases. one of them we'll have the primary responsibility for this. that person will write me a bench memo, of just her saying, you know, his or her case on the case. then i'll have all of the people come in and talk to me about the
case. i encourage give and take, i encourage them to disagree with each other i was -- i use to be se cattic teacher in law school and my clerks know that. you we do a lot of back and forth, we think about what kind of questions i should ask from the bench, what are the questions that are really hard and complicated and difficult in the case and, you know, what, you know, what is the case turn on, so we'll talk about that a lot. then after the argument, i'll come back and talk to them again. i'll find out whether any thoughts about how the argument went, did they learn anything. sometimes in the course of the conversation i'll say what i think and sometimes not. it depends on the case. you know, when i think about courts and what they are most
important to me before, it's that kind of constant give and take q and a to make sure that i've got the answer right. in terms of writing opinions, they also have an important role in that. they usually give me a first draft -- i'm the kind of ground mp -- i'm the kind of person that i don't understand until i write my way through it. i'll use the first draft, you know, on something i look at, i think about it. i think about what i think works in that draft and what i think doesn't work in that draft. i'll use some of the research that they've done for -- i'll start from the first draft. it's the only way i can feel confident that i know i'm getting it all right. i'll give that draft back to my
clerks and we have a couple of kbroun grounds of intensive editing with all of my clerks where they're encouraged to rip me apart and tell me what i saw substance, in terms of style and we'll do that and go back and forth on an opinion like that. so i think that they help me in e norm mou normous amounts. you know, i've got great people and i think that that's one of the most fun parts of the job is to work with them. >> okay. the next question ask from an 8th grade zesks teacher.
>> you get to ask all of them. >> might be that's what i'm going to do. this teacher teaches some supreme court cases to her students, or -- as a justice, which case would you recommend that this teacher teach to ill straight ifl rights ibliberties. you can start with "brown be board" the jus stiff warrant opinion that, you know, prohibited segregation aens answer and really opened the door to all range of other races . >> um -- okay. i'm exercising.
>> technical difficulty. >> yes. >> this one must be from one of my students. the founders when they divided, i'm paraphrasing. they lived in a different time when life expectancy was much shorter. >> yeah what would be lost if an amendment ratified that limited a supreme court justices term to 15 years. >> is it retroe active or not. the next question was which justice have the best sense of humo humoracy. >> go past the constitutional amendment. i, you know, i'm not if the american people think that that's a wise idea, then so be it. i mean think, you know, obviously the reason for like
tenure, and this goes back to the conversation i had with dean marsaro do feel independent in their owned decision making and they're not sitting there thinking, if i go this way, then, you know, after all i'm a young person i only have 15 years often this court, i would really like to do x, or y or z next. it's really lifetime you're suppose to insulate people as far as possible from any kind of political pressure. any kind of pressure that comes from standing what the protect is. it's not a crazy idea to go to some lodge-term. i think some law professors are suggesting 18 years, that gives three more than your students does. that's not a crazy idea, whether it's because of life expectancy or other things, you know, i'll
start it with my aunt. it could go through, the amendment process, which is a pretty tough process to go through. you have to think that, you know, that's perfectly appropriate, not my business to that wouldn't invade. >> in the midnight 1980, the court heard about 150 cases per year. what explains the decline and how do you feel about it? >> that's one of the great mysteries of the clerk. i clerked when it was doing about 140 cases. when one of my cleeks said we have to do this by monday. >> 1234. >> i'm going when i was your age -- [ laughter ] >> and truth be told, they are kwiend kind of, you know, flabbergasted by how much work the court did.
i mean, i don't think i could prepare for cases in the same way. i don't think i could write decisions in the safe way. if they were to do -- i think that we -- i don't think we should go back to 140 or 150. i think most of us have said on various occasions that we think -- that we could comfortably do 20 more cases, something like that, that we could increase the docket some. but the truth -- and we often talk about that are onlies start. i'm happy. year after year, they're not the cases out there that are creating division among the surface. unless we turned ourself into a course, which i think is people
are pretty low to do. i think we're deciding the cases that are there to be decided. by us. it real is a gra. it was kind of a cliff note -- so all of these, most of the various founder on the fact that they don't just expand why it is within the space of two or three years, the doctors decreased by so much. i don't think have, you know, any better answer than anybody else has given on that question, so i guess i will try. >> where did you get your famous sense of humor and are you able to use humor or argument.
>> it's fine, everybody thinks i'm funny in a rock in a roll. i don't make people do any of that. >> who wants. >> the baurks, laughter, all right. you know, he keeps statistic, who is the funniest supreme court justice. i mean, justice scolio by death, brian keep in fourth or fiftd. and this look, process for, once wrote something and i felt -- i took it as a compliment. he said justice is under before me lg 00. i said thf guy really believes i'm funny. it's just that i'm not bringing
it to the bench. and i don't know whether i'm funny or not. but i do have the sense of -- you know, maybe it's, you know, i'm the, jr. justice, you've got to know your place and role. i guess, you know, i'll say something to people laugh about it. but, typically, that's unintention when -- when one of those things come in at world earlier talk. they're up there, stwraing to be serious. they're doing a serious job. you know, i don't begrung it all to my college who make wright flood from there. being a comedy show it's not what i'm use to giving up. >> when did you ask one more question and we'll take the chance to thanks young. >> one more question. making your first argument says it was in the citizens united
case. i was attending your first congress as associate je. you didn't know exactly how people talked to each other. the result of that, i think you're way over prepared in your first conference. you're ready to go give 45 minute exlur. it turns out if you would have done that i'm college, you know, i was a little bit ansi during that. but no wurn near so as my first argument, my first supreme court argument, was also my dad to tell you that. it wasn't the citizen you know why, i think you'll give me one more story and it really doze go back to the one question. so the citizens rehearing, earlier than done by a deputy in
the solicitor general's office. but then when the court asked for rehearing, it was pretty clear that the court was putting the big issues on the table and saying should we overrule some significant decisions and campaign finance area. and so i did that, you know, it was a big case. and there were three other lawyers that were going to argue in that case. and the day before the case was argued, i went up to the court because it was the investiture of the justice. and the court of the court said it might be interesting to see what the justices have on the bench when any case is argued. what the justices have is they have papers that just give them facts about who's arguing. it's pretty bane bare buns, it's
not on my in to supreme court far. there are some pages stapled to the biographical iper data. all the others sub spit yours. and there were these three other lawyers the first one was ted olson and i'm flipping the pages and he had argued like 75 cases. the next one was braxton. i'm fiszing my cages about 75 arguments and the third one is a bit lawyer, but not so much in the supreme court he had only had about 25 opinions. and then it's like elaina with no papers. and i said to the clerk, i said was this your way of psyching me out, i owe. it looks let so i guess i get up
there and my heart is really pounding. and i'm not at all convinced that i'm going to be any good at this. you're the hearing first. i would say a sentence. i prepared, you know, five or six sentences and i fig injuried i would probably get most of those in before the first st was asked. i get out a bitle -- and this is important, no, no, no, no, no, no, then he told me i was wrong. why i ended the case -- but it was actually great. it was great because if i had stayed up there and i was trying to remember -- all of stheez words, it showed up got me into it and he thought was wrong with
my first sentence and i told him, wine my first sentence was right and a lunch of other things, too. and it just sort of got me into it and my nerves went away. you know, i think first question which was really confrontational and but such in a wau that helps me i was able to come back at him and i thought, i said a few sentences, they seem to make sense around then it went down from there. [ applause ] so our way of saying, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, we know you're a sports fan. >> i am. >> we know harvard is a division
1 team, sort of. we're talking about whether to enjoy -- whether it has like minus 12 ourch. [ applause ] . wait. i was trying to show off my dribbling skills, you know. that's tremendous. i'll use it. >> and they be the excuse to get you back out here would be come to the game. >> thank you. [ applause ] thanks a lot. yeah. yeah. [ applause ]
gale mansion, wife of west virginia senator used her position as president of the national association of state boards of education in 2012 to push legislation that requires schools around the country to stock ep by pens, which are made by melan. to answer questions from your house oversight kbhee who are looking into a a. -- >> we have live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern. blam
we could have done what other embassies did either strengthen our security there or remove our personnel between the kidnap and the take over took place. and the 2008 presidential governor and inchem bant vice president al gore. >> i'll balance the budget every year. i will pay down the national debt. i will put medicare and social on my surplus. one quarter of the surplus for spornt projects. i understand back to one reaches the bills. >> watch past presidential debates saturday night on espn radio ap.
consumer product safety commission will come to order. we're pleased to have our witnesses here on a topic that i think is of value and has some opportunity for us to make a difference. whether it's garth brooks concert at wichita or ku basketball game in lawrence or most height and prestigious broadway of older tamle ton. >> easier. >> she's made acquiring tickets but ticket scalping has been made more prevalent by advances in technology. >> when you're trying to pick up tickets for the next big event you're competing against other fans when tickets are relouised. you're forced to compete against army of ticket bots that overwhelm the ticketing web site. and then resell them on a secondary mar fi that is significant. >> what's a ticket box?
here is my example, you know lots of people who want to be there and there's one ticket available, people who use "box" first overwhelm the primary ticket issuers web site by cutting along while in front of fans. >> they quickly use human credit card and circumstances other than security measures. software is easy to find and you don't have to be a technology genius to happen id. >> a good -- one where you could purchase the soft wear we're talking about today. >> we're making it simple for you to download other customer products. from performers to fans, ticket issuers like -- ticket fly, have
to ininvest early in server. the tras that doesn-- consumers frustrated with the ticket issuer or the venue. the secondary market is also impacted by this practice, therefore e bay, stub hub, they harm all parts of the ticket industry. of course, it's perhaps that are the biggest are on the fans. they suggest that at least 10,000 -- tens of thousands of tickets per year are being required using ticket boss. i certainly believe that a ticket marketing place is nothing good for consumers, people can and sure be able to sell their tickets and if they're performs to play for it.
stub hub estimates half of the tickets sold are below face value, so the value prospects cuts both ways for consumers. what i take issue with and other legislation seems of fear, the practice of cutting in line. when tickets are offered so that regular consumers don't have a chance to pay face value of the fans. i'm also brning autoside the shop. >> he's a tur fer and kol ved every consumer program i look forward to the many of these proposals. many groups, including stub pub and measure prevail. they'll be ben fitchs to legislation han hey lors to cig
nt 7 f can -- it is my expectation that this committee, they'll consider bot at its next mark up i believe that's next week and i would encourage all of my cosponsors to video and play this bill. >> i would like to detd out of the ranking -- put it together today's hearing, senator fisher, thank you for your support as well and i'm sorry that the big 12 has trumped the big 10, once again, i can tell du. >> yet, we for her as well. i would recognize the ranking -- the subcommittee's ranking member. senator blooming fall for his opening statement.
>> thank you, mr. chairman, for bringing us your leadership today and for other supporting 2016, a good step, if only a modest step toward stopping kill doctor and they've done no watt ef. one of my favorite shows of all time "hamilton." one of the show stopping -- it happened where -- i think that's fans want to do, be in the room where this happens and where this build up is give them fair access to be in that room. it may be a sports stadium, show like "hamilton" or look -- that
thee are victimless abuses is kiting themselves. this kind of abuse effects boys and girls who want to celebrate birthday and who denied that activity that they had died and it's an ununlawful way to work. that's why it effects the music fans who want to go to the concert that they cannot access. it defends you can't they're winning in terms of victory or dna. >> i spent many years as attorney general for the same connected fighting to protect consumers making -- ticket scalping is not a victimless abuse. it is not a victim us crime.
it effects ordinary americans in their pocketbooks. in their hopes and as spi rations and it has the room of law and all the way home. the great cultural richness of this nation, my former colleague, as attorney general, or one who followed as attorney general after i left, eric has done an investigation and produced a report back in january. i asked mr. chairman that his prepared statement be submitted for the for record. if there's no objection, so ordered. >> showing him that remain out of street for consumers than ever before. much of the denial of access is due to legal force special software, known as chikt bot. that devours the best tickets
the moment they go on and say or before or making sure your you can share at reasonable prices. the use of this technology, basically, comprised the consumer of its fair market. if you believe in the markts, you should be in the legislation. if you believe in fairness, you should support this legislation, whether it's a mega hit like hamilton dch. >> football games that occur regularly in this country over the weekend is coming this fall. or the comments that occur around the country regularly, the current epidemic of ticket box software is dancing the floor event and it is maddening and frustrating, consumers, no matter where they live or what their background, age, class,
race may be, it effects everyone. i believe the state of affairs is untenable and that's why i'm strongly in favor of this. first step and i've heard some of the community performing arts in connecticut, the harvard, i knew -- how does this practice and makes it their sort of scribing, more difficult and how they are hampered in building relationships with future patrons of the ripple. is beyond broadway. it is in every community theater, every community the country and i want to thank the witnesses for being here today and contributing to our understanding of this issue. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. we're honors toe have full committee. senator tt to see say i didn't
get island, so i dot you wanted something different if it was always with any. >> not the price. because the reason i did not go. i didn't want to payle hundred dollars a ticket. at the time i tried, indeed, all the tickets have been brought up, that's what we've been talking. wu you put it in every day, you folks liars, the retirees who want to go to mark nair anniversary at the theater or are you talking about the folks who want to get a ticket for their child on their baseball. to go see their doctor and in
love. i went about the fans that wans to and they are denied of what we saw going on. this is not capital nicism. this is a rigged people speculating. and it's not right. -- and i appreciate what you all are doing. ever mr. chairman, can i request for the record, this time there are cig nars are in the credit when this happens. i hear objection. we're delighted to have our committee members, especially
for of those who introduce them. we have sbroo today. who is the general council of stub hub. we have the legal, the associate frant kanss. mr. jeffrey, the producer of hamilton in the major way. it is the commissioner of the big 12 confidence. we will start with you and york our way on if you want to cancel. thank you, chairman joft. >> thank you i anotice the accident to be able to be here and thank all of the distinguished members for taking the time to hear from the witnesses. this is a terrific opportunity to talk about a vexing situation that brings all of us with
relati relatively this is -- i'll let the first photographs of my statement stand for themselves. i think it's self evidence that some produce revenue from period. when are you going to go in traffic. this rechb is vital to the operation of inner collegiate high level hotels. i'll operate from anywhere. there is a unique relationship between an. it is not uncommon for our praks to have season ticket holders acro across multiple generations because of the special relationships, we try and keep the value and skost of tickets at a reasonable level. because of the reasonable level of this pricing, we make
ourselves an obvious target on some cases. this is particularly true of big regular season contests and, as well as our post season games, kwh, for which there are already a very limited number of tickets. i'm convinced that for certain games we could charge an unlawful lot more than we do. our traditional relationships and our loyalty to our fends. the demand to see live events may overwhelm the supplier virtually every one of our environments, a school could raise ticket prices for that one gig game or order from a group from that ticket tell. so that less advantageous, contact us or level head with
very highly activated charcoal kay. >> they're willing to do a great deal. so i'm unscrupulous, actors will exploit that situation. while many of the ticket stores are athletic events or held by seasoned holders. >> the ticket holders to profit from the sell of the respect to at&t and many games, scal pers will use computer programs to move -- to pick up and buy more sixties than ijs but not hard. whether it's an ij or unsif stating it. the bottom is line this. the hard americaned evening, i'm
going to text her to the waiting and not oern -- it's not that one. they had just both that stouf yorks. does it use and create inflames. it's a zugs in order to bring something i'm aware this some of the nay sayers, whether there's anything this congress or should it do about this kren way. there are still going to find a reason to do whatever they can to gain the system. well, i disagree. i think this is a logical step in the right direction. i also applaud, allowing the federal trard commission and i look at civil enforcement actions against individuals who deploy deceptive practices who
the lack of integrity of online purchasers in volume. we support this legislation as a necessary measure to ensure that our university's fans are the mat about this nonsense. >> reporter: now is a commissioner of higher visibility. we should encourage nch other that's student athlete, coach is a respective ears. we should denounce, however, for technology, takes a site before harden fam who seek to profit for those, thank you, again, for those and i look forward to your questions. >> commissioner, thank you very much. when it comes to questions i will admonish my colleagues from nebraska missouri to keep it.
>> and we may get the question. >> i noticed that senator from missouri. >> mr. seller, congratulations, thank you for being here. congratulations for being producer figure of front row. thank you chairman. i have to tell you that being in your presence, blooming that is all senator, nelson sean p twiner. i am nonminored to be in this room where it knocked ton back door. yes, i'm the proud producer of "hamilton." by way of introduce. my career has been divided by books i produced rent, in the
nights, kes side story. and i'm the fortunate winner of four tony awards for best musical. i started attending broadway shows in 1978. i was 13 years old. my family was lower middle class. my father was a process server, want to see some service. >> though, we had little money available for tournament. my question for musicals motivated my parents to scrape together whatever funds they could so she could see the fisher theater is her. the seats are available and we couldn't afford to go loo this. we went to bottom cliche, it's a course line. >> when he came to town in 1979. my father stood in hours at the official theater so that we could get tickets and have that gift for the holidays for the entire family.
i whether not be sitting here today for it was for me to try harder. i was able to start the great american footballs in our childhood. my recent for being here today, my question is to ensure that young people and, in fact, all of agencies, is one of this, you have the opportunity to see live performances of whatever interests them, musicals, plays, are, in fact. being skefl for big services. >> i have received numerous letters from children and parents appealing to me to help them get tickets to hamel son and they have unable to condition condition conditionenenenenenenenen. >> i don't know which prosect,
the second they went on sale. electronically purchased almost all of the brandy fulton -- they're reposting oin their secondary on prices that were up there fate value. hamilton took his lizzy in extesz of $1,000. in essence these box cut the line and held all the available product before they had a chance to get there. i told her we're waking on toll. >> she's comfortable, they she dunts want to. box are computers cheaters. the poim who fronch i'm not the
wm and holds purchases and every single before i met deal has a chance. the they removed the notion of the ifl playing field. ist don sums for her to get tickets no matter where they live. >> the second day market was introduced to market and the around city around 6:00 a.m. it's the notion that those reselling tickets were, in fact, taking the cane off the back. i'm not here to make any recommendations regarding the function or existence and in many instances it's a yutful tool for buyer and seller, and though i must con visit. the university is in michigan. i will also ento your knowledge. i took my football tickets and resold dhem at tf commission so i could buy a pizza back.
i am here to argue for fairness, the hi had a fair shot -- sat by the torrey. i'm advocating for level going to happen it. it offers millions of ways to thousands of talented and skill artists, knowledge. pretty water. for i acknowledge that tickets are expensive. we at imly are put in place tour affordables and make it available to all. the initiative supported by the rockefeller sfoun dags. i thought it was $21,021 who were nod able to see that perform i remember in addition
we made over 40 tickets. with seats in the first, every single day. $10 the first $21. in order for this to work, we need fairness and ticketing. we need a level playing field. we need to prevent dox from tappering with the system. i was designed to have ek sixties. this is why i whole horted -- heartedly support the biopsy. thank you senator moran. thank you for taking leadership roles on this issue. i thank you for your time and i'm happy to be with knew. >> mr. chairman. >> rakle billion sup the my name
ask stolen cow one. stub hub owned by ebay it's marketplace for 508. it's for ticket marketplace, starbucks offers plans safe and convenient way to get tickets to the games, targets, and feeding her and performs are only that they're not, there some there are and fikts came out -- >> they always feet uncan believe. and when they attempt to buy or sell tickets. the rules are two off the problem. nearly every other industry are many often and ticket would mean lower mices, it leems like they can have access as well as the
80 security for people like each of us who created lots to inselt. >> it's not particularly focus. the main focus is rank. you can take that. the soft wear program is ticketing purchasing or skip back. he believes misuse of the programs, that's why we have consistently supported antibox legislation at the u.s. state level and we come in, senators mor moran, shuper and efforts to enact the federal -- still, not all box, all malicious. >> i'll explain one day when i have time. box are you used every morgs, including whether or not services. has the committee considers this
bill. i encourage that they need one. i all the woops i found him being fair come pez tif and pretty projections. tikd bolls are one subpoena. they have three consumers and b i consider operating. did we stay for place of trade. let me explit -- for fans let lift. for both mans, understoodmental question are both market when they go on sale. ticket are part of the problem, but only safe. with the practice called two hold backs, there are also large to people shows was earls attorney general dead mind on evidence, 46% of concert tickets are made available for purchase
to the federal government. in some cases, hold back are for more. with points taking you to the exchergss for that at tickets or generally reserved or for strit and her sen yao. railroad r f 28 t. >> it will be helpful and i hope we can explore the issue going forward. even for the lucky few who are able to buy tickets at the initial an detroit. there are restrictions and imposed for a long dime. tens, venues and argues. >> there is some something cads so they're transferring freely. the on minoring on the scene,
inconvenient limitation oon fans owner vip right. giving away for ticket or use this technology and if it took an attend the event, the purpose is to block the easy resale. restrictions are utilized in ways that ticket resales could only occur on specific platforms approved by primary ticket providers. these also harm consumers. ultimately we encourage congress to assist in of the comprehensive dialogue around the ticket industry. it is worth noting there is no independent federal legislation regarding the ticket industry. regulation has always been at the state, local and municipal levels. we hope that congress will engage in a broad indepth examination. and require all stakeholders to participate in the examination or study. stub hub believes that a fair,
secure and competitive ticket marketplace unequivocally supports bans. i look forward to answering any questions that you may have. >> thank you very much. >> chairman moran and ranking member blumenthal and members of the subcommittee. i want to thank you for holding a hearing on the harmful effects that bots have on the live industry. your efforts are appreciated by people across the industries ecosystem my name is jeremy liegl. at pandora, our mission is to connect fans with the music they love, and connect artists with their audience. this is why it was a natural fit when we acquired ticketfly last year. ticketfly has partnered with more than 1600 leading event
venues including helping sell more tickets and bringing more fans out to see live shows. we power digital marketing, while it's consumer tools help fans discover and produce tickets. the company has processed more than 1 billion in transactions and in the second quarter of this year alone, we processed 6 pbt 7 million tickets to over 38,000 live events. the value of live events cannot be overstated. concerts, theater and sports bring people together. local bars, restaurants, taxi drivers, hotels, gas stations and retail at the stores all see a direct benefit from live events. at ticket fly and pandora, we've seen the transformative nature of live music events firsthand.
the month long celebration features the famous music festival ticketfly. the economic impacts of the festival's music, bbq and international celebration are astounding. this year, memphis in may supported more than 1,000 total local jobs, attracted more than 93,000 visitors and generated more than $72 million for the city of memphis. what's the problem? profit hungry bot operators on the web are exploiting the livelihood of working artists and robbing the fans and venues that support them. >> a growing body of research shows how automated software is keeping the tickets out of the hands of fans. siphoning money from artists and venues. these computer programs pose as real fans. bombarding ticket sites.
they can seize large chunks of the available tickets within seconds of when the sale goes live far faster than any human being could ever type and click. the end result? real fans are unable to get good tickets at face value. >> there are other costs to this practice. a common issue, the same ticket can be resold into the market more than once. this can lead to longer lines and added confusion at the box office and even denial of entry at the door. it unfairly tarnishes the reputation of artists and venues. thankfully there are steps that can be taken by lawmakers that strike the right balance. consumers can access tickets in easy ways and it's a win win for all. boosting attendance at events. encouraging greater spending by
consumers and concessions. and resulting in increased revenue for artists, venues and promoters and the unsung staff who work hard every night putting on shows. with that in mind we're encouraged by and strongly welcomed by the better sales act of 2016. . we want to thank senators moran, schumer, fisher and blumenthal for introducing this legislation to benefit fans, artists and live event venues alike. as i said at the beginning of my testimony. at pandora and ticket fly. our goal is to connect fans with the artists they love. whether live at a concert, the gym or driving to work. >> we support a music economy that works for everyone. artists and fans, music venues and promoters. and why we urge the senate to stop the action of ticket bots.
thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >>. >> let me begin my questioning by making sure i have an understanding of what's legal and illegal. in today's world, is it satisfactory to scalp a ticket, sell it for more than what you paid for it, more than what the price is on the ticket? and i assume there's an answer to that question. maybe is there something in the conference that prohibits that from happening? is it illegal to sell or buy that ticket? my guess is this has a lot to do with state law, municipal ordinance. >> it does. it sometimes limits not whether they can be resold, but where they can be resold. you'll frequently see scalpers across the street from a stadium on private property rather than on state property or private
property, it is governed in some cases, but not well enforced, and that kind of a robust secondary market is really not my concern in this, it's been there for a long time the market tends to -- there tends to be a levining effect in the marketplace, and i think the creation of an artificial marketplace by perfect of exhorbitant tickets is a matter that rises to the level of importance for us. we have a number of large events where the participating teams logically get a fairly large number of tickets, and then the remaining tickets if bought up by bots are next to impossible to get at anything close to face value.
>>. >> anyone want or need to add anything to what the commissioner had to say? >> there are a few states that prohibit ticket resale above face value. the enforcement is spotty. the location restrictions that the commissioner has mentioned are in existence. >> this legislation is not designed and wouldn't get to anyone who considers that a problem. we're not dealing with that issue. the goal here is to create the circumstance in which you can't acquire the huge magnitude of the tickets that are available and can therefore control or corner the market with your resail of those tickets. that makes sense? >> it makes exact sense. i'm not here to prevent buying and selling, i'm here to make a level playing field so everybody has the same shot at that ticket.
>> you heard mr. cohen talk about hold backs, maybe you can describe how the tickets for hamilton become available. in the venue, there's approximately how many tickets that are -- there are seats for tickets? >> first i want to define that i think the issue he is speaking to has more to do with the concert industry than the theater industry. they're not the same, and that issue is not an issue in our industry. if i have 2,000 seats on sale at the private bank theater in chicago i might have 130 tickets that are house seats and those are the tickets that are controlled by the writer of the show, the director, the actors for their personal use and the tickets are sold at face value, it's less than 10% of the house.
it's a nonissue in the theater. >> you indicated that i don't know what the word hold back applies to this, you have tickets available for $10 for students and others. >> that would be a hold back, and i think that hold back goes with god. >> before my time expires, you indicated that there ought to be a broader discussion. who is not at the table. if there was a broader discussion to occur who needs to be involved in that conversation? >> a couple of different people that are missing from the table. one would be our friends at ticketmaster, actually need to be at the table. i know that they have very strong opinions and are subject to a lot of attacks by bots and add a lot to the debate. as well as different other parts of the industry.
the brokers have an absolute need and desire to be at the table to help work this issue out. and to be part of the discussion. >> do you have anything to add or subject before what mr. cohen was suggesting with ticket purchasers. >> similar to what mr. sellers says. our experience has been different in the total hold backs, tend to total an average of less than 10%. the numbers we read, tend not to be very reflective of our experience with smaller and medium sized venues. >> if i may add something. >> please. >> ticketmaster is the vehicle through which we sell the hamilton tickets. we have worked closely over the last six months. ticketmaster and hamilton, and
in fact over the. we had a huge tranche of tickets we put on sale february one. we know that bots purchased over 70% of those tickets. and working with ticketmaster by identifying people that -- bad actors they were able to identify. and principally through identifying those actors through exceeding the ticket limit. we were able to redone fund over $5 million of bot purchased tickets in the month of april. we refunded those tickets. they put much much more advanced anti-bot software into their system. we put those tickets back on sale with -- through our system and getting the message out to our fans, try again, and we got our success rate closer to 70% in terms of tickets getting in
the hands of regular consumers. ticketmaster has worked to try to combat the bots. >> who are the individuals or businesses that are use iing bo to acquire tickets. >> who is the culprit here. >> i think that -- >> how many of them are there? >> sorry? >> how many people participate in this kind of market? >>. >> we don't know how many, but some of them are overseas, some of them are in connecticut, some of them are in florida we certainly know that there are a variety of companies that each have the software and give the software away or sell the software to other bad actors buying these tickets. i'm not saying that in a
pejorative way, i'm saying they're using that as their form of living to make a buck. >> with your permission, i'm going to yield to my colleague who has a scheduling conflict. >> he's going to sing his questions. >> i'm grateful and to the chair and ranking again for holding this very important session. i'm from new jersey and there's a champion on this issue, who has been for years and year as and years before i came to the united states senate this is something he was upset about, often sign with one of new jersey's patron saints and sons. bruce springsteen. he has a bill in the house that
i think some of you are familiar with. mr. cohen, are you familiar with that bill? >> yes. and i think he talks to a lot -- he really focuses on the issue of hold backs. i want to invoke congressman pa passcaral for a moment a lot of it has to do with transparency requirements. and i'm curious these are some of the things that the bots act does not have. are these important to mitigate the harms that happen to the consumer, other elements of transparency? can they be helpful? >> we think it would be. we absolutely think the ability to be more transparent in the market would have the greatest impact on the market. because it is true that the hold back issue, we don't know. we actually don't know. that is one of the things
consumers would benefit from how many tickets have been placed on sale and at what prices. there's a way we worked with congressman pascaral and we're willing and ready to work on that. >> there's an element that's embarrassing to folks in they're only putting 10% of their tickets on sale. >> we have examples of that being true. the state of victoria mel burn, has a ticket law in which they will only restrict resale if the promoter provides the ticket manifest to the government, and that is distributed publicly there are only six events a year in a sports crazy place, and a concert crazy place that use the law to do anything to stop or limit resale. >> what about the argument against shouldn't southbound be
able to obscure their behavior when it comes to hold backs? in terms of how much -- how many tickets they're putting on sale? this is my private venue, if i was performing and singing and wrapping as indicated, was my skill. why couldn't i hold back those tickets? >> there are ways in which you could do that that's perfectly fine and doable as we speak today. the 9:30 club here in washington, d.c., uses a credit card entry system for green day tickets and the only people that will get into those shows will be the people that bring their credit card to that show? >>. >> anything else you might want to mention? >> there's a variety. it's not in my statement, but i'm happy to provide that to the committee. >> i'm grateful for the time in allowing me to slip ahead. we appreciate your questioning, i know call on the senator from
missouri. >> thank you. >> i want to talk a little bit about prosecution. i think the bill we're talking about is civil penalties and as an old prosecutor, i believe in the effect of the potential of jail time, especially for people who are committing a crime that is just making them money. at the end of the day, what's motivating people to use bots is money. they're stealing money from legitimate customers who want to buy tickets to events and since we started this hearing with a quote from hamilton, i will quote the king and say, and when push comes to shove, i will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love it seems to me a fully armed battalion is
one that would include the threat of criminal prosecution. any of you aware of the criminal prosecution that's occurred in the 13 states that have laws that could go after bots. >> to my understanding, there are no states until new york in june change their law to criminalize the use of bots. and so there have been no prosecutions yet in new york. we are working with the new york attorney general as i know many others in the industry are. to see some that can be criminally prosecuted. i agree with you i think criminal prosecution is the easiest and most effective way to do it. we'll see it at the state level. there's a question as to whether it's appropriate at the federal level the other 12 states, i know of no cases that are current or past i can't state unequivocally they are
provisions. >> are you aware of any legislation -- i have a hard time imagining that u.s. attorneys offices are going to prioritize prosecuting bots. knowing the nature of where crimes are prosecuted. typically they're not prosecuted at the federal level, more likely at the state level. are you aware of any legislation that's been drafted that would assist states on putting the laws on their books. >> i know there's been model legislation drafted. we participated in drafting model legislation. specifically limited to bots. we have both forms of model legislation. >> i don't mean to pick on someone who's not here. but let's talk about the ticket services that are making money coming and going. >> see if i have this right,
live nation owns ticketmaster. >> yes. >> and they own ticket now? >> they do. >> someone can use a bot and buy a large inventory of tickets to a concert and then they can turn around and place those tickets for sale on ticket now, correct? >> yes, and they could place them on our platform. >> correct. i was trying to pick on somebody who wasn't here. >> live nation is making money coming and going, correct? >> they're making the fees on the first sale and turning around and making a fee on the second sale also? >> that is true. why can't you all put in something on your resale that would limit the number of tickets that could be placed for sale. >> you can adopt limits and there are examples which we have done that. you could prohibit -- you could run a lottery system every time
to do the original ticket distribution in a broader sense to reduce pieces. it's good to know there are ways in which the bots have been drastically reduced through some technology. the ticketmaster, what i'm saying, you could do a lot of these things under current law. and steps are being taken. this is another step that could be useful -- >> i'm thinking there may be ways to fix this problem without government. there seems to be a financial incentive to sell the tickets twice. the money that your sites make is the fees they're charging on every ticket they sell, correct? >> to be fair there's something to be said for open markets that allow for multiple resales. that's not necessarily a bad thing at all. you may buy a ticket, not need it, sell it and need to go back into the market.
>> i've had to do that. i completely understand that. but it also reduces the incentive for the businesses that are making money on the same ticket again to want to be part of solving the problem. >> that is true, you could separate out that. tickets are tickets are tickets, the market would be much healthier with open free resale and any platform and much broader open resale. let the market handle it. >> my time is up, and i don't want to take up somebody else's time. what are all the hold backs for in the concert industry. where are they going? >> i hope somebody answers that before this is over. >> if someone wants to answer it now. >> what are all the hold backs for. >> is it i can only -- we know that they go to promoters. the ticket manifest determines
what percentage will go to the artist, the promoters, what percentage will go to different sponsors, the arenas, the season ticket holders of the arena as well as the american express ticket system, gold cardholders and presales. and fan clubs. >> is it clear to say, there are elements of the industry that are complicit. >> i think there's a lot more knowledge in the industry kept from the general public. >> i want to thank you for your candor. particularly say to mr. seller, i think your life story shows us why there's a larger value here
in permitting ordinary americans to come to the theater, watch football games, it's the place where the dreams begin, and where future stars are inspired to devote not only the inspiration, but the per spuration it takes to get to where you have gone. and your story also reminds us and you may not have mentioned it here, but folks who do what you do also have to be ready for failure. you put skin in the game. you take the risk. these folks who prey upon american entertainment and sports are par sites they have no skin in the game. they exploit other people's creativity and hard work. not to mention denying access to
the future stars, so i think it makes us passionate about this cause. because it has such wide ranging ramifications. let me begin by asking you about the digital lottery, how does that work, has it been successful? >> are people happy with it? >> excellent. thank you, senator for those kind words. the digital lottery started 20 years ago when i produced rent. i was only 31 years old, doing my first broadway show at 31, i could remember clearly that only maybe 6 years before that i couldn't afford a ticket to a broadway show. so when my then business partner an i were getting ready to put rent on sale, we have to make tickets cheap for people who can't afford it, we'll do a $20 ticket. then we thought, let's do something even better. we'll put those $20 tickets in
the first two rows of the orchestra section. you just showed up at the theater. the lines became so long we had kids on 41st street sleeping over every night to get those tickets. then we went to a live lottery where you came and put your name in a hat. we would do the live lottery every day at 6:00 two hours before the show. that was wildly successful from 1997 all the way through to basically last summer, when we opened hamilton. our live lotteries on 46th street were basically closing down 46th street every single day. it became a nuisance to the police and a traffic hazard. out of that, last winter, we then reverted to a digital lottery in which anybody can go to our lottery place. i don't remember what it's called. you can all find it if you want to enter for tonight and the
person enters the lottery, they enter their credit card. if they win, the credit card will go flew. they can't show up and pick it up until late afternoon. the bots can't invade that system, it's a $10 lottery. they would never have enough time to go out and resell that ticket. >> it's immune to the kind of -- >> it's so far. it happens every day for that day. that's why that has been effective. >>. >> let me say to mr. kohn. i actually prosecuted these cases when i was attorney general of the state of connecticut. i agree with my colleague claire mccaskill that the u.s. attorney's office is not going to undertake them. i served as u.s. attorney in
connecticut, and i think these kinds of laws are very very important, and may i respectfully suggest that your advocacy of them would be important in places like connecticut, where we had a ticket scalping that was repealed over my protest in 2007. there are interests on the other side here that are immensely powerful politically, they command a lot of bucks, the good guys like yourselves should be should be on the side of laws at the state level not only here on the federal level. >> i understand there are limits that are imposed per
transaction. would it be more effective to impose per person limits, so that the bot system might be frustrated or impeded? >> that's a great question, the sophistication of the number of ip addresses that the attacks come in from, and the vast array of credit cards they have at their disposal. i'm not sure setting it at the per customer level would frustrate the bot worker's efforts? >> why is that? >> my expectation, is that they could appear to be multiple different people coming to our site at the same time, using different ip addresses, credit card numbers or combinations there of. >> you indicated and this will be my final question. you indicated that the change in
stub hub's policy with respect to speculative tickets has had effect. you think all speculative tickets should be banned? should there be disclosure by someone who is selling a ticket without having bought it which now happens, should there be a required disclosure that that seller does not actually have the ticket? >> we have found that the law is helpful, but this has been much more of a policy change that's based on the market itself. when you have a guarantee that we're required. if you're not able to get into the show. if there's a problem with the ticket, we're going to do everything we can to get you into the show. we will buy up extra tickets if necessary for a high demand event. we want to make sure all of our
customers get in the show it doesn't always work. the vast majority of the time, because of that our systems are built to prohibit speculative ticketing because they can't be delivered. if somebody says they are selling a ticket. and we have the information we have not delivered historically, they're not going to be selling the ticket again. >> it's a rare instance in which a customer ends up with a speculative ticket. we know it occurs when we have proof there are no presales. bruce springsteen is a fantastic example. when tickets go on sale at 10:00 a.m. on friday, they go on sale, the entire house. bruce spring string does structure some credit card entry. but in general, all the tickets go on sale at the same time, same price, and, so, therefore,
if someone's listing tickets ahead of time, we'll know those are speculative. it's a question of, because we don't know what we don't know about how the market is structured. people have different rights to tickets in the arenas. season ticket holders have different rights. that information only becomes apparent to us when it's brought to our attention. >> thank you. i want to thank you for having this hearing. i would like to put on the record the number of constituents i've received about the practice. >> senator klobuchar had to leave. she's going to submit questions to the seller. asking when you are going to bring hamilton to minnesota.
and while she's at it, i'll ask the same about hartford, connecticut. when is hamilton coming to hartfo hartford. i hope when it does, you will have a digital lottery and enable some of our high school students to come see hamilton, because i think they will be inspired to pursue careers such as yours and the great director and writer and cast that has so inspired many americans, thank you very much. >> maybe someone is inspired by you, the desire to pursue a career of public service. >> well, they don't have to buy any tickets at scalpers prices. as flattered as i am, i tend to doubt it.
>> i want to follow up. tell me about technologies existing or those that you think are out there that may address this issue. >> i understand the captcha can be circumvented. is there a technical way of addressing this issue? if so, why is it not being implemented? >> my understanding is that -- our experience has been any technological measure that's been put into place to date. the ill gotten gains the bot operators get plowed back into new software and technologies that can circumvent the protections the next time around. >> the testimony earlier was about ip numbers and credit card how are those acquired and do they belong to somebody?
is there a benefit that accrues to the person that has that identification and credit card? or it's just fraud? >> i think it's the latter. >> it's the means through which they keep the shell game going. >> this is a result of stolen identity information stolen about people can become acquired by those who use bots to acquire tickets. >> i don't know that they're stolen credit cards, i didn't mean to imply that. it may be that these bot operators have whatever means at their disposal so they can keep appearing to be different people. >> if i could add something to that, senator. the bots frequently employ gift cards, they can go out and get thousands of gift cards and use those to buy tickets. in our he anti-bot movement, between hamilton and
ticketmaster, they have identified through software the behavior of the bots so they can identify them that is what has proved to be somewhat successful in curbing their behavior the problem is, it's an arm's race. when the bot abilitier is making millions and millions of dollars a year by turning over tickets, it's worth his time to continue to employ engineers to create better and better software where as if you went to ticketmaster a year ago, you saw that in order to try to overcome bots, you would see the cursive letters you would enter. then you would have to write that in. they overcame that very quickly. now they're giving you pictures and they'll say, identify which picture doesn't have a wheel in it to try to overcome the bot.
they keep employing new systems is and then the bots up their game as well. frankly, they're just as good at it, so that's why we need the legislation because the arms race is unending. >> on the topic of hold backs it occurs to me that there may be a consequence of bot actors behavior that encourages the hold back would not those in the performance industry have hold backs for their fans to try to better ensure that their fans get tickets their fan club. is that a response to the fact that tickets are being acquired so quickly, in such a prevalent manner? >> yeah. while we talked about the disadvantages, the wrongness of hold backs, the consequences,
that hold backs may be a result of what we're trying to eliminate here. >> absolutely. >> i don't mean to imply there's anything negative about a hold back in and of itself. >> i guess your point was about knowing the market? >>. >> exactly. was there distribution in which, they weren't playing a game? >> you indicated, mr. coen in your testimony about the potential uses for bots, and to make certain that we didn't sweep away any technology that can play a positive role in the ticketing ecosystem and elsewhere. it's why we went to significant efforts to narrowly draft this legislation so we didn't get outside a scope and enter an arena i'd be reluctant to go. are there examples of bots
technology that would be advantageous to consumers? >> we don't see anything. >> if this legislation were broader, what positive benefit to consumers would be -- >> if you said it was only automated systems and there's a lot of bots, the whole point is the automated system, the human intervention will always overcome it it's a problem with almost all bots, there's still going to be people that do 40 people in line it's not going to go away. there are ways, if you force everybody to identify everybody at the point of purchase. you know who the person is, and that's the only person that can use that ticket you can really do a much -- you can restrict. that means you will have a different ticket allocation
system in this instance, we don't think there's any problem in the way you've drafted the mandate. when you merge it with this house bill, whether there's criminal provisions in it or not. and whether it's narrowly and only limited to bots. >> i have just another couple quick questions. mr. kohn, when i was attorney general, one of the measures i sought was in the interest of transparency, the disclosure of the face value of the ticket. >> it's an important indicator, it's also one that requires if you're going to make that a condition of legislation a convenience fee on every ticket is not considered part of face value, so, therefore, a consumer is in some ways misled or do you
require that in many instances, some of the hold backs will result in tickets that are priced below the face value and sold to people? and are resold to them at allegedly below face value. it's an imprecise term that requires legislation around it, before it becomes part of a statute. >> it may be imprecise, but it's the key piece. >> it does require a technological mandate. there are -- our experience has been, it's almost an irrelevant piece of information. in particular with the advent of dynamic pricing. as ticket demand increases or decreases, the classic example being an an announcement of the retirement of a player, and
demand for the ticket will go way up. the pricing systems will allow for people to set those prices at different times so we don't know what the face value is it changes. you can buy a ticket for tonight's -- and it will change throughout seasons in sports. as tickets become more valuable. you'll see ticket prices increase. face value at a point in time is not necessarily representative. >> it's not. >> it's a defined issue that needs legislation around it. >> speaking about sports as you know, a number of professional sports leaks have established exclusive deals with certain secondary ticket brokers, they force upon buyers nontransferable tickets that can be resold only on that exclusive
resale platform. some nfl teams require ticket holders to use ticketmasters, nfl ticket exchange platform which imposes price floors on the resale of tickets, that makes it more difficult for sellers to celtic ets to a game they can no longer attend. and for some fans, they are in effect, preventsed from seeing the game in person. i understand major baseball leagues have a similar type of policy. you discuss your interest in preserving a school's long term relationship with its alumni and fans. i wonder if you'll have any observation about this practice as it's done by professional sports leagues. >> it calls into question if you
own the tickets, once you purchase them. if there are restrictions on where they can go. it calls into question whether those are yours or they remain the prerogative of the ticket supplier. as part of our research for this session. we called one of the venue operators in the dallas/ft. worth area. he went online and identified a broker that had tickets on sale two weeks ahead of time for a show they weren't going to put on sale for two weeks. there's great confidence in the systems. the bots can get as many tickets as they need to. i suppose that the nfl and major league baseball have done this for good and appropriate reasons. the question i have is, do you
really own the tickets if you can't do with them what you wan in the. >> do you own the tickets and what do fans think about their teams if they engage in these types of practices? >>. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> we are joined by the committee chairman and we're honored by that. if you hadn't asked the final question, we would be done. i recognize my colleague from south dakota. >> thank you. >> i withdraw my question. >> i appreciate you holding this hearing on an important topic. as an avid fan of live music events. i appreciate the frustration that many americans experience when faced with having to spend an exorbitant amount of money on tickets. when they come to town on tour. and we had the opportunity -- we
have a new venue in sioux falls, south dakota, we're getting all the big acts coming through, i've had a chance to see a lot of them. and a lot of sporting events as we well. i appreciate how important this issue is to people all across this country. and i'm pleased too, one of the things i haven't seen yet, i haven't seen hamilton, i'm glad you were able to bring them to us with your gavel. i would like to thank all the witnesses. >> there were tickets available here for $10. you missed them, you were late. >> when i complained i was unable to see the show, nothing occurred. mr. chairman, we're dlided you're here, but if you get more than one, please let me know. >> i'm sure there's a gift violation in there somewhere anyway. i want to thank all the witnesses for being here, and
really do welcome your views on the phenomenon of ticket bots, and more broadly, the health of the live events industry, and would welcome your recommendations with respect to federal legislation that would protect consumers in this marketplace that seek to purchase tickets. the bill is sponsoring along with many others is important bipartisan legislation. and i think it will ensure that everyone has a fair shot. seen their favorite act or team without having to pay an arm or a leg to do so. it's my hope that this hearing will provide the kind of feedback that will enable us to include this bill on the agenda for the committee's upcoming markup. just a couple quick questions. can you give us an example of the face value of a hamilton ticket as compared to a price on the secondary market? >> yes, senator, a face value for hamilton is currently $199 in new york city. in chicago, it's somewhat less, and if you go right now to stub
hub and try to get a ticket for this coming weekend, you will see tickets ranging from anywhere from 650 to 2000 each. >> commissioner. how do ticket bots affect fan's access to collegiate sporting events, are all sports affected or does the phenomena generally affect basketball and football games? >> yeah, i think senator, it's predominantly basketball and football. we see it some in the college world series and other high demand ticket situations. it's primary in in basketball to a lesser extent. some other sports, culminating activities at the end of the season are hard to get tickets to. we see it in our bowl environment and in the college football playoffs.
>>. >> this would be for mr. cohen and mr. legal. i'd like to explore the reasoning behind why companies like stub hub and ticket fly oppose ticket bots, is leading company companies -- ticket bots might actually help your bottom lines for primary ticket issues, for instance, bots move tickets quickly, and in the secondary market they help create inven r invento inventory, in both cases they do so at the expense of the ticket buying public, which as we pointed out earlier, makes the consumer experience both more frustrating and expensive. in an age where consumers have a variety of entertainment options, at what point does this drive consumers away from live enterta entertainment? >> it's a great question? >> i think that that connection between the fan and the artist,
that the artist may be trying to price their tickets below the short term price maximizing point to create, establish a connection with their fans, and turn them into avid fans of them as a live act, that i think if -- as bots -- as quickly as they might get tickets into certain people's hands, i think that they frustrate that purpose that the artists may set the tickets below the profit maximizing point to foster the relationship with the fan. that frustration, the ability to get tickets at a reasonable price really puts at risk the relationship over time. >> there's two major concerns we have one is, we're in a market where tickets become more and more just tickets, primary, secondary, just the ability for people to buy and seceltic ets becomes a generic. and we have more and more bots
hitting our sites and systems. there's a natural reason we would -- it costs us extra funds that we don't need to spend. the second reason is, it also -- it does drive markets in a way in which -- you're exactly right, most of the time, nobody cares about bots, because they sell through more tickets. one of the great concerns we have on the criminalization piece is the ability for a private actor to make a determination as to whether or not something -- because of their own belief is, that they've crossed the line to criminal bot behavior versus just an automated system in which someone was gathering up the tickets for that. there's an identification and a determination made by a private actor as to this is an illegal act by somebody else. it's a question as to -- there's some actual constitutionality questions around, whether you like having private actors make those calls. in general, we believe the law as it's been drafted does not --
the senate bill does not have criminalized measures in it, we don't think it would harm any of the potential good uses for bots in which one private actor made a determination that they didn't want to have any resale or sale to a specific set of people. >> in general, we're for it. >> okay. >> i think that covers my time has spehred. i appreciate your leadership on this issue. hopefully we can get the bill moving. thank you again so much to the panel for your observations and insights today. we'll be helpful as we move forward. thanks. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for joining us. i think we are ready to conclude the hearing. mr. cohen, you implied i think that there's a difference between the house bill and the senate bill. and you're satisfied with the senate bill, but not the house bill? >> i'm not certain of this, but i believe the house bill still
has the criminal provision in there, and we would ask the senate to look at that, and make a determination as to whether or not that's appropriate. >> we have -- the senate bill does not have. >> correct. >> and that to your knowledge is the extent of your concerns between the two versions? >> i believe that's the primary. >> if there's additional, may i submit that to -- >> please do, please let us know. >> commissioner, my final question. what teams are you going to add to the pac-12 and i would keep it to myself. >> you have the right to remain silent. >> do i cease to be under oath at this point? >> i've detected that you have a great -- i don't mean this in the offensive way, i have no no doubt you'll provide me this answer without any information. >> we have the aircraft flying and we're going to try to land it. >> we're glad to hand that.
we would like the big 12 to be the 12. we are ready to conclude this hearing. thank you to the panel for their testimony and my colleagues for joining us. the hearing record will remain open for two weeks, the senators are asked to submit any questions for the record. you are requested to submit written answers to the economy as soon as possible. thereafter. we conclude this hearing and thank the witnesses, we are adjourned. >> thank you.
minnesota. live coverage from the house homeland security committee at 10:00 a.m. for campaign 2016, c-span continues on the road to the white house. >> we all want to get back to making america strong and great again. >> i am running for everyone working hard to support their families. everyone who's been knocked down, but gets back up. >> ahead, live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span, the c-span radio app, and c-span.org, monday september 26th is the first presidential debate live from hofstra university in ham stead new york. then the vice presidential candidates debate. on sunday october 9th, washington university in sane the louis, host the second
presidential debate. leading up to the third and final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump. taking place at the university of nevada las vegas. live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span. listen live on the free c-span radio app. watch live or any time on demand at c-span.org. >> with less than two months until the general election, the security of voting machines was the subject of a house committee hearing, louisiana secretary of state was among those testifying on efforts to prevent voting machines from being hacked. this is about 2:15. the chair has authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. welcome to today's hearing, entitled protecting the 2016 elections from cyber and voting
machine attacks. i'll recognize myself for an opening statement and then the ranking member opinion we're here today to discuss the subject of election security. it's hard to imagine a more bipartisan issue. election security is fundamental to the fairness of elections and democracy in the united states. elections are a key component of democracy and voting is the very essence of what president lincoln meant when he said a government by the people. voting is the means by which americans express their opinions about their government. it provides americans with the opportunity to affirm policies they like and change what they don't. >> when our citizens vote, they not only elect their leaders, they choose a direction and set priorities for our nation. elections with integrity strengthen democracy, they confirm legitimacy and boost public trust in government, concerns with earlier versions of voting and election systems
led to the passage of the 2002 help america vote act. this act requires the national institute of standards and technology, over which we have jurisdiction, to work with the elections commissions assistant. today we will discuss the current technical voluntary guidelines that are in place for states to protect their voting and elections systems. though these guidelines are voluntary, i hope to hear whether they are sufficient to safeguard our elections and whether states effectively use them. this discussion is timely as many concerns have been raised in recent months about the vulnerabilities of electronic voting machines, voting over the internet and online voter registration. in response to these concerns, our discussion will review the security of the election system in its entirety. we will examine what guidelines are in place how we currently
protect systems from vulnerabilities and what kind of work in my home state of texas is underway to protect future voting and elections systems last year hackers from china infiltrated the office and stole confidential records and personal information on more than 22 million current and federal employees. including those involved in our national security effort with the highest security clearances. the attacks on voter registration databases in illinois and arizona are the latest instances in such attacks, this time with alleged ties to russia. we have yet to take decisive steps too defend ourselves. the president says we're more technologically advanced offensively and defensively than our adversaries, why won't he take the necessary steps to prevent cyber attacks on our
election systems by foreign governments. if we are attacked repeatedly and do nothing. we will have surrendered unilaterally and put at risk our economy, our national security and our very freedoms. this committee has held a half a dozen hearings in this congress. we know it isn't enough to respond to cyber attacks with diplomatic protests. we're going to hear from witnesses today about how we can keep our elections systems secure. the single most important way to protect our elections systems. to protect each american's right to vote and be heard is for this administration and the next administration to take decisive steps to deter and if necessary, sanction foreign governments that attack us in cyberspace. that concludes my opening statement, the ranking member, the gentlemen woman from texas is recognized forrers.
>> thank you mr. chairman and good morning. ensuring that our elections are fair, accurate and freely aaccessible to all american citizens is fundamental to our democracy. every instance of malfunctioning voting technology and without question every cyber attack on our election system is significant. all efforts to improve voting security, reliability privacy and access are welcome and important. i am confident by the testimony of today's experts and many other others that we are in a much better place today than we were 10 or 15 years ago, i'm deeply concerned about some of the rhetoric in recent weeks that seems to -- intended to erode
public confidence in our elections system. the u.s. election system is riddled with fraud and somehow rigged, those allegations like many others that have been floated in the public sphere this election cycle are not supported by actual facts and they threaten the election process we have relied upon for more than two centuries, i'm eager to hear from the distinguished panel today about the challenges of securing our election system in the digital age, and what actions have been taken at the federal, state and local levels to strengthen cyber security. however, whatever threats our election system is facing, i want to take this opportunity to put the cyber security challenges in context. the u.s. election system is complex and highly
decentralized. encompassing approximately 10,000 local, county and state election offices. >> further there are few connections between individual voting systems and the internet. at least 75% of the voters will be able to verify their vote with a paper ballot this fall. this compartmentalization and paper trail provides a strong firewall against any cyber threats. the recently publicized attacks in arizona and illinois are serious, but have not resulted in any changes to voter data, or to any voters. in arizona the cyber security walls work to contain the threat. the recent threats may be linked to the russian intelligence operation. we must be vigilant. and i hope these incidents will
lead to improved cyber security protocols and practices. while security of the election system is important, voter access is fundamental to our democracy. baseless allegations of widespread voter fraud have been used as an excuse to disenfranchise large numbers of minori minority. news 21. a journalism program established by the carnegie foundation of new york found voter impersonation fraud to be extraordinary rail. from 2000 to 2012 out of 146 million registered voters, identified only 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud. you don't enact laws because 10
cases of fraud in 12 years unless you have an ulterior motive. the courts have been right through the most blatantly discriminatory state laws, anything to the states voter id laws, the brennen center for justice and others have continued to document cases of voter intimidation. dlib spreading of misinformation to keep minorities and students from voting. and attempts to target and disenfranchise minority and young voters. these threats to tens of hundreds of thousands. of eligible voters whether orchestrated by public officials or troublemakers should be taken as seriously as the cyber threat. mr. chairman, i know my remarks have moved behind the intended scope of this hearing, but you know well how passionate i am about this issue, it is my hope
that we can have a thoughtful discussion of the challenges and actions that have been taken related to cyber security and other voting technology issues, while avoiding adding to the noise and confusion surrounding these issues just eight weeks from the crucial election. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 captioning performed by vitac