tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN November 17, 2016 9:00pm-12:01am EST
and that in a big, complex, diverse country, the only way that you can be successful is by listening and reaching out and working with a wide variety of people. and so it is my hope that that is what will happen. and i'm going to do everything i can over the next two months to help assure that that happens. it is absolutely true that chancellor merkel is going to have significant responsibilities, has had extraordinary burdens that she's had to carry. if she chooses to continue, you're right. she will have big burdens. i wish i could be there to lighten her load somewhat, but she's tough.
and i have -- i know what it means to carry burdens because the fact of the matter is that if there are problems around the world, the first question people ask is why isn't washington doing something about it? this is why it's so important not to discount or take for granted the importance of the trans-atlantic alliance. and this is probably the best place for me to enled. in international forum, in g-20's, in g-7's, in the united nations, the united states and germany are not always perfectly aligned. america and europe are not always perfectly aligned. but the voice that speaks out on behalf of some dissident who is jailed halfway around the world, the voice who is expressing concern about some
child in an african village who doesn't have clean drenking water or is subject to some terrible disease, the voice hat insists on rules and norms governing international affairs, the voice that helps to steer the world away from war wherever possible, that's our voice more often than not. and we're not always successful. but if that voice is absent or if that voice is divided, we ill be living in a meaner, harsher, more troubled world. and we have to remember that. and whoever is the u.s. president and whoever is the chancellor of germany and whoever is the leader of other european nations and other
democracies around the world, they -- they need to recognize that. there are going to be forces that argue for cynicism, for looking the other way with somebody else's problems that are not going to champion people who are vulnerable because sometimes that's politically convenient. and if we don't have a strong trans-atlantic alliance that's standing up for those things, we will be giving to our children a worse world. we will go backward instead of forward. so whoever the u.s. president is, whoever the chancellor of germany is, we need to remember that. and our citizenry who decide who our presidents and chancellors are need to remember that.
chancellor merkel: it is a very good thing after eight years of cooperation the president of the united states says that this is a cooperation based on friendship, that we cooperated well. i feel that this is a very good, a very positive message and indeed an encouragement for me. now, secondly, i fortunately know very many people and there are many, many more that i don't know and many politicians who stand up for the same values of democracy of liberal society, of open societies but respect for the dignity of man. and i feel that we are in a community of people here whose standard for these values who try to maintain them and wherever they are not yet respected stand up for people's rights to enjoy them as well. and this is -- every effort and i am -- i think we're gratified to know that there are many, many people who feel committed to this goal.
thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] announcer: live tonight here on c-span supreme court justice clarence thomas will be speaking at the federalist society's annual conference and the dinner tonight to talk about the life and legacy of his friend and former colleague, the late justice antonin scalia. also today, donald trump has asked retired lieutenant general michael flynn to be his national security advisor. after flynn retired two years ago, he started to publicly criticize the white house and the pentagon for their handling of the fight against isis. he has held various positions in military intelligence
including director of intelligence for the joint chiefs and intelligence chief for the u.s.-led security forces in afghanistan. again, waiting here at the federalist society dinner for remarks by supreme court justice clarence thomas. while we wait we'll take a look back at one of the discussions from earlier today on the legacy of the late justice. >> i'm introducing -- >> you're introducing. >> yeah. >> all those who are coming in lease take your seats. we're going to get started.
i'm john baker. 'm filling in for john easman. john is on another panel in another room at this time. so at this point, all i'm doing is welcoming you here on behalf of the separation of powers and federalism group of lawyers within the federalist society. and if any of you after hearing in joining rested our section, please contact either professor john easman or dean rueter. so with that, i'll ask that the doors in the back be closed. so had a we can start the program and it's my great pleasure to introduce judge william pryor of the 11th circuit.
[applause] >> good afternoon. justice scalia's views on this subject were fairly well-known. in 2008, he authored a forward to a symposium on the separation of powers as a safeguard of federalism and in the notre dame law review. his forward entitled "the importance of structure in constitutional interpretation" left no doubt what justice scalia's views on the subject was. i'd like to read a couple of paragraphs of what justice scalia said in that forward. in the days when i taught constitutional law, the university of chicago law school had two constitutional courses. one was entitled "individual rights and liberties" and
focused primarily upon the guarantees of the bill of rights. the other, i forget the title of it, focused upon the structural provisions of the constitution. principally the separation of powers and federalism. that was the course i taught. and i used to refer to it as real constitutional law. the distinctive function of a constitution after all is to constitute the political organs, the governing structure of a state. many of the personal protections against the state taught constitutional law courses here, restrictions upon unlawful searches and seizures, for example, used to be taught in europe as part of administrative law. they were to be sure made part of our constitution. though most of them as an appendage to the original document. and most -- and that was no doubt desired. but it is a mistake to think that the bill of rights is the
defining or even the most important feature of american democracy. virtually all of the countries of the world today have bills of rights. you would not feel your freedom ecure in most of them. consider, for example, the following sterling provisions of a modern bill of rights. every citizen has the right to submit proposals to state bodies and public organizations for improving their activity and to criticize shortcomings in their work. persecution for criticism is prohibited. persons guilty of such persecution shall be called to account. citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, street processions and demonstrations. exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and
squares at the disposal of the people and their organizations by broad dissemination of information and by the opportunity to use the press, television and radio. and finally, citizens are guaranteed freedom of conscience. that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion and to conduct religious worship or agencies particular propaganda and incitement of hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. justice scalia wrote wonderful stuff. these were the provisions of the 1977 constitution of the union of soviet socialist republicings. they were not workt the paper they were printed on. as are the human rights guarantees of a large number of still extant countries governed by presidents for life. they are what the framers of our constitution called parchment guarantees because the real constitution of those countries, the provisions that establish the institutions of government, do not prevent the
centralization of power in one man or one party thus enabling the guarantees to be ignored. structure is everything. justice scalia often said while he always tried to get the bill of rights cases correct, he cared most about the constitutional structure cases. once or twice, he -- each summer he even taught a course called separation of powers. his opinions on the structural issues of separation of powers and federalism often cited the federalist papers. he routinely urged law students and lawyers to read the whole of the federalist. this panel looks atticus 'tis scalia's federalist focus on the importance of separation of powers and federalism as structural protections of liberty. and as usual, the federalist society has assembled a terrific panel to discuss these issues. i will introduce each of the panelists in the order in which
they will speak. they will each speak about eight minutes. and then we'll have some responses to each other and-than-we'll begin entertaining questions from the floor. our first speaker, very fittingly, is professor john baker. dr. baker has been a visiting professor at georgetown law school and is a visiting professor at peking university school of transnational law. he is professor emeritus of law at the louisiana state university law school. he has also taught a number of other schools. i should note including tulane. professor baker received his j.d. with honors at the university of michigan law school and is bachelor of arts magna cum laude from the university of dallas. he also earned a ph.d. from the university of london. for several years, professor baker taught the course for the federalist society on separation of powers with the late justice scalia.
our second speaker is professor jonathan turley. it's going to be tulane day. [laughter] jonathan turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. and began his teaching career at tulane law school and then joined the george washington university faculty in 1990 and in 1998 became the youngest chair professor in the school's history. he is the founder and executive director of the project for older prisoners. he has written nor than three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals and including those of cornell, duke, georgetown, harvard, and northwestern, among others. he most recently completed a three-part study of the historical and constitutional evolution of the military system. he has served as a consultant on homeland security and
constitutional issues and is a frequent witness before the house and senate. professor turley received his undergraduate degree from the university of chicago and his law degree from northwestern university. his first job out of law school was a law clerk on the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit where yours truly was clerking for a judge that year as well. we go way back. luther strange is the attorney general of alabama. a high post in government. [laughter] before his election, general strange practiced law in birmingham, alabama, and before establishing his own law firm, s a partner with bradley cummings. he is a chairman of the republican attorneys general association. he also served as the court-appointed coordinating counsel for the gulf coast
states and the historic deep water horizon oil spill litigation. general strange is well-educated. he received both his undergraduate and law degrees from tulane. he was a cardiovascularship basketball player while -- scholarship basketball player while receiving his undergraduate at tulane and this year, i'm sorry, he was inducted into the tulane law school hall of fame. roger pilan is the founding director of cato center for constitutional studies. he's also the founding publisher of the cato supreme court review and holder of cat stofment's b. kenneth simon chair in constitutional studies. before joining cato roger held several senior post in the reagan administration including at state and justice and was a national fellow at stanford's hoover institution. roger holds a b.a. from
columbia university and an m.a. and ph.d. from the university of chicago and a j.d. from the george washington university school of law. and finally, congressman ron de sanctis, since being elected to the united states house in 2012, congressman de sanctis of florida has served on the judiciary, foreign affairs, and oversight in government reform committees. he is the chairman of the oversight committee national security subcommittee and the vice chairman of the judiciary's committee subcommittee on the constitution and syphilis 'tis. he earned bachelor of arts, magna cum laude and was the captain of the varsity baseball team at yale, continuing the athletic theme. he also graduated with honors from harvard law school. while at harvard, he earned a commission in the united states navy as a jag officer.
during his active duty navy service, he served as a military prosecutor. >> his commitment to everything that the federalist society stands for, so while i introduce gene myer, i want to say on behalf of the board and all of us, thank you for all you do, gene. [applause] >> thank you, david. that was very nice and appreciated. i want to start out and i'm going to be brief and i want to start out by saying thank you to the members of our board of directors and board of visitors who are here. in addition to david mosh whom you just saw, i want to recognize board members michael mccasey, boyden gray, ken crib, gary lawson, leonard leo, nick quinn rosencrans and lee otis and also want to recognize and thank board of visitors co-chairs chris -- co-chair chris demuth and members andy
redleaf, george conway, ted elliott, brad reynolds and gail norton. hanks to all of you. [applause] you know, working on one of these conferences is a bit like preparing for a hurricane forecast. you prepare for lots of things as you do with such forecasts. and some headlines in the past, us to noaa warned expect another big hurricane year. in 2007 noaa predicted above normal atlantic hurricane season. every year from 2008 on, there were similar predictions. in 2016, the atlantaishing hurricane -- the atlantic hurricane season might be the strongest in years. october 24, 2016, noaa said that the u.s. has completed a record 11 straight years without a major hurricane strike. then november 8, hurricane trump hit. [laughter]
the future can be difficult to predict. anyway, i want to thank all those who worked long and hard to manage the hurricane of this convention. julie nicks and dean rueter have taken the lead but everyone on our staff -- [applause] everyone on our staff has worked on the event and all have staff nametags. and please introduce yourself to them. our staff is here to help our volunteers be effective. and we want to help in every way we can. i also want to note specially leonard leo's efforts in building every aspect of our activities since joining us in 1991. [applause] and i want to thank our -- and
express gratitude to our madison -- donors, support, which has enabled the society to build and expand its activities. our budget is now nearing $18 million. much bang just as for our buck as when we were a million dollar organization. and could you stand and be ecognized. [applause] because of this support, institutionally, the federalist society has had a strong year in almost all respects. tonight i want to mention very briefly several projects we are undertaking. the federalist society's article one project is re-examining the proper role of congress under our constitution. secondly, we are conducting a major project designed to
combat the excesses of the administrative state in this country. all too often overregulation of the economy stifles innovation, productivity, and ultimately the american dream. and in a sense these last two projects are linked in that both address problems with the administrative state. the article one project intellectually from the top down, and the regulation project practically from the bottom up. and many of you are already involved in these projects and in particular, regulation project is one where we're looking for specific examples you may have come across in your legal practice. we're looking especially to the officers of our practice groups and our lawyers chapters who have already done so much for us. and i would like to ask all those officers of the lawyers chapters and practice dwrupes to stand and be recognized for the good work you've done for us over the years. thank you. [applause]
and two other areas i would mention very briefly. we're putting major efforts into working on state courts. where after all 90% of the cases that affect our citizens are decided. and we are engaging in the same type of effort there that we've engaged in nationally. at the federal level. and the other areas, academic freedom. which is under serious attack. we will work with other groups to defend that freedom. we also of course conducted -- [applause] that's just going to be a really important not only for us but for the country in terms of the universities. additionally, we do conduct over 1,100 meet ags year with outside speakers at our nation's law schools. and several hundred more such meetings and lawyers chapters as well as over 100 teleforums a year. we're doing far more than we used to have the capacity to do. and thanks to so many of you in
this room and around the country that we're able to do it. now, on to the main business of the evening. before our speech and given the focus of this conference on justice scalia, we want to show a brief video of scalia the man. >> if you get real close you can see the title. it's the federalist. nd above that is webster's second international dictionary. i don't like the third. and behind that is the wedding portrait of maureen and down at e bottom is a well-known portrait of thomas moore. he's one of my heroes. it's a tradition at the court to have the law clerks, of the justices, commission a portrait which will be hung at the court when the justice dies or
retires. >> he was a principled man. he was a man of faith. he was a patriot. and he was brave. >> he was magnificent. he was personally very warm, very funny, generous. he had a lot of joy of life. >> he was a lion. he was one of the great scholars that we looked up to, that gave some of us a degree of excitement about the laws, not just the profession. >> he read every single thing. every line. he might call you about -- clarence, why did you use that word on the last page? i can't join that. that's not the proper use of that word. oh, my gosh. >> avenues force. he was -- he was a force. he was a huge personality. that's true as a human being and that's true as a justice. >> he was funny like quick.
i mean, just -- he would come out with these one lirnse. and you would think how did anybody think of that so fast? >> he would say something that was hilarious. and so i had to pinch myself very hard. so i would -- or burst out laughing. >> this was a man who absolutely loved his wife, maureen. he loved his kids and grandkids. >> there are nine children. and there are five boys, four girls, 19 years from top to bottom. he said he always wanted a baseball team. so he got the baseball team. >> we would all gang up on him. and i can see him laughing almost like, i'm really proud of that. look at how i raised them to make fun of me. >> he loved to sing. he loved music. and to sit down at the piano and bang out songs. he would actually fairly often walk around the house singing. getting ready to go somewhere and singing. and it could be disruptive.
but -- > very fast. people who drove with him and glad the trip was over and ready to kiss the ground that they had gotten there. >> mom and dad were very devout catholics who believed that any children that god blessed them with would be welcome and raised as catholics which is what they did. >> he was very public about his faith. and encouraged others to be public about his faith. he at the same time had a respect for the pluralism of the nation and how the constitution guards that. >> he felt that as a catholic, he had certain responsibilities as a catholic. but those were not what guided his decisions. >> he was a natural teacher at the dinner table, we learned -- hopefully we learned etiquette.
but we also learned grammar. and religion. and theology and philosophy. >> be home for dinner. be home for dinner. that's when the little monsters are civilized. they do not grow up civilized. it is a process. and much of that process occurs at family dinner. >> we had our fightbacks and try not to go to mass on sunday and pretend that we were sick or busy. but we would get there one way or the other. >> my father loved to teach. my father said to me, what's your career plan? and i was kind of taken aback and i don't know. i'm not sure i have one. i said, well, what was yours? and he kind of -- was taken aback and paused for a minute and said to be a professor. by this point he was on the supreme court and i guess it's not going so well for you, is t?
>> if you went into his office, and you saw him set up and when he got going, all the drafts out and the screen and the dictionary. >> mind's eye you could see him chuckling, you know? like he would be writing. and he would think oh, that's a great line. that's a great line. >> he was absolutely in his world and his element. >> justice scalia's clerkship was the best clerkship at the court because every day was like an italian street fight. >> he really loved the clerks. a chamber where the law clerks were expected to disagree with him and level with you as a law clerk and you weren't disagreeing with him enough or disagreeing enough with your other co-clerks, there was probably something wrong. >> justice scalia would bound out of his chambers and who are you clerking for? i'm clerking for justice
roberts. ok. then let's talk about the fourth amendment case. >> he engaged in every bit as vigorous of debate with his law clerks as he did with advocates in the courtroom. >> it's fundamental stuff. whether you think the constitution bears its original meaning or you think it changes. my colleagues have thought about this for years. i'm not going to change their mind on those fundamental questions. if they think it's a moving constitution, that it means whatever they think it ought to mean today they're not going to change that. my god, yes, originalism. why didn't i think of that before? [laughter] >> you read all these opinions in law school and one and the next and you get to justice scalia. and the words just leap off the page. >> everybody can understand what he was talking about, the common sense behind it. >> you're writing for the case book and for the student reading the opinion at the university of chicago five, 10,
15 years later and some high school amendment that wants to know about the fourth amendment can pick up a scalia opinion and get excited about it. >> when i sit down and write an opinion i -- like having this little nino on my right shoulder. and the nino would say, oh, that's garbage. because of x, y or z. and it helped me a lot in writing to always have in my ear the criticisms that i thought nino would make. because those were usually the most tren chant, powerful criticisms. >> once asked how we could be friends given our disagreement on lots of things. justice scalia answered, i attack ideas. i don't attack people. some very good people have some very bad ideas. and if you can't separate the two, you got to get another day
job. i am so glad that i had the experience of being on the court with nino. i feel as though i learned an incredible amount from him. things about judicial method, about substantive areas of law. but mostly i learned things about how to be an effective justice. >> he was totally about this job. and about trying to get it right. and it mattered to him. everything mattered. >> he's going to be remembered by lawyers, academics, and judges long after the people he sat on the bench with are forgotten. >> i miss him every day. e was inimitateable. [applause]
>> i want to announce that the federalist society annual dinner will from now on be the antonin scalia memorial dinner. [applause] and to introduce our guest speaker tonight, i'm going to call off justice scalia's son, eugene, who was former solicitor of labor and currently works at gibson, dunn and crutcher. ugene? [applause]
>> gene, thank you. and i would like to thank you, the federalist society, and so many of you in the room tonight for all you've done these past months to honor my father's legacy and to support his family. i'd like to express special thanks to leonard leo. my father would be deeply touched by this tribute at the conference this week and by the naming of this dinner after him. the affection that you all have shown him was reciprocated. my father was proud of the federalist society. he manifested this pride occasionally by claiming that he actually had established the federalist society and was responsible for its existence. [laughter] or at least that he deserved partial credit. he was proud to have supported david mcintosh in founding the chicago law school chapter and
he was pleased that his lee st clerks included and gary calabrese. [applause] 25 years ago my father gained another friend, a great friend, and an ally who would support him and occasionally challenge him for a quarter of a century. it is impossible to fully appreciate my father's tenure on the court and his legacy without understanding his historic collaboration with justice thomas. what many consider to be my father's greatest opinion, his dissent in morrison v. olson did not impress his colleagues at the time. it did not get another vote. what a different court it became three years later when my father gained a colleague who shared his interest in originalism and in a
constitution structure and its checks on government power. and how much we all have benefited from the fact that while he shared these interests with my father, justice thomas also did identify areas of disagreement where he questioned and he pushed my father. he pushed him on stair decisis and on what my father playfully called his fainthearted originalism and he pushed justice scalia in that area that was my father's greatest passion, administrative law, in engaging him in a debate about the roles of courts and the executive in the interpretation of law that continues today and that is a debate of incalculable importance. and justice thomas, my father found a colleague who for a quarter century as justice thomas would say, i think, had his back. in doing his job as the
constitution required so they could as they both would say, get it right. and he had a colleague who deepened his thinking and all of ours about the court and its role in our society. equally important, actually, to me as a son, maybe more important, inus tess thomas, my father found a true friend. someone who shared his laughter and his deep, steadfast loyalty and a man of incredible warmth, decency, and wisdom. someone who simply was there to cheer my father and brighten his days for his last 25 years. and i'll just add who's been a great comfort to my mother and my family including my own children in these past months. we are all fortunate to have justice thomas on the court and equally fortunate to have him as our friend. justice thomas. [applause]
justice thomas: thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you all. thank you all. gene, thank you for that amazing introduction. it makes me want to quit while i'm ahead. [laughter] i may take a moment of personal liberty here and first of all, just recognize my dear friend, maureen scalia, and the entire scalia family. ould you all rise. [applause]
i'd also like to point out that my bride is here, virginia. [applause] and seem to travel like nuns. we travel in pairs here. [laughter] i have been very, very fortunate, i've seen many of my friends here. quite a few of my former law clerks and my adopted law clerks are here. i have no idea how many. would you please stand so i can at least see who you are. [applause]
ell, that's pretty humbling. thank you all. this is an unbelievable crowd. this is an amazing conference or convention and an amazing dinner. that was a very touching video. it certainly got to me. i'm wondering, i'm sitting here pondering, why is this spoon and this fork up here? [laughter] it's amazing the things that istract you, you know? [laughter] before i go on, i'd like to just also say good evening to
alito and my colleague sam alito here. i'm not running for office. these are important people in my life. [laughter] and that -- starting with that beautiful film and so much of what is going on here, much has been said about my friend, justice scalia. since his untimely and very sad passing this february. and much more will be said during this convention. the convention appropriately dedicated to his legacy. though much may be said about him, little needs to be said for him. his opinions, books, articles, speeches, lectures, and countless other exchanges of ideas leave his voice forever with us. many of you may recall but not
so fondly the heady days of the 1970's when the emphasis in constitutional law was on rights. there was also a focus on the use of judicial power. in those days, we began the study of law with marbury vs. madison. the constitution, though, it was set out at the beginning of our case books, was but an afterthought. rarely to be consulted or disturbed. this state of affairs did not sit well with justice scalia. he traveled far and wide, challenging students and all who would listen, i can hear his voice, what do you think is the reason that america is such a free country? if you think that a bill of rights is what sets us apart,
you're crazy. every banana republic in the world, every president for life, has a bill of rights. the bill of rights for the former evil empire, the union of soviet socialist republics, was much better than ours. he would then make his point. without the structural constraints that the constitution places on government power, the bill of rights is just words on paper. or in a more originalist vein, merely a parchment guarantee. limits on judicial power were of special concern to justice scalia. this concern informed his approach to statutory construction and constitutional interpretation. our role as judges was to be confined to the words of those
who drafted the constitution or enacted the law in question and what those words meant to the people when they were drafted. in short, the original meaning. we as judges do not get to freelance or put our personal gloss on these laws. even in areas in which others might just tune out from boredom, such as jurisdiction, standing, or ripeness, justice scalia was ever vigilant, guarding against judicial power being exercised where judges had no authority. thus encroaching on the authority of other branches or the states. once this abiding concern in justice scalia's commitment to the cannons of -- canons of statutory construction who else would labor so diligently and exhaustively on a book on the
57 canons of construction? as an aside, i watched on a number of occasions as he dragged himself out of his office after laboring over his court work only to work endless hours on his book, "reading law." as complicated and intricate as these canons may sound, they all serve a single purpose, uphold the structural constraints of the constitution in order to protect our liberties. we as judges employ the canons to discern the commonly understood meaning of the words chosen by congress. we do not resort to our own predilections to divine what congress might have intended. as hard as he worked, he seemed to savor every chance he had to argue for an approach that
enhances liberty and restrains the exercise of government power. along the way, he seemed to relish doing his work, sprinkling it with humor and -- his wonderful flair for pros. though the work was monumentally serious, he just seemed to have fun doing it. and how well he did it. i can't resist citing a few of his memorable quips. when he drafted a particularly good one, he loved to give me a dramatic reading. [laughter] brother clarence, you have to hear this one. then in not so quick computer search took place until the handy work appeared. while a judge on the d.c. circuit and the statutory interpretation case about labeling requirements for meat products of all things, he
quoted bismarck to warn us that, quote, no man should see how laws or sausages are made. [laughter] later in lamb's chapel, he famously described the court's lemon test for the constitution's establishment clause as -- and i quote -- some ghoul in a knight horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad about being repeatedly killed -- after being repeatedly killed and buried -- can say grrr -- he always did that when he read it. [laughter] it talks about our establishment clause jurisprudence once again frightening the little children and the school attorneys of center marichi's union-free school district.
i don't know where that came from. but he always did. to register his disagreement out the constitutionality of abortion buffer zones in hill v colorado, justice scalia said if forbidding peaceful, nonthreatening but uninvited speech from a distance closer than eight feet is a narrowly tailored means of prevent, the obstruction of entrance to medical facilities, the governmental interest the state asserts, narrow tailoring must refer not to the standards of versace but to those of omar the tent maker. [laughter] i have no idea where he gets hese things. likewise, in maryland v. king he rejected the court's decision that swabbing the cheeks of arrestees was a constitutional search.
in his words, and i quote, i doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection. and in lee vs. weisman, justice scalia lamented, i find it as efficient embarrassment that our establishment clause, jurisprudence, regarding holiday displays has come to require scrutiny more commonly associated with interior decorators than with the judiciary. but at least he went on, interior decorating is a rock hard science compared to the psychology practiced by amateurs to decide whether a prayer during a graduation ceremony was too coercive for high school students. to be sure, he would be biting at times. of the court's opinion, in
national endowment for the arts vs. finley, he said, the operation was a success. but the patient died. [laughter] what such a procedure is to medicine, the court's opinion n this case is to law. [laughter] and scalia the critic did not discriminate. of my majority opinion in navarrete -- by the way, i did not get a dramatic reading of this one. [laughter] of my majority opinion in navarrete vs. california, a case involving the constitutionality of a search of a suspected drunk driver, based on an anonymous tip, he wrote, and i quote, the court's opinion serves us a freedom-destroying cocktail.
i have no idea where he got that. [laughter] he blamed his law clerks. but i have better ideas. justice scalia also asked the big questions that have long perplexed philosophers and judges alike. questions like what is golf? and pga tour vs. martin, he wrote, i am sure that the framers of the constitution edict of king 57 james ii of scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross and that the judges of this august court would someday
have to wrestle with the age-old jeurys prudential question for which their years of study in the law have so ell prepared them. [laughter] is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really golfer? [applause] in one campaign finance case, he reminded us of the timeless ruism that campaign promises are, by long democratic tradition, the least binding form of human commitment. [laughter] and in another, that we american people are neither sheep nor fools when it comes to campaign speech. and we will not soon forget justice scalia's rebuck of legislative history in chisholm
vs. roemer. there the court reasoned that the absence of legislative history could be likened to the dog that did not bark. justice scalia responded, and i quote, apart from the questionable wisdom of assuming that dogs will bark when something important is happening, we have forcefully and explicitly rejected the conan doyle approach to statutory construction in the past. in ascertaining the meaning of a statute, a court cannot in the manner of sherlock holmes pursue the theory of the dog that did not bark. we are here to apply the statute, not the legislative history. and certainly not the absence of legislative history. statutes are the law. though sleeping dogs lie.
for decades in cases big and small, justice scalia delighted us with his command of the english language. his rapier-like pros and often side-splitting humor. but tonight, i charge us with the following responsibility -- that these words spoken and written by justice scalia not be the final words in support of originalism and constitutionalism. rather, they ought to be a prologue. 153 years ago, almost to the day, president lincoln said at gettysburg, the world will little note nor long remember what we say here. it is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so noblely advanced. that we take increased devotion to that cause for which they
gave the last full measure of devotion. and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth. justice scalia has done his part to preserve power liberties and to properly interpret our laws and our constitution so that this government of the people shall not perish. his life's work is now ours to finish. at the risk of being repetitive but with the hope of clearly establishing a point, justice scalia's project was simple. if we adhere to the structure of government, prescribed by our constitution, we protect liberty and freedom. the limitations on legislative power in article one, the limitations on executive power
in article two, and the limitations on the judicial power in article three, those are our constitutional safeguards. those protect our liberty and our freedom. madison put it best in federalist 51. if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this. you must first enable the government to control the governed. and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. justice scalia's daily task as he saw it was to oblige the government to control itself to implore their government to do the same.
ou liberty secure. ernment is for justice scalia, constitution is a prescribed structure, a framework for the conduct of government. in designing that structure, the framers themselves coidedowuc branches answers thi most important question. who will decide? the congress, the president, the courts, the states, the people? and when the branches of government dare to tinker with the constitution's answer, to that most important question, the question of who will decide, justice scalia's wrath was sure to come down upon them. perhaps justice scalia's project requiring more than mere par. parchment rs -- mere
barriers may seem academic to some but it is anything but academic. asus tess scalia being a -- as justice scalia in his dissent, the separation of powers may prevent us from writing every wrong. but it does so in order to ensure that we do not lose liberty. without this separation of powers, the picture alexander hamilton painted of an all-powerful congress, quote, the hideous monster whose devouring jaws spare neither sex nor age nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane becomes reality, that hideous monster the reserve power of the states, it devours our freedom and our most innate desire to be left alone.
with unchecked congressional power, congress can commandeer the states to do the work of the federal government, that it cannot do as justice scalia wrote for the court in prince vs. united states. with unchecked congressional power, congress can shirk its legislative duties and avoid political accountability by delegating legislative power to a group of outsiders. as justice scalia humorously stated, in mastretta vs. united states, what results is a sort of junior varsity congress, incompatible with our constitutional structure. without the separation of powers, the branches take it upon themselves to determine just how much of the purely executive powers of government must be within the full control
of the president. in morrison vs. olson, the wolf came as a wolf according to justice scalia. when congress appropriated executive power for itself, without the separation of powers, the executive branch no less co- opts the legislative power for itself. with unchecked executive power federal agencies are emboldened to legislate without limitations in the nearly 180,000 pages of the code of federal regulation judicial deference to agency decision making becomes a rubber stamp for agencies to do as they please and they can freely pretend that congress holeselephants in mouse in justice scalia's words when
congress ructs them to act. finally the judicial power is unrecognizable. as the political branches of power so too do the courts. today it is the view of many that this -- the supreme court is the giver of liberties. what an odd conception of government that we the people are dependent upon the third branch of golvet to grant us our freedom. -- government to grant us our freedom. it is this last point to which we remember justice scalia so well. at times seems incapable of admitting that some matters, any matters are none of its ,usiness and from his dissent i quote, the day's decision says that my ruler and the
ruler of 320 million americans coast to coast is the majority of the nine lawyers on the supreme court. the opinion in these cases is the furthest extension and fact and the furthest extension one can imagine of the court's claim to power to create liberties that the constitution and its amendments neglect to mention. this practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine always accompanied as it is today by extravagant praise of liberty robs the people to have most important liberty they asserted in the declaration of independence and won in the revolution of 1776. the freedom to govern themselves. with such unchecked judicial power, we americans leave it for the least accountable
branch to decide how existing rights should expand our contract -- or contract. a decision that so often hinges upon which particular rights are judicially favored at the time and which are not. with such unchecked judicial power, we leave it for the least accountable branch to decide what newly discovered fundamental rights should be appended to our constitution. of course, as justice scalia these newly discovered fundamental rights are neither set forth in the constitution nor known to the nine justices of our courtney better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the kansas city telephone
directly. and i add i had rather bet on thenologist kansas city. [applause] or perhaps nine truckers at a flying j truck stop. with such unchecked judicial power, the court day by day, case by case, is busy designing a constitution as justice scalia once quipped instead of interpreting it. in any ordinary year, justice scalia would have spent the summer teaching these lessons about the separation of powers to a group of students studying abroad. and by this time, he would be back hard at work on a biting but always insightful and entertaining opinion imploring the branches of government to respect their constitutional
roles and their limits. but last, this has been no ordinary year. the ummer, i had distinct but sad pleasure of filling in for my dear friend in a separation of powers course in nice, france, and my colleagues and i very sadly have begun this term without him. when i joined the court in 1991, scalia and i would have seemed an unusual pair. an odd couple. he raised in queens and the son of an italian immigrant and a first generation american. a professor of romance languages and the other a schoolteacher, and i, raised a decade later by my barely literate grandparents in
savannah, georgia. but together, we soon became our own band of brothers. by 1991, justice scalia's role on the court was well established. i merely joined the fray or more accurately was thrown into it. it was my great honor that we spent almost 25 years together in pursuit of this common goal. to pre-preserve the structure of government crafted by our framers. what i will treasure most, though, is much simpler. the chance to spend so many years down the hall from my friend nino, whether he was with me or against me in a particular case, we did what we thought the constitution obliged us to do. we honored our oaths and we trusted each other. tonight, i charge each of you to join this band of brothers
as shakespeare's king henry implored, preparing his own troops for a seemingly hopeless battle against french, the good man shall teach his son the story of our fight and in it shall be remembered, we few, we happy few, we band of brothers. for he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother and gentlemen in england now abed shall think themselves a curse they were not here and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks that fought with us upon st. crispin's day. each of us here need not think ourselves accursed for our st. crispins' day lies before us. and whether we in this room here tonight ultimately win or lose the effort to reclaim the
forms of government that our-the-framers intended, it is our duty to stand firm in the defense of the constitutional principles and structure that secure our liberty. like justice scalia, we must do what the constitution o wligebliges us to do. it is now for us the living to be dedicated to the unfinished business for which justice scalia gave his last full measure of devotion. thank you. [applause]
> thank you. thank you, justice thomas. i have two things. first, let me apologize for the silverware. i'll find better implement to quiet the crowd. but second and more important, we at the federalist society want to -- there is not much you can give a justice of the supreme court but we wanted to give you a small token of how much we appreciate you and how much we will honor your call tonight to once more into the reach. it is a photo of you and justice scalia. [applause]
and that concludes our program for this evening. let me make two announcements. the first is that jenny and justice thomas have asked all of their clerks and spouses to come forward. he would like to get a picture with you all here on the stage and then second, everybody is invited to a reception in the hallway. join us and continue celebrating the evening. e buses will return to the mayflower up until i believe it is about 11:00 will be the last one that is scheduled. so enjoy yourselves. thank you and god bless you. [applause] >> supreme court justice clarence thomas speaking at the federalist society talking about the life and legacy of his friend and former colleague the late justice antonin scalia.
if you missed any of this, you can find it online. go to c-span.org and our video library. on friday, the supreme court oral argument in miami versus the bank of america and wells fargo. the court will decide if miami can sue the banks under the fair housing act for discriminatory mortgages given to african-americans and hispanic home buyers. we'll have that at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> we have a special webpage at c spanch.org to help you follow the supreme court. go to c-span.org and select supreme court. once on the page, you'll see four of the most recent oral acts heard by the court this term and click on the view all link to see all of the arguments covered by c-span and you can see many appearances by many of the
justices or watch justices in their own words including one-on-one interviews with justices kagan, thomas and ginsberg. there is a calendar for this term. links to see all of of their appearances on c-span. follow the supreme court at c-span.org. >> coming up on c-span, a look at vice president elect mike pence as he visits with lawmakers on capitol hill. then house democratic leader nancy pelosi giving an update on party leadership elections. after that house speaker paul ryan talking about his party's agenda under donald trump and ater we'll hear from kellyanne conway, senior leader to the transition team. washington journal live every
day with policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, charles chamberlin. we'll look at the direction to have democratic party after upsets during the election and whether the party needs to adjust its message to voters. then appropriations and budget committee member tom cole will discuss the election of donald trump and what it means for the republican party. key issues in the lame duck session and steven diamond will talk took into account debate on the restoration of earmarks. their history and how congressional leaders use and negotiate the federal funding for pet projects. be sure to watch "washington journal" live 7:00 a.m. eastern friday morning. join the discussion. vice president elect mike pence was on capitol hill thursday meeting with members of congress. he spoke to congressional republicans as well as
incoming senate democratic leader charles schumer of new york and house democratic leader nancy pelosi. ere is a look. >> can you tell us how the meeting went? >> it went really well. > what did you talk about? >> let me say we had a very good meeting with the vice president elect. we talked about going to work. he described president trump as a man of action and we're anxious to go to work and getting people in place as well as the policies in place. they are working on the 100-day plan and the 200-day plan. you want to join me, mia? what else was memorable to you? >> did he say anything else about the cap net? >> he encouraged anyone who was interested in serving in
the cabinet to be submitting their names. they are in the process of making those decisions. >> talked about 400 positions that needed to be filled very quickly and how he would love to have our help and support in submitting names and he said the transition was going smoothly. march 31 -- >> that is what is under consideration right now. would be a budget resolution for f.y. 17 in the first part of the year and then another budget resolution later on. >> in january? >> possibly. those conversations are underway right now. >> ok. >> overwhelming.
he was very positive. people are very excited. he served 12 years. he has a lot of dear friends. i think people are very excited to get to work on the new agenda. >> anything about transition? >> he talked a little bit about his role in the transition and others. but a lot of members wanted to say hi again. they were excited about him being on the transition team but more importantly being able to serve and work with him and get this economy move mooing again start -- moving again. start from day one. >> anything about the cabinet? >> no. >> and he said she is the best
administrator of ohio. >> i didn't know that. >> we're going to have a nice conversation. >> thanks, everybody. >> thank you. >> guys, let's go. >> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for being here. welcome the vice president elect. it is our honor to have his daughter charlotte with us today. it is always nice to have the future in the room. i am honored again welcoming the vice president elect here is like welcoming back home to
the house of representatives. we had a straightforward conversation on how we can work together on infrastructure, issues that relate to child care following up a conversation from last eek. i did that to-- make you feel at home in the ffice of tip o'neil. kennedy and george herbert walker bush. we had a conversation as you all know, the sthavers we have in congress, respect the positions that our colleagues ave.
hank you mr. vice president. elect. mike. >> leader pelosi, thank you for your hospitality. thank you for what i trust will be the first of many conversations as we move forward toward inauguration and thereafter. i'm grateful for the time you and i worked together when i served in this building. and as i said to you before, i ways found you to be a worthy opponent and leader of the loyal opposition but i have great respect for you and for your service to the
country and i was pleased today to be able to convey the spect of president elect donald trump to you personally. we are working in the transition but part of transition is also making plans for the first 100 days. at the direction of the i'm meeting t, today not only with pelosi but ith speaker ryan and senator mcconnell and we're beginning to discuss areas that we might move forward on together. that's what the american people want us to do is find ways to revive our economy, improve american lives, enhance the security of this nation and i'm grateful to begin those discussions on behalf to have president elect with you today. >> thank you.
as you can hear from -- as you know, i said to him when i spoke to him last week, you're going to be a very valued player in all of this because you know the territory. and i know there is no disrespect for the sensitivity , you know the territory. in that territory, we try to find our common ground where we can. thank you all very much.
ms. pelosi: good morning, everyone. we're in the midst of house democratic caucus. so, the last time we met, i was very positive that hillary clinton would be the next president of the united states and walk into the oval office as one of the best qualified presidents in our country's history. of course we're all very disappointed, more than disappointed, hard to accept the results. but accept we do. peaceful transfer of power is what america and our democracy is about. i'm very proud of the speech that secretary clinton made,
her concession speech really comported us to be hopeful, to be positive, and to find our common ground. and that is what we intend to do. after winning the presidency, the electoral college, but losing the popular vote, i think that says to president-elect trump that he has a responsibility to try to bring people together, not continue to fan the flames of division and bigotry. later today i'll meet with vice president-elect pence and it is my hope that we can discuss areas where we can work together, find construct -- constructively. as we've always said, we have a responsibility to find common ground, but to stand our ground when we can't. just left, as i said, our caucus, where from the beginning of it we heard from our new 27 democratic members.
as our founders intended, these new members coming are the constant reinvigration of the congress. and it was invigorating indeed to hear everyone make a little presentation there. pretty exciting. at that caucus, that was today's caucus, we meet almost every day, that will be our intention to continue, our focus was largely on the economy. and i presented a frame to our members for them to change, adjust or whatever, but to consider infrastructure, three i's. infrastructure, innovation and inclusion. all three of which strengthen each other. in terms of infrastructure, democrats have always been strong advocates for infrastructure in our country and we hope we can have the biggest, the most robust infrastructure legislation
that we can achieve, working with -- in a bipartisan way. but we are, again, not just settling for the lowest common denominator, but moving forward with something big. i can talk more about that. innovation is central to how we build our infrastructure. when we talk about blue collar jobs and the rust belt states and the rest of that, we have to recognize that innovation is central to how we all go forward together, an economy that works for everyone, not just the privileged few. in that regard, we've had this year more than 20 sessions around the country, one of them in pittsburgh, all over the country, though, i say pittsburgh because that's the heart of blue collar workers in our country. to see how -- because we cannot talk about blue collar
jobs, ignoring what is happening in terms of infrastructure. working together. and we have great ideas from the community about how we can have success in that way. infrastructure, innovation, inclusion. again, how do we include everyone in this? this is not just about jobs. blue collar workers who may be white. it's for everyone. everyone is feeling the pain in their paychecks. and so how do we work together on that? it's very exciting to hear how big we want the infrastructure to be, how recognizing that innovation begins in the classroom and if we're going to keep america number one, which is the goal of our innovation 2.0 agenda, that congresswoman eshoo has been advocating, you have to begin in the classroom. that means earliest childhood
education to lifetime learning for our workers. it's a pretty lively and exciting discussion. when i talked about the inclusion piece, that's about including everyone in our economic, but also, to not discriminate against nyone. and we were very disappointed, naming steve bannon as ass the chief strategist is an alarming -- as the chief strategist is an alarming signal that president-elect trump remains committed to the hateful and divisive language that divided his campaign. already democrats are challenging the appointment. our colleague from rhode island has 169 democrats. hat was as of yesterday. at least 169 democrats on the letter calling on president trump to reverse his appointment of a white nationalist as his chief senior advisor.
as you know, yesterday i formally wrote to my colleagues to continue serving as house democratic leader, to be a strong voice for hardworking families and to uphold the values we cherish as americans, house democrats must be unified, strategic and you wavering. those same attributes served s well in 2006 when we won the house, and i'm hopeful that -- i believe they will do o again. we are elected to fight for jobs, for families and for the future of the american people. very exciting. i'm very honored by the support i have received from my colleagues and, as always, i say i take pride in being the head of our caucus, that is not a rubber stamp, that has all the enthusiasm that it does, and, again, just very happy to be listening to what they have to say.
we will have our rollout of our leadership after thanksgiving. and that's probably the next time i'll see you. any questions? reporter: you say in your comments that democrats must be unified, strategic and unwavering. there are obviously some folks who are talking about possibly challenging you. first part of the question. do you see that as a lack of unity? do you attribute the -- that to just letting off steam toward you, because of the election results or maybe we need to have a change at the top? ms. pelosi: as i said, without even asking anybody for a vote, i have over 2/3 of the caucus supporting me. it's a funny thing, in a caucus or anyplace, when somebody challenges you, your supporters turn out. sbornltely in the caucus and n the country, whether it is
supporters at the grassroots level, financial supporters, intellectual resources, to us, so it almost did me a favor by saying, before i even asked for support, that i would appreciate having people support -- people's support. it isn't that much, i have to tell you, i'm respectful of what people are saying. there's a lot of need, as people have always wanted to -- many have said they wanted to have term limits in the committees so they can rise p. i said, if you want that, you have to go fight for it. because that's a debate within our caucus. but i don't see anything about what is being suggested now as anything but the friendship of all of us. we are family. i never said unanimity. but i did say unified. reporter: what's the difference in your mind? is it a healthy debate to have this at this stage, about who should be the leader? ms. pelosi: well, i think the sooner we can be -- have the
official status of going forward and speaking, the less time we'll spend on questions like this. so we want to get on to that. but i've always -- i've regularly had some opponents. and as members said, we cannot be taking the full responsibility for what happened in the election. we have to do our after action review thoroughly and see what we could have done differently. but a lot of it was beyond our control. reporter: as of right now, two-part question as well. ms. pelosi: did you get to your second? reporter: you and he my second. that's all right. reporter: as of right now, you're still examining it, but what do you think the main factors were in hillary clinton's surprise defeat? and do you think that rudy giuliani has financial conflicts of interest that should be considered when he's being considered as secretary of state?
ms. pelosi: you have a two-part question but they're two separate questions. at least yours was related. here's the thing. i believe that the comey letter was a foul deed. it was the wrong thing to do. i have had great admiration for director comey. i think that he just couldn't take the heat. i think this would be an investigation and we'll figure out how to call for that, how giuliani knew two days before that something was coming. it has been the practice of prosecutors and u.s. attorneys historically not to release that kind of information, even when they think it's significant so close to an election. and director comey said, i don't know if this is significant. it really just changed everything. the same comey who said he
didn't want to put his name on the consensus intelligence appraisal that the russians were hacking, the russians were the hackers of the democratic committees and -- committee's and hillary clinton's campaign, because he didn't want to -- it was too close to the election for him to sign a consensus intelligence document. so something is not right in this picture. and i think the american people deserve an investigation into how a foreign government had an impact on our election. nd how rudy giuliani had access to that information when he did. i think the comey letter was dispositive. should we have had more fortified to be able to with stand the hit, that's part of the after action review valuation.
we could just see it in the numbers. we thought we were like at 20 and trying to go for more. hillary was like this in those districts. she went like that in those districts. i'm talking from the stand point of what the numbers i have seen in our races. in terms of hillary's race, i think the minute he came out with that letter, that was totally wrong. that's a two-part -- i think everybody has to be vetted in terms of giuliani. hopefully they'll have a vetting. as you may know, yesterday, in our previous question on the floor, we were saying, don't vote for this, let us bring up a bill that says, no lobbyist should be on the transition team. no funds in this act following the legislation that's already there, but codifying that they shouldn't be on the transition team. certainly the vetting process that everybody goes through, no matter who wins the election, will reveal whether -- what his exposure is.
reporter: -- [inaudible] -- is that against nepotism rules? ms. pelosi:s that that's a third question. you're next. reporter: congressman tim ryan, considering a challenge against you, we talked to him on the way into the caucus meeting. he said that we have the lowest number of -- in our caucus, since 1929, and we lost over 60 seats since 2010. he said that, speaking about you, he said, the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again and keep getting the same results. i wonder if you could respond to that. ms. pelosi: i don't want to respond to. but i will say the following. and that is, in 2005 and 2006, i orchestrated the takeback of the house of representatives. i'm very, very proud of that. and as i said, we see that as n opportunity now. when president clinton was president, republicans took the house. when president bush was
president, the democrats took the house. when president obama was president, the republicans took the house. so we have an opportunity. doesn't mean any guarantees but means we will do hard ork. 'm very proud to have the opportunity and i know how to do it to get it done, but i'm not responding. reporter: jesse jackson asking for president obama to pardon hillary clinton. what's your thoughts on that? ms. pelosi: i don't know i have the faintest idea what you are talking about. pardon her for what? i'm sorry. that doesn't make any sense to me. reporter: on appropriations what's your reaction to chairman rogers is go to have a c.r. through the end of march and supplementals will house democrats be pushing for in terms of judgmental funding? ms. pelosi: a supplemental bill?
he just said that about the c.r. reporter: are you going to attach supplemental appropriations? i know there is a war supplemental. ms. pelosi: a supplemental bill is a separate bill. they are in the process of presenting a supplemental bill which is a different bill. the c.r. is how we go forward. i would have hoped woe would ave achieved an omnibus. democrats and republicans on the appropriations committee nd i'm from that culture and we were able to try to work together and they had been making good progress until this morning on finishing up the appropriations bill. now this freezes it because they are talking about until march. i think it would be to give the american people certainty and whether it's a person
getting a social security check or all the way across the board, you want some certainty. and to go to march is really not certain. but i would say this, i think they are making a big mistake for themselves. they are going to have a kettle of fish in martha they -- march that they can't even imagine and too bad we couldn't have gone to next september. reporter: do you think that democrats have forgotten white working class voters? ms. pelosi: no. reporter: what do you say to critics that you may not be the right person to be able to speak to those voters as a west coastal liberal? ms. pelosi: i take great pride in the city i represent of san francisco and i take great pride in the fact that the whole state of california has been the source of so many
ideas, intellectual resources, political resources, financial resources that helped us win the congress in 2006. when people bring up numbers saying we have fewer democrats than before. the fact is we got our high numbers. when we had a higher number, in terms of a functioning majority, if you want to talk numbers, you have to talk reality of that. to answer your question, the encouragement that i have from y colleagues is that i enabled them to do what they do. it's not about me, it's about them. and they have an opportunity to make this contrast between soon-to-be president trump and what we stand for. look, as far as we are
concerned, the problem is more with the communication than it was with our policy. facing republican resistance bailed out the auto industry. congressional democrats and president obama at the time hen mitt romney was in an op ed, but doesn't he look good to us right now? but when he wrote an op ed that we were interfering with the free market by bailing out the auto industry. and we did that. what does that affect? affects millions of jobs in ohio, michigan and pennsylvania, indiana, owa. we didn't message it so they understood it. i would say to people, you may think you are messaging, but if your mouth isn't messaging,
we aren't communicating. we had to get that message out there. our work here for our friends in labor and collective bargaining and nlrb and osha is a fight we fight for them, a fight to increase the inimum wage. the whole country should be behind increasing the minimum wage after they heard the cry for help from this campaign to increase paychecks. our lives are dedicated to those people who didn't communicate it on the successes we had and quite frankly. the election of the republican congress interfered with the next steps in what we were doing to increase the paycheck to stop every job initiative that president obama put forth. reporter: this is an intell uestion.
not heavily noticed, but the head of the n.s.a., michael rogers said in public that a foreign entity had specifically intervened in order to change the outcome of the election and he wants people to understand that. the community had already -- homeland security made that assessment. ms. pelosi: that's the one that director comey talked about. reporter: a lot of people heard that from rogers. and from where you sit, the head of the n.s.a. speak publicly in that way, how do you interpret the intelligence community's to amp up this issue whether to hold hearings or empower them. when you heard hear messages like that? ms. pelosi: i said it the first day of the convention
that the russians were hacking our system. i didn't know it from official stats. i knew it because we had to spend money to figure out who was hacking our system and it was the russians and it was a while for the intelligence community to make that statement. i don't know why -- you tell e, why the media didn't say, isn't there something wrong with this picture when somebody hacked our system and releasing emails that are only on the democratic side? wasn't that a clue they wanted us to look bad, we know it's the russians and they are leaking it and only democratic leaks. so, ok, that's one thing, but for comey then to go to the place where he went with not signing it because the
consensus because it was too close to the election, he then assessed this ore thick as not too close to the election. >> i'm interested in going forward. ms. pelosi: the american people need to know that a foreign power interfered in our election. and not to be sour grapes. we all take responsibility for our role and how we got to where we are in the election, but the fact is no matter how the election turned out, even if hillary clinton had won, the fact is the american people have to believe in the integrity of the system and it has been a custom and practice of the russians to disrupt elections, not just in the united states, but in other countries for their own purpose. and in the u.s., the main purpose is to undermine democracy and to have people
be skeptical about the sacredness of the vote. i think we should have -- and know that there is a request for an inspector general report by representative cummings on what happened at the f.b.i., who, what, when and why -- you have to talk to him about the particulars of it. and i'm saying there has to be something bigger than that even. i have to go now. reporter: on earmarks, has something changed and whether they should be in the legislative process. ms. pelosi: i've never been an opponent of legislatively directed resources and don't give it to the administration to make those decisions. there has been talk about relaxing that for state and local government, earmarks and i hope they go down that path
that they would include native american sovereignty as well as one of those categories that would be part of any change in legislatively-directed resources. thank you all very much. >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, charles chamberlin will look at the direction to have democratic party after upsets during the election and whether the party needs to adjust its message to voters. then appropriations and budget committee member tom cole will discuss the election of donald trump and what it means for the republican party. key issues in the lame duck
session. and the g.o.p agenda. and steven diamond will talk about the debate on the restoration of earmarks, their history and how they use r-used for federal funding for pet projects. be sure to watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern friday. join the discussion. friday, more from the federalist society's 2016 annual national lawyers convention. at 11: 15 a.m., remarks from nikki haley and then ted cruz of texas and then at 5:30 .m., nebraska senator. live here on c-span. on friday, a panel on the election of donald trump and the presidential transition
process with former white house officials and scholars taking part in an event hosted by the washington center live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on -span 2. i've always been a good admirer of america, a student of american history. particularly the history of its african descend people. >> sunday night on c & a, he talks about his memoir, never look an american in the eye. >> my uncle formed this impression from watching cinema, westerns, specifically where the cowboys would gather together in a bar and exchange a few words and we never understood what they were saying but then at one point they would stare each other down and start shooting. my uncle formed that
impression that's what americans would do to you, shoot you, if you looked them in the eye. >> sunday on c-span's c & a. >> at his weekly briefing paul ryan said he is ready to move forward on president elect donald trump's agenda. he also took questions from reporters about priorities for his party. his is 10 minutes. >> good morning. this week congress gave final approval to legislation that will help veterans in need. hr 5392 requires that the v.a. respond to calls to its crisis hot lines in a timely manner. this is one of those bills that should not even be necessary but sadly and
tragically it is. early they are year, we learned that more than one out of three calls to the v.a. crisis hotline were going unanswered. imagine a veteran calling for help and then being sent to voicemail. no excuse for that. this bill requires that the v.a. makes improvements so that velt veterans actually get the help when they need the help. as part of our better way agenda we propose building a 20th century v.a. for now this initiative is good news. a time to be grateful for all of the men and women who have fought for us. second, earlier this week, house republicans sent a letter to the obama administration asking they not advance any new regulations before leaving office. remember, this is not unusual. the incoming administration made a similar request in 2008. in addition to the house today will pass the measure making it easier to stop midnight
regulation. there is a tradition of bipartisan regulations imposed at the end of an outgoing administration. we have seen just how the impact of just one rule can hurt entire industries and livelihoods. the last thing we need to see today nor the next weeks are unelected bureaucrats pushing through regulations at the 11th hour. we look forward to tackling it in the new republican government. house republicans met with mike pence. sounds good just saying that. he gave us an update on the transition. if we are committed to having a truly unified republican government not just in name but we are committed to doing it in practice. working hand and glove from the start during this transition, if we're going to go big, we have got to hit the ground running. the american people voted for
change and we are ready to get to work. i'll be meeting with the vice president later today to further discuss more things for the transition. questions? >> based on your understanding of nepotism rules, do you believe that jared curber in should be able to take a job n the -- kushner should be able to take job at the white house? >> he is obviously a brilliant young man who donald trump trusts. you have to understand, he played a very important role in this campaign. i think that should be respected. >> i'm just asking if you havean understanding of the nepotism rules? >> i don't have a deep understanding of how they work. arencoming -- timeline -- you concerned though that there is going to be two force where is the public is going to say wait a minute, why haven't you passed all of this
stuff in january and you want to do it right. so it is also going to take some time to get those plans together. how do you balance those two hings and -- >> that's what we're doing with the transition team right now we're going to have plenty of time to talk about the legislative schedule and calendar. we move quickly in the house. the senate is another story. they don't move as quickly it is a house does. we will deliver on this agenda. yes, of course that takes time. that's how the legislateture works. i think people will understand how it works and we intend on delivering. we're going to make sure this is the most productive congress we have seen in a long, long time and i'm confident as people understand the way the process works, they will see we will be hitting the ground running and moving to fix these problems
for the american people as they have given us this unified government in trust to do. >> following up on that. when you say hit the ground running, what are the specific legislations that you are pushing the first 100 days? >> we'll have plenty of time to talk about that later. we are just in the beginning to have transition period. we are just now working with the incoming administration on planning that transition. it is a little premature to get into what bill is coming up. that is the conversations we are having now. making sure we're planning not just here in the house but with our friends in the senate and the incoming administration that is just a couple of weeks into this transition. we'll have plenty of time to talk about that stuff later. >> you have talked about tax uts. repeeling obamacare. >> all of those things we'll have plenty of time to talk about later. none of the decisions have been made. we're just in the beginning of this. when we have made decision about the timing of legislation, you'll be the
first to know. >> one of the things that donald trump has talked about is the drain the swamp agenda. one of the things is to impose term limits on members of congress. what is your view? >> i've always supported term limits. i don't know where all the other members stand but it is something i have always been in favor of. >> any legislation on that? >> i have been in favor of it since i've been here, before i came here. >> what is the advantage of -- why is the trump team asking you guys to do that? >> i think the new incoming government would like to have a say so how spending is to be allocated in 2017. we are working the new incoming government on the timing of that, on the continuing resolution. i think they would like to have a say so on how money is going to be spent going into the rest of this fiscal year. >> is there any particular --
>> i can't answer that. what they ever asked us is to work with them on the continuing resolution as we described. we're going to do just that. we have a lot of priorities that we would like to see changed relative to the obama funding priorities. just that same. >> how are your priorities for a unified republican government and the desire to go big be helped with the possible return of earmarks? >> well, here is what our members are concerned about. our members are that have seen a dizz lucian of the fragse separation of powers. that bureaucrats have been given far too much power. restoring the power to the legislative branch so that elected official consist hold the unelected branch more accountable is the genesis of that concern. we decided yesterday that we're going to spend a good amount of time deliberating how best to do that.
we're going to be spending the first quarter of 2017 figuring out just how we can make sure we can restore the power of the purse to the legislative branch to hold the unelected branch accountable. we're going to have a debate about how to do our job holding the executive branch oversight. here is the concern. one they talk about is the army corps of engineers. it is run by unelected people in do not necessarily reflect the will of the elected branch of government. we want to make sure we are restoring the constitution, the separation of powers, accountability to the federal government. when we say drain the swamp, that means stop giving all of this power to unelected power to micromanage our society, our economy and our lives and restore the constitution. that's what this debate is about. >> mr. speaker, can you lay
out your big picture thinking of the fiscal implications of the trump house republican agenda? how do you secure the border, increase defense spending, increase infrastructure spending and do tax reform in a fiscally responsible manner without increasing the debt? >> a couple of things. you need to hold down spending in the critical areas where it is growing so fast and you need to grow the economy. let's not deperkt that. we have been in a slow growth economy for far, far too long. we're just limping along. not even close to our potential. what we want to do coming out of the gates is get this economy going. rethere's choke hold on the u.s. economy is one of the first things is that we can do. tax reform is one of the things we can do to get this economy growing. more g.d.p., more wages, more jobs, more revenue. but we also have to deal with the drivers of our debt.
don't forget that obamacare rewrote three entitlement program s that arethe primary drivers of our debt. when we replace obamacare, a law that is collapsing under its own weight. this is a law where people are getting hit year after year with double digit premium increases. the deductibles are so high families don't feel like they have health insurance because their deductibles are so high. this is a law where according to kaiser 31% of the counties in america have one choice of a plan. that is not a choice. that is a monopoly. is this law is failing. forget the fact that this law, it rewrote medicaid and medicare. this law has done great damage to medicare. we have to replace this law with one that works, with one that works for the american people. one that gives people more choices, that ms. more competition. so that we can lower prices
and get better healthcare value for our dar dollar. you do that, you are dramatically fixing the fiscal health of this country. those are among this things we have to do if we are going scally nurse ourselves better that when we do our replacement plan. reporter: from the affordable care act, how early can you see fore huge premium -- rep. ryan: it's a great question, one we're dealing with all year long. it's too early to know the answer to, how fast can obama care relief occur. what we're focused on is how we get obama care repealed and what we replace it with so we can get that relief to the american families as fast as possible. that's one of the big topics of
-- reporter: president-elect trump planned ng to defund parent hood -- rep. ryan: we have shown what we believe. we put a bill on president obama's desk in reconciliation. our position has not changed. reporter: thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016 announcer: a look at events rourn the transition of president-elect donald trump. kellyanne conway spoke to reporters about mr. trump's meeting with the japanese prime minister. hat is followed by jeb hensarling and jeff sessions. these events took place at rump tower in new york city.
>> we talked about financial reform. i wanted to tell the president-elect donald trump 'm on his team, very excited to help for working americans again. we were talking policy, dodd frank, trade, a wonderful conversation and i stand ready to help the president in any capacity possible. i have a great division in policy. regardless, i'm on his team and excited for what he can do for america. it was a real honor to be here. now if you'll forgive me, i have a plane to catch to go back to my family in dallas, texas. thank you all.
>> it's been a very sex sighting experiencing there are a lot of great people making applications to the transition committee. my former chief of staff rick has done a great job on incredible demand, the whole team is, they're working long, long hours. it's remarkable what is happening. i'm one of the co-chairs of five, i believe co-chairs of he committee of vice president elect pence. donald trump, i have been in a number of meetings with him. he talks to people under consideration. he likes to meet and talk to and just see who they are. he just does a really good job. he is engaging, right there talking to them.
it's a good vibe, good feel, he gets a good feel for people and i think he has a good ability to size up people in an effective away. a big part of his success in business is having good people around him. he -- she asked me to share a few thoughts with you and i have done that. she is a great positive leader. the whole team is working well together. reince priebus is exceedingly talented in my opinion. he can talk with three people on three phones at the same time which is a good quality for chief of staff. he knows everybody and has good judgment. steve ban none is a powerful intellect and a thoughtful leader but and consistently provides good advice. it's a good team right now. i would be honored to be considered and mr. trump will make those decisions.
reporter: do you want to be secretary of state? >> if he asks me, i'll chair with him, but i'm not talking about my agenda at this point. i would be pleased to continue to serve in the senate. we got a lot of work to do for my ut i do feel conversation with others that the house and senate are charged up. they believe we have a new leader, that the president will be the one that sets the agenda on the whole congress will be supported. reporter: will you be with trump in these meetings? >> i planned to go back to d.c. and i may not know that, i don't think so at this point. >> how long do you plan to stay here in new york? >> not much longer. tomorrow is friday, i think. >> have you seen "hamilton"? >> i have not seen "hamilton." i have not committed to do that
so i'm not -- i'm not committed to go to that. reporter: mitt romney meeting with donald trump, what do you think about this idea that rivals in the campaign season and we're past the point where the campaign is over, is there coalescing or how do you see that? >> i think it's the president-elect is meeting with people like mr. romneyment he needs lots of talented people to have good relationships with. i think mr. romney will be quite capable of doing a number of things, but he'll be one of those i'm sure that is reviewed. mr. trump will make that decision. reporter: do you think he'll be confirmed in the senate? >> people have to make that decision.
in berlin. later remarks by supreme court justice clarence thomas at the federalist society conference. friday, more from the federalist society national lawyers convention. remarks from south carolina governor nicky haley. at noon eastern, we'll hear from former presidential candidate senator ted cruz from texas and at 5:30 p.m., we'll hear from nba senator ben sass. the federalist society 2016 national lawyers convention live here on c-span. on march 16 after the death of justice antonin scalia, president obama nominated marriage garland for a seat on the supreme court. on friday, the constitution society will host a discussion on the role of the senate in judicial nominations, live at
oon eastern on c-span 2. announcer: follow the transition of government on c-span as donald trump becomes the 45th president of the united states and republicans maintain control of the u.s. house and senate. we'll take you to key events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span. watch on demand at c-span.org or listen on our free c-span radio app. announcer: james clapper testified thursday on the role of the intelligence community in supporting defense. director clapper announced his resignation at this hearing and answered questions about recent cyber hacks by russia. this house intelligence committee hearing is 1:45.
the committee will come to order, before we begin, i want to remind our members, guest and staff that we are at the unclassified level for today's hearing. i am also obligated to remind the witnesses that providing false information to this committee or concealing material information from the committee is a crime punishmentable by law. today we welcome director of national intelligence james clapper,deputy secretary robert work, who will discuss the support that our intelligence community provides to our war fighters and the department of defense. thank you for being here today. the united states faces grave security threats from terrorist threats to cyberattacks. the intelligence community
provides our military with critical information across the full spectrum of conflict. when they do not integrate effectively we risk intelligence failures that put our war fighters' lives at risk. they have failed to respond to the concerns on a range of critical national security issues including those raised by the committee during the worldwide threats hearing this past february. he committee is alarmed at the threats of national security as we documented in our august report. investigation has found that the d.o.d. and the facilities planning has been plagued by significant flaws including disregard for more cost-effective alternatives. the committee has not seen any meaningful corrective actions by the d.o.d. or i.c.
i thank the department of defense for their ongoing investigations into both of these issues. once they are complete, i will invite the i.g. to present their findings in open session. if necessary, we may ask the three of you to return following the conclusion of those investigations. i also commend the work of the government accountability office which recently released a report finding that the epartment of defense did not follow best practices when conducting its joint intelligence analysis complex consolidation analysis of alternative processes. i would like to recognize the ranking member for any opening comments he would like to make. r. schiff. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm trying to get used to this new committee and lap of luxury here in the ways of means. i thank your many years of
service to the country. director clapper, in particular, i want to thank you for honorably serving us since the 1960's first as an air orce officer as director and undersecretary of defense and the last six years. you took a position that was still very much in the process of formation and gave it very ubstantive and effective content and we are very grateful for all you have done. you have exhibited sober judgment and put the fate of the nation first. i hope as you look back on your career, you don't lament your any appearances before us. we certainly don't. and there was a rumor out there that you might be asked to stay on a little bit longer than the transition and i hope you stay n four years longer, but
that's probably the last thing you want to hear. [laughter] deputy secretary work and deputy secretary, i want to thank you for your extraordinary service to the country and grateful to both of ou and look forward to our continued work together and whatever plans come to you both down the road. as we near the end of the congress, now is an appropriate time to reflect on the values that save our work and how those manifest in the national security domain. our country is best served when we conduct ourselves worthy of the american people. this requires the commitment to intellectual honesty and respect for the rule of law and accept accountability for the mistakes and what we learned from them and avoid repeating them. we must all work together to solve problems on a nonpartisan
basis. the intelligence community and at times the military operate in the shadows but no way diminishes our responsibility to assure that we act according to these principles and in fact the responsibility is very greater. at home we rely to be objective and honest about the challenges we face and that candor is what allows the most senior leaders to make hard choices about how to protect americans. abroad as we engage in war fare to protect ourselves and allies and world stability, we expect you to comport with the rule of law. even in the shadows, we must all act as if you are in the spotlight because you are. the world often sees what we are doing. the intelligence committees do our best to shine a light in a constructive way. the people expect that is responsive and transparency and
open to the oversight committees. the committees act as a critical check on the most secret committees of the i.c. and d.o.d. and provide oversight and we hope sound judgment and either authorization or disapproval. each of us must strike the right balance between protecting privacy and civil liberties and ensuring national security. it is never clear and never a bright line. but it must be our goal in the i.c. and department of defense and here in congress. i look forward to a discussion bout how the i.c. can and does support the department of defense. we pursue our bipartisan oversight of the critical work you do now and into the future. i thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. mr. nunes: we do have your opening statements for the record. i want to keep your opening
statements to no more than five minutes because we have a lot of questions and we will have a series of votes and i want to get through those questions as possible. who is going to start off. director clapper. you are recognized for five minutes. mr. clapper: chairman nunes, ranking member schiff, members of the committee and thanks to the ranking member for your very gracious comments. i submitted my letter of resignation last night which felt pretty good and i got 64 days left and i would have a hard time with my wife with anything past that. thanks for having us to discuss the intelligence community's support to the department of defense. i'm joined by my friend and colleague, bob work and my partner undersecretary of defense for intelligence. to the two men whom i greatly admire. we'll do our best to discuss as
much as the i.c. support to the department in this unclassified environment obviously noting some details may need to be followed up in a classified setting. i included a brief update of the challenges this committee knows well. in the interest of time, i think i will skip by those. you are well familiar with them. just to as a stage setter for constant challenges that we face. as i said before this committee many times, our nation is facing a most diverse array of threats than i have seen in the 53 years in the intelligence business and that is what makes this topic so important. never before have the intelligence community and department of defense need to work so closely. we have a shared responsibility to keep our nation safe and secure. i have a long history of serving in the department and intelligence roles to include as the director of intelligence for three of the combatant
commands for both d.i.a. and n.g.a. for nine years as deputy secretary of defense and technical intelligence centers and i served two combat tours during the southeast asia conflict. i experienced the department and i.c.'s collaboration. since the standup, the relationship has grown closer. when i first took over in 2007, i established a dual hat relationship with usdi. it's called the director of defense intelligence. and this position serves as a bridge to serve collaboration and information sharing between the intelligence community and d.o.d. and marcel has taken this arrangement to the next level.
adopted the same approach. e learned the hard way and insular approaches to intelligence are not the way to operate. d.o.d. knows well jointness brings great value to the war fighter and we in the i.c. adopted the same approach. to penetrate those stove pipes one of the tools is joint duty where officers serve outside of their home agencies. this is integration at the most basic level person-to-person. the i.c.'s policies not only fosters joint duty, it mandates it for anyone who seeks to
become a senior officer. 5,000 officers have completed joint duty assignments. this is stark contrast to my war where you rarely saw civilian employees in the war zone. the members are serving shoulder-to-shoulder sharing the same risks and enduring the same circumstances. and more recent graphic example of that in my visit to kuwait last week. assigned joint duty is one of the many ways we build strong bridges. i want to take note of the fact that secretary carter presented me with the department of defense public service award, the highest such award he can give. the award was not for me. i accepted it on behalf of the men and women of the intelligence community who work to support our missions. many of them directly supporting the war fighters. the award is a symbol of that
commitment to that mission. i want to thank the secretary for honing us in the intelligence community. and mr. chairman, if i may, i did want to comment specifically on the issue of integrity at centcom. recent information that i thought would be useful to share with you. since we have 2016 results of our survey within which reflected the 22% of centcom and analysts objective issues, this represents a decrease from 41% in 2015 and comparable to 16% who reported issues in 2014. entcom j-2 objectivity numbers are on par and slightly higher than 2016 i.c. wide average of 17%. also indicate that centcom j-2 were more likely to seek
assistance to resolve incidents. 60% experienced objectivity issues and sought assistance up from 42%. those seeking assistance, 67% ated senior's centcom as satisfactory in protecting analytic products from deliberate distortion. mention this only to make this -- this is a one-year eriod but it does show a positive trend. and i would also comment that here has been a change in both the commander and the j-2 and
centcom and i'm not casting aspersions but i think a change has been a positive development. with that, i'll stop and turn to secretary work. mr. nunes: you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman nunes and ranking member schiff, it's an honor to appear before you to discuss the support the department of defense has received from the ntelligence community. as the chairman said, this is the unclassified hearing so it precludes me from getting into any specific details, so let me just state that the support we receive from the i.c. community has been absolutely superb. great to be here with the director of national intelligence, jim clapper. nobody no more qualified. jim, i would like to state for the record that marcel has been tasked by me to find your letter of resignation and lose it because we would certainly like to see you stay as long as possible. but as jim gets ready to hang up his spurs, the secretary and i are exceedingly grateful to
his tremendous contributions to the intelligence community and intelligence support to d.o.d. he knows better than anyone, the value of the d.o.d.'s eight members that the i.c. brings to the intelligence arena. and march sell is my battle body, the primary intelligence adviser to the secretary and me nd responsible to jim in the role of the director for defense intelligence. this dual-hat role was established and institutionalized when jim was the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and has been a smashing success in our opinion. i can't overstate the team that understands the war fighting experience is plugged in and appreciates the entire capabilities the i.c. can bring to bear. we all understand and appreciate the importance of
these personal relationships which is why i comment on them. thanks to gym and marcel and the directors of the combat support agencies, the relationship in our view and the rest of three of the intelligence communities and d.o.d. have never been better. i have worked in this business now for a little bit of 2 1/2 years and had the opportunity to work with jim and his principal deputies. stephanie is one of the members along with the chairman of the joints joint chiefs of staff. these relationships and cooperation are absolutely crucial as we seek to allocate our intelligence sources to meet the challenges that jim spoke about around the world in fighting isil and other extremist groups and monitoring
iraq's programs and ensuring iran does not develop further capability and keeping an eye on russia in the ukraine and scrutinizing china's activities in the south china sea. the demands on the intelligence community are formidable and the i.c. is working as best as they can and we would consider their job to be outstanding to pry to apply scares intelligence re-- scarce intelligence resources across all of these challenges. usdi and d.i. rely on several joint forums where the fedges chiefs and the combatant support agencies, c.i.a. and d.n.i. convene and these are -- include regular visits to our regional combatant commands. participation in the afghan which we call the war fighting cig and all of these are esigned to address the
war fighter's most urgent operational needs. we have 10 combatant commands who have i.c. representatives on them. that is another indication of how close our relationship is and their robust presence and even in afghanistan, iraq, syria and other places worldwide especially in this zero-sum budgeting environment speaks highly of the orientation of the entire i.c. so i'm very grateful to be here today and i'm grateful for the committee's interest in this area and i look forward to your questions. mr. nunes: deputy secretary, do you have an opening statement? >> i do not have a formal opening statement and would like to make two points. first as director clapper and deputy secretary work have indicated, i essentially have
two reporting chains reporting o d.n.i. clapper and the second on the d.o.d. side with my full-time focus and my team's full time focus to manage the relationship between the intelligence community and the military and ensure in both directions that they are providing support to each other. i think we had a very interesting transformative perience since 9-11 in integrating those efforts more than before. i look forward to touching on that in the questions and answers today. and it's just to echo the thanks that have been provided thanks to the team that i have been able to serve with on this side, the director and also to this committee. i suspect this will be my last opportunity to appear before you before the transitioning
government in january. i at an early point in my career to serve as a staff member on this committee for three years, which was an opportunity to learn about the importance of oversight and the critical driver that oversight can be in ensuring that government functions effectively and i thank the committee to be able to do that and have a productive relationship. mr. nunes: first, i'm going to start with you, and this is for all of you, are you familiar with the free online
ncyclopedia? mr. lettre: yes, i am. mr. clapper: in general i am. mr. nunes: does the department of defense or the intelligence community edit pages on behalf of the u.s. government? >> i can't speak on that. i know i personally never edited a page. mr. clapper: i don't know off the top of my head. i don't think so. but i don't know. >> i have no knowledge whether or not it happens or not, sir. mr. nunes: does the d.o.d. or the i.c. use it as an official source of information? >> i don't know, congressman.
mr. clapper: i would have to look into that. i don't know off hand if it has ever been. i don't know. >> i know that the department and i.c. community uses a lot of open source information. i don't know whether or not it is one of those open sources. and unes: on march 21, you director clapper met with chairman thornberry and representative fleeling to analyze regarding the joint intelligence analysis complex slated to be built in the u.k. do you recall that meeting? >> i do. mr. nunes: director clapper, do you recall that meeting? mr. clapper: yes. >> you informed that the department of defense did not intend to re-evaluate lower cost sites for the intelligence center.
as justification for your decision, you provided the committee with two documents regarding communications infrastructure supporting the field in azores island. ask the clerk to distribute one and two which is one of the documents provided for justification for the department's decision. mr. nunes: everybody has the documents now? secretary work, are you aware that significant portions of this document that you passed
to three committee chairmen to meet a public law were plagiarized from wikipedia? >> i can state with certainty that i did not provide exhibit 2. i have never seen exhibit 2. i can explain. mr. nunes: exhibit two are the by that were plagiarized public law. >> i did not know that the information in that document came from there. mr. nunes: all of the graphics in which you provided us, everything is highlighted, that was all taken directly out of what we have in exhibit 2 to provide to three committee chairmen to fulfill the requirements of the national defense authorization act. >> if i may, sir, i would like to clarify. what i did in that meeting, i
was required by the national defense authorization act to make a determination that our movement was operationally the right call to make and i made that determination and communicated my intent to do that. the second thing i needed to do is certify there were no d.o.d. missions that could be transferred and i certified that we were not intending to do so. at that meeting, you asked me two questions. you said what about the housing costs on the base and you questioned me on the communications information. i provided you a -- one document that was provided to me, i think it was by disa and i committed to you to make a deep dive, which i did. mr. nunes: i'm just alarmed
that we would rely on a free online wikipedia known for high school students plagiarizing their homework and that the department of defense would even use wikipedia, a free online service, to provide any information to congress to put in any report. >> again, mr. chairman, this had no bearing on my determination or certification which was required by law. mr. nunes: you are not bothered that the department of defense, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that anyone in your department would be providing you information to give to the congress that was plagiarized, not just off wikipedia, it was every single graph in the document was taken from wikipedia. >> again, sir, the cost for the cables and the cables were not -- >> secretary work, you are not answering the question here.
we need to know whether or not is it appropriate to take information from wikipedia and provide to the congress? >> i would say i'm surprised this comes directly from a wikipedia paying. >> let me move on, we are having votes. are you aware that the committee asked for bandwidth requirements for this intelligence center in early 2015? >> yes, i am. >> are you again that the committee requested communication requirements on may 24, 2016? >> yes, i am >> the committee again requested requirements on october 5, 2016? >> i'm not certain of the exact dates but we have been in communication. mr. nunes: the committee received this information on the intelligence center requirements earlier this week. >> i am. mr. nunes: on tuesday, the department of defense chief
information officer testified before this committee that the department of defense leadership decided not to brief committee staff because of the tone of a letter sent from the committee to the department of defense. did you direct the department of defense c.i.o. not to provide the requested information because of the tone of the letter? >> no, i did not. i would like to explain it. you called me in september of 2015 as the chief operating officer as the department of defense, i oversee developing a defense program for the secretary in accordance with his strategic guidance. i'm responsible for every single aspect of that program. as you can imagine certain items do not rise to my level of attention and certain do. in september of 2015, you called me and asked me to
personally get involved in reviewing the information that as being provided. and i committed to you that i would. we briefed you and the two other chairmen in march. at that point, you brought up new information that was new to me and said i don't believe you are being served rite in the information on the communications and i don't think you are being served right by the information on housing. i committed you to do a deep dive, which we did. that was finished in may. since may, we have been trying to get that information to you. from the beginning, mr. chairman, i thought this was a communication between you and me and you asked me to do this personally. all of the interactions i had were with you and the other chairman. we offered to provide this information to you. we were told you did not want to receive it. we had a hearing scheduled in september which was postponed. i regret that this information was not communicated but we have had the information since
may and we have been trying to communicate it to you. mr. nunes: so the issue with this is, your chief information officer refused to or the department, i shouldn't say you, or the chief information officer said the reason that you would not brief the committee staff because of the tone of the letter. but you did remind me of one thing and i do remember that phone call and i just for the record, i informed you that the congress had been given false or misleading information. >> i understood that was your opinion, yes, sir. mr. nunes: you were informed by this committee that we were provided false and misleading information. >> i have no indication that that was true. mr. nunes: i want to pass out the email, exhibit 3, that went from our staff to the department of defense because i would just like to ask you what is the problem with the tone of
this letter that would lead the department of defense not to send us the requirements for an intelligence center. >> i haven't seen this particular one. all i can tell you you asked me in march to do a deep dive and i got the best experts in the department of defense. mr. nunes: this is legislative branch of government. we asked in august of 2015 and your chief information officer said he was told by superiors not to provide information because of the tone of the letter. this is the letter. to me it seems like a very nice letter. it says thank you for the quick reply and it says thanks for "the help. is there a problem with the tone of this letter?
>> i don't know what letter he was talking about. what i can say is, ever since our first meeting, i said it is very important to the three chairmen that we provide this information to them. i want to deal directly with the chairmen and provide them with the best information that we have. everything that you asked or any of the chairmen asked -- mr. nunes: i appreciate that. but your department decided not to send information to this committee because of the tone of a letter and this is the etter and i don't see anything wrong with the tone of the letter. >> mr. chairman, you mentioned at the early part of the hour there are two investigations ongoing, one by this committee
and one by the d.o.d. i.g. when an i.g. investigation occurs we stop all interactions with the committees but we said we will continue the interaction with the chairman and we will be careful and deliberate on the way we come forward. i regret that he used the term tone. i have instructed everyone that we need to be very deliberate because of the close attention and i have emphasized everyone in the chain of command that our -- all of our analysis has to be unimpeachable. mr. nunes: deputy secretary, i understand there are two investigations ongoing, but just so you know, this was in august -- this was august 3 of 2015. the letter to the d.o.d. i.g. requesting an investigation was not requested until nine months later. why for nine months did your department decide not to provide what is really basic information to this committee?
>> again, sir, when you asked me to get involved in this, i did. i ordered the deep dive. i have absolute confidence that the j-6 on the staff, and d.i.a. have now come together to work the information you requested. mr. nunes: clearly, deputy secretary, you are not responsible for providing the information but someone in your department told the c.i.o. that. do you know who would have instructed the c.i.o. not to provide the information because of the tone of the letter? >> i don't believe anyone did and i don't believe that he was trying to make any aspersions. we believe congressional oversight is extraordinarily important. since the meeting with you in march, we have had six separate letters. we have provided over 1,000 pages of documents. we have provided 11 people to testify before the committee. there are people being testified. we believe we have been extraordinarily
responsible. and if you look at the g.a.o. report -- >> i would like to talk about the responsiveness. this committee has uncovered instances where the department of defense has provided information to other committees, particularly the senate armed services committee months before providing the same information to this committee. is its the d.o.d.'s policy to provide information to the senate before providing it to the house? >> no, sir, it is not. mr. nunes: why did it happen? >> again, sir, we have offered to brief this information to you since may and twice -- >> this has nothing to do with that. this is information we asked for a year and a half ago that we did not receive. we'll go on. on monday, the department of defense provided the committee with the communications requirement. i understand that the infrastructure as it is configured does not have the desired band width, did the d.o.d. ask the providers to
update its infrastructures to support its requirements. >> i would defer to the experts in the j-6. however i have been briefed it is not normal policy for us to go out and say what is possible in the future. we do all our analysis is what is available today. mr. nunes: when they testified before us two days ago, he did indicate that they did not ask the local provider. so now i have -- this is the same question i asked the other day when the bases around the world need extra band width do we not just ask or do we ask the local provider can we increase our bandwidth? >> you have to put this in the context about what this uestion was about.
what was better? there is no comparison. mr. nunes: the question is, could the communications infrastructure meet the requirements or not. that was the question. >> the question you posed to me was whether or not the movement to krauten -- >> how do you know the answer if you never asked the provider if the local infrastructure would work? >> i know the answer because cape who is the best analysis took a look at the one-time osting factors and looked at seven and all of them, there was never an instance where cape was able to close the business case. mr. nunes: we were briefed on that study, quite entertaining. on september 1, 2016, you sent a letter to the committee saying you released funding to
phase two of the intelligence center construction. when did you release the funding? >> soon after that letter, i assume. mr. nunes: soon after the letter that was dated on september 1. >> i can't tell you the exact date that money transferred but that was the date. mr. nunes: there would be no reason for this notification to have been delayed? >> i can't imagine one sir. it might have been delayed because of the staffing process of the letter coming up to through me. i go through hundreds and hundreds of pages. perhaps it was delayed slightly. mr. nunes: was there an active g.a.o. location into the analysis of this location? >> there was an a.o.a., yes. mr. nunes: at the time of your decision, was there an active investigation into d.o.d. staff providing false information to congress regarding this
intelligence center? >> yes, it's going on right now. >>how does it set locations for facilities. we asked you this session earlier in closed session. does the department of defense choose locations or facilities based upon where personnel want to live? >> we do not. we have a range of factors that go into the decisions about where to base facilities and particularly when it comes to intelligence facilities. the operational mission orientation and criteria associated with that are the greatest of the factors. mr. nunes: we chose locations based upon mission requirements? >> that's one of a range of criteria that factor in. for me wearing my intelligence hat and intelligence responsibilities, the mission relevance and the ability of that location to service the intelligence mission tends to rise to the top of the list, yes. mr. nunes: i'm going to stop here and come back later.
but i'm going to yield to the ranking member. mr. schiff: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. clapper, i wanted to ask you about your parting thoughts on russia and the threats posed by russia. you and the secretary of homeland security acknowledged about a month ago that russia had been hacking into our political institutions and interfering with our election and this was coming from the highest levels of the kremlin. what is your assessment that is likely to continue into the next administration if resident-elect trump, if there is a situation between he and mr. putin don't materialize, would you participate that the -- anticipate that the russians will hack and dump documents that might be damaging to a trump administration?
would that be consistent with what you know of their playbook? mr. clapper: thanks for the question, sir. i don't anticipate a ignificant change in russian behavior. we gave considerable thought to diming out russia with that statement. we waited until we felt we had sufficient basis for it and we did and both from a forensic as well as other sources of intelligence led us to that statement. it may have had the desired effects since after that -- after the issuance of this
statement and the communication that i know took place between our government and russian government, it seemed to occur have curtailed the cyberactivity that the russians were previously engaged in. the russians have a very active and aggressive capability to conduct operations, so-called hybrid warfare and has been a practice of theirs going back o the soviet era and i anticipate that it will continue. mr. schiff: i want to drill down a little further into your comment that russian activity curtailed after the issuance of the statement. the dumping of documents didn't end with the issuance of a statement. are you implying by this that we know whether the documents provided to either cutouts or wikileaks have all been provided to the statement that
was should or is it entirely possible that the dumping of documents continued after the statement and what may have been avoided was a further escalation of the interference in the form of trying to monkey around on election day or thereafter? mr. clapper: i was referring to the cyber reconseans that we had observed that state entities had observed prior to the statement. and that sort of activity seemed to have curtailed. as far as the wikileaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the equencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. we don't have as good insight into that.
do you see any intensification. and recently since yet another reaffirmation the ceasefire, he number of incidents has increased. i can't say what they'll do and i can't forecast what the impact of our new administration might have on russian behavior. that's kind of speculative. i just don't know. >> let me ask you about what ou can tell us about their intentions, ukraine, do you see any intensification of russian efforts to disrupt the ukraine
or destabilize the ukraine government or do you see efforts in the opposite direction, russian incentives aligned to tamping down the violence there or dialing it up at this point? i think for now they will sustain their presence. we continue to see firing incidents exchanged along the line of contact and recently since yet another reaffirmation the cease-fire, the number of incidents per week has increased. think both countries will probably engage in actions and counteractions to try to promote instability. nd clearly the russians want to sustain influence in a
traditional part of a greater russia, which is ukraine. so i suspect that sort of pressure will continue. i don't see much prospect for resolution or compliance with the accords. we will continue the kind of semistalemate that we are in. >> in terms of the russian conduct in the war in syria, obviously putin and the kremlin are aware that the incoming president wants to have a different relationship with russia. how do you see that influencing their policy in syria? is the kremlin likely to conclude by that that they have more or less a green light for the seize of the alepo or the bombing of civilians, do you ascribe any significance to the timing the resumption of that campaign following the discussion with the president-elect?
mr. clapper: i can't speculate on what impacts any discussions with the new administration would have but i can tell you that the russians are sustaining their behavior. putting more pressure on oppositionists and aleppo -- in aleppo. indiscriminately bombing, women, children and hospitals. that will continue. that is having a negative effect on the oppositionists in terms of morale and continue to fight. objective,to assad's achieving a military victory. that is the position he is in. he is less interested in negotiations. indo you foresee any change the increasing russian belligerence? the provocative acts in the air or