Transcripts For CSPAN2 Tonight From Washington 20110309

working with on my colleagues make sure we get a chair comprehensive deficit and debt reductionru plan that thispu congress can vote on and put in action. with that mr. president i yield the floor and note the absence of the a quorum. >> at this meeting of the national association of attorneys general, former acting solicitor general walter dellinger predicted the supreme court would uphold the new health care law. he and former general theodore olson participated in a discussion about the supreme court's current session. this is an hour, 15 minutes. >> we are here to discuss united states supreme united states supreme court cases for this term. we are on c-span and my name is roy cooper. i am the attorney general in north carolina and president of the national association of attorneys general and to introduce our panel here we will have walter dellinger who is the chair of the appellate practice at all melvin ian meyer law firm. is visiting professor of law at harvard university and heads the supreme court and appellate practice clinic as an acting solicitor general in the mid-90s. he argued nine cases before the u.s. supreme court. the most by a solicitor general in more than 20 years. we also have ted olson who is a partner in gibson, done and crunchers from the washington d.c. office a member of the firm's executive committee and cochair of the appellate and constitutional law group. a former solicitor general of the united states, ted is one of the nation's premier appellate and u.s. supreme court advocates and he is argued dozens of cases before the court and i might add that both of them have contributed to north carolina victories in the u.s. supreme court and i thank them for that. the national association of attorney general is fortunate to have dan schweitzer is her supreme court counsel. his principle and very important responsibility to assist state appellate litigators who appear before the united states supreme court and he excels at his job. my thanks to all three of you for your time and for your expertise and i will turn it over to you. >> thank you general cooper. it is a pleasure and honor to be here to talk about the supreme court again which as you said has two of the premier supreme court advocates and analysts of our time. what we thought we would do is talk a little bit about the roberts court generally, then turned to some of the major cases the court is hearing this term and then hopefully we will have time for some questions from the audience so let's start with the roberts court. it is 2011. it is quite a different court from 2005. the court went 11 or 12 years without a change in its membership. over the fast -- past five years we have we have had four new justices. they are different in a lot of ways from their predecessors. ted, it's can you tell us a little bit about how you think a change in membership has affected the court, how the roberts court circa 2011 differs from the rehnquist court that preceded it? >> thanks thank stan and i apologize for turning my back on those of you over there. you'll have to watch the television screen but this is an interesting broom. dan asked me to give a little talk about, or give some information about the court as it recently exists and i did some gathering of statistics. nothing secret here but i thought it was kind of interesting, as dan mentioned there has been for ben for appointments in the last five years. previous to that the court had gone 11 and a half years, almost 12 years without an appointment which was the longest period in history without a new member of the supreme court and we have only had 111 justices on the supreme court of the united states. 44 presidents but only 111 justices including only 17 chief justices, so it is rather interesting that we can't have in this country a tenure on the supreme court that is so long, the tenure of retirement is getting longer and longer and longer. the justices are holding offices for longer period of time. the last four justices who did leave the court collectively averaged 28 years each on the court and their age of retirement on an average was 78 years old, so people are being appointed younger and they are staying on the court longer. and if you figure if you are on the court for 25 years, that is six presidential terms of the impact of a justice on the supreme court is quite significant. the court hears -- sees 9000 approximate petitions every year in grants 75 to 80 so only 1% of the opportunities presented to the court actually turn into a supreme court case that is argued. another change that seems to be happening over the last few years is a greater degree of specialization among the lawyers who practice before the supreme court. now there is more solicitors general. there are more arguments by attorneys general as you know. former solicitors general, saw the statistic the other day in the last 10 terms of the supreme court former solicitors general had arguments of 357 cases in just 10 terms. and this term i counted, there has been 56 cases argued so far. in those 56 cases, 40 were argued by persons in the solicitor general's office either as a party or as amicus and 30 former members of the solicitor general's office had arguments, so that is 70 arguments and 58 cases. of course there are two of sometimes three sides because of the court. the average age now is considerably younger than it was before five years ago when those appointments were made. the average age of the justices then was 71. the average age now with 64. aid of eight of the nine justices then had been appellate court, federal appellate court judges. appellate court judges justice o'connor -- the same is true now. eight of the nine are former federal appeals court judges. at the time of brown versus board of education the only one of the members of the court had been a former appellate court judge in the former system. there were two or three senators there was a former head of the fcc and there was a couple of law professors but now it seems to be almost everyone is a former federal judge. there is a remarkable homogeneity on the court. people think about diversity but all nine come from two law schools. six from harvard and ruth ginsburg went to columbia although she did go to harvard. six of the justices went to harvard law school in three went to yale law school. six of them went to ivy league colleges and if you look at the nine resumes, you see harvard, he yale, rinsed and mentioned 13 times. so people are coming from the same place. there are six catholic members of the supreme court now and three jewish members on the supreme court. 50 years ago that was unthinkable. so what has changed enormously. another interesting little statistic is four of the boroughs of new york city are represented on the supreme court [laughter] justice scalia is from queens, justice ginsburg is from brooklyn, joe does -- justice sotomayor is from the bronx and a leg in -- elena kagan is from manhattan. that means the next supreme court justice will be from staten island. we need that diversity. and if you think it is justices, justice is 18 of the 36 courts this year came from harvard or yale. 20 of the 36 clerks on the supreme court this year had previously clerked on the d.c. circuit for the second circuit or got 20 out of the 36 from those two circuits. and 20 of the 36 came from eight specific retro court judges so you will see that the justices and the clerks and the lawmaking in the supreme court is all coming from the same place. as you may like that if you are from harvard or yale and you may not think it is so good if you are from the west coast. three women on the supreme court all from new york city. isn't that amazing? and then one more final fact and i will quit boring you with statistics. the supreme court has issued 22 opinion so far this term. as is sometimes the case earlier in the term, you see these five five-4 decisions at the end of the term and more unanimity because it is easier to write opinions when everybody is in agreement. but it seems to be even more remarkable is here. only 10 dissents, 22 times nine or eight in many cases because justice kagan has been recused in 15 of the 22 but only 10 of 22 cases. all the justices have written two or three opinions for the court except justice thomas. he hasn't written a single one for the court yet this term and here we are in the middle of march so to speak so there are some demographics on the supreme court that tell us a little bit about what the court is in. >> a couple of comments on ted's very interesting statistics. the first is the fact that they for judges to step down and served an average of 28 years, i think is unfortunate. i think five or six presidential terms is too long for a justice to sit. it is a combination of life tenure and his desire to appoint the younger. >> you know you are on c-span so the justices that are their -- [laughter] >> anything critical i would say each of the nine is an exception. [laughter] but i do think appointing a justice at a young age, that is i don't think anybody should have that responsibility that has not yet had his or her first midlife crisis. at least you gain some empathy and understanding for the weaknesses of the human condition more than young people have so i think that is unfortunate. i do think that the narrow range of background on the courts, they tend to be overwhelmingly judicial/academic. professors like ginsburg, kagan, it canady, scalia. we see that pattern. what we don't have on the court since justice o'connor stepped down is any justice who has ever held elected public office, and i think that is quite strikingly different from the brown court which as ted mentioned had three former jena senators and the governor of california who would then the vice presidential nominee on the ticket that was expected to win in 1948 are expected to be -- there were at least three justices on that court, maybe four who were plausible -- my possible presidential contenders. i think sanders o'connor brought that to the court having been a state senator in arizona happening one elected office, having cobble together complicated legislative majorities. so i think it is led to a court that has in my view too little respect for politics. the court thinks more about doctrine and less about workability, so i think in that sense i would like to see whatever party or ideology the breadth of the court expanded. >> justice scalia has actually commented on that in one of his opinions or more of his opinions calling this rule elite, as if we are all coming from the same small law school, new england or northeastern elite and we are passing down the laws for the rest of the country. he commented on that. of course he is part of that culture and so. >> think you wanted to comment reitzig duly honor to jewish justices, justice sotomayor and kagan. they continue a trend with the possible exception of the department of justice alito. every justice that has been named to the court i believe since justice scalia has been a nonactive -- or argument of the justice he or she replaced to the point that it is getting to be a virtual cacophony up there. i'm a hat general roy cooper. the court is asking 60, 70, 80 questions in a single argument setting so there is just a rather extraordinarily intense process of asking questions. i think it is, while lacking in political governmental experience, is extraordinarily sharp intellectually. i doubt if we have ever had a court that is the equal of this one in terms of intellectual firepower across the board. i think ted is shaking his head in agreement with that. i know arguing before justice sotomayor i was arguing a case on behalf of north carolina. justice sotomayor's first term on the court, term before last and arguing against an excellent advocate carter phillips and he had a rebuttal. and he made a point that sounded really good. unless you knew that there is was a response to it, very very deep in the record and i was kicking myself for not anticipating the fact that a skilled advocates like carter would do that in rebuttal. is going to have no opportunity to point out what i thought the flaw in this excellent point was. he is halfway through and justice sotomayor says but in the third counsel to the second appendix -- [laughter] i said whoa this is not with all due respect to north carolina one of the cases that was the headline case of the term and yet she was so down into the weeds in the case. just an example of how extraordinarily well prepared this court seems in people who haven't argued before or seen the court are really stuns to go through a couple of cases that aren't the big cases everybody has been talking about and how extraordinarily well prepared the court is on these matters. justice sotomayor is it very intensive sharp questioner. justice kagan seems to be a very strategic question her. i think she has brought a sort of taking sense of the court's dynamics to bear. when she asks a question it seems to go right to wear the critical decision-making point is going to be in the case. she doesn't us the first questions. that honor usually goes to justices ginsburg or sotomayor but the question she asks is often one picked up by other justices who may be relatively undecided in the case. i want you to go back and finish her answer to justice kagan's question so i think she has shown herself to be, the skill she brought to bear in bringing together a fractured harvard faculty. [laughter] i was skeptical as to whether those would translate very well to the supreme court but i think they may have. >> i was talking to one of her colleagues just last night who said she is is the nature of a already. walter mentioned a number of questions. you said 60, 70, 80, 90. there has been over 130 questions during a one-hour argument so you are talking sometimes two questions per minute and they don't wait for you to finish answering the question. [laughter] they sometimes don't wait for their colleagues to finish asking the question. so it is going full speed and as you all know they are all asking questions except justice thomas who just finished his fifth anniversary without having asked the question and his explanation for that is because i like to hear from a have a good. that is what you are up there for a not that my colleagues show off. [laughter] probably they are asking lots and lots of questions and walter that is absolutely right. each new appointment is for the justice on the court who is more active during questioning. one of the factors might be that now three of those four last justices that argued cases before the court, roberts, alito and kagan of course had argued cases, all three had been in the solicitors general office. i think they plus justice ginsburg argued possibly 63 cases before the court so they have had experiences. they know what it is like. >> you would think they would show more sympathy for their colleagues. seriously, think of the 17 chief justices. john roberts is the first one who comes to that position from a career in which what he did for a living was being one of the best if not the single best advocate before the u.s. supreme court. so he made his mark as a professional, figuring out how to come up with an argument that five justices would agree with and i think that brings them to the chief justiceship within extraordinarily well developed skill set that i think over time will make him an extremely influential chief justice. okay, what are we turn now to some of the cases they work has heard this term and decided. last week the court issued a decision that i know has disturbed a lot of people in the country and it involves a group of people engaging in a very hateful ugly protest at the funeral of a soldier who was slain in iraq and by one vote the court held that these people were shielded from tort liability in a suit brought to the father for the attention of infliction of emotional distress. walter what were the courts thinking there? >> this case involves marine lance corporal snyder who was killed in the line of duty in iraq. his father selected the catholic church in their hometown of westminster, maryland as the site for the sons funeral and the funeral was posted in the papers. this was yet another instance in which the westboro baptist church from topeka kansas picketed and protested at a funeral. they had done this hundreds of times all over the country. their view seems to be that began a is overly tolerant of sin and that god kills american soldiers as they deserve it punishment. signs include, god hates the u.s. and thank god for 9/11, america is doomed. thank god for ieds. thank god for dead soldiers. god hates you and you are going to hell which was a sign that seemed most directed at lance corporal snyder. the family brought an action for various support liability claims including intentional affliction of emotional distress and prevailed in a jury verdict including an 8 million-dollar punitive damage judgment that was remitted to $2 million. the supreme court held that action was hard by the first amendment. the opinion by chief justice roberts. events as the court sense of sympathy for the families. the chief justice says that the record makes clear that the applicable legal term emotional distress fails to capture fully the anguish westborough's choice added to mr. schneider's already incalculable grief, but on the legal question of whether the first amendment prohibits holding westborough liable for its speech in this case, the court held that it did prohibit liability for that speech. a bipartisan group of senators led by mitch mcconnell on the republican side filed in support of the families. one of the major motivations for filing that brief was to try to defend from many collateral damage in this section the federal military funeral statutes that protect, that attempt to protect funerals of our arlington national cemetery and other military funerals from disruption and to try to distinguish that also to side with the family in the case. i think what the case turns on and it is important -- in one instance it is the waning endorsement and the faithfulness of the setting makes the courts first amendment endorsement even more striking, even stronger. it shows chief justice roberts to be firm and a very strong first amendment can't. justice alito once again as he was in the animal brutality case is the outlier who sees more interest in privacy and other concerns than in the first amendment. this was a very strong reaffirmation of first amendment bias. it is possible is also a narrow decision, however. this is a jury tort verdict. and that raises very serious questions if you allow tort verdicts in circumstances such as these. as to whether the punishment will have a lot to do with hostility towards the ideas or positions of the people who are the defendants in the tort case. and that is compared with other kinds of statutory framework make sit of great concern and one of the points that is hard to answer is the point that chief justice roberts made in his opinion where he said that had everything been exactly the same, but the sign said god bless america and god loves you instead of god hates america and god hates you, the defendants would not have been subjected to liability. it was what westborough said that expose it to tort damages so the chief justice use that to show the case turned entirely on the content of what was said. the possibility of a jury of awarding punitive damages can punish not just the interference but whether they agree with the message or disagree with the message being conveyed. what i want to emphasize is i think to those of you is that the court, this is what we hope to do by filing an amicus brief for members of the senate, the court said we are not deciding and not passing on the fluidity of the 44 state statutes which attempt to protect funerals of protest or either of the two federal statutes in question. and i think it might be well to take a careful look at your state statutes and at the court's opinion and to see if there was even a possibility of expanding the statutes. that is, of creating a larger buffer zone than the 100 or 150 seats that is in some of the state statutes which of course you are talking 33, 30 or 35 yards, not very far for a family having a funeral or a time, place and manner. no matter what your message, even if it is god loves the deceased are god hates the deceased. you may not without the permission of the people having the funeral come within that distance. if you think for example, it views as a model the statute in frisby against schultz, some years back where the supreme court upheld a ban on residential picketing an opinion by justice o'connor. a ban on residential picketing that was aimed at a doctor who performed abortions. others have been aimed at public officials picketing outside of their residents. at least picketing in front of a particular individual's house even though it is on a public sidewalk, a public place, that is one of -- because it is not a jury verdict in and it doesn't depend on what the messages. if you look at frisby against schultz and what you can do to poor habits residential picketing i'm not sure why the same for larger considerations would not apply if you are trying to create a neutral time, place or manner, content neutral time placer manner, a persona or whatever beyond funerals, so as a look at some of the statutes i thought, i think they could go further and still passed -- pass muster on first amendment grounds further than they do both in terms of their content and in terms of distances if it is time place and manner so take a look at this and think about whether there is more that might be done to protect a funeral service while allowing whatever messages there are to be expressed at other times and other avenues and other venues in your cities, towns and states. >> i think that is true. in fact the court mentioned that maryland had passed a statute, but it had passed it after these events had taken place so the court wasn't going to consider them. just a couple of other aspects of this case, it was a church but a small group and their basic as this was to draw attention around the country and the people that were protesting were members of the church but it was the founder of the churcd for the grandchildren. that was a. they were utilizing the funeral of the service person to draw attention to their message, so they were appropriating the private act to get their message out and they have been very successful. i saw one of the daughters was on chris wallace's show this sunday. a pretty gruesome thing, but the courts, they were on public property. they were complying with laws. they were a thousand feet away and the bereaved could not see anything other than the tops of the signs, so it is a very fact specific case but it is still significant because it is an 8-1 decision, protecting disgusting, distasteful speech and it was an 8-1 decision a year ago when the supreme court struck down the federal statute prohibiting the distribution of videos or films of cruelty to animals, the crush videos, awful awful stuff 8-1 again written by the chief justice in each case it was justice alito. so the supreme court is making a very strong statement with respect to first amendment rights, and we talked last year about citizens united case, so there is another one where the supreme court, that was much more closely divided that the supreme court is going to be very robust to protect our first amendment rights. >> this will be the last of i think it very compellingly written conclusion to the chief justice's opinion. speeches powerful. can stirred people to action, move into tears of joy and sorrow and as it did here inflict great pain. on the facts before us we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. as a nation we have chosen a different course to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. .. let me turn to the other first amendment case that the court has already heard argument in involving the state's california was very concerned about violent video games children were playing some in which the child actually play the role of torturing someone, reaping someone in the video game itself. the ninth circuit held that law which you need your parents' permission, the store, before they can sell it to the child violates the first amendment so ted, that me ask you this the first amendment gives children the right to obtain without their parents' consent these sort of video games? >> we will see. [laughter] >> i have to disclose a bias, i didn't file the case but i had the entertainment software association on behalf of my client, microsoft in the mid-court for the lawyer did argue the case. and i wasn't able to get to the argument that it sounded like the court is going to be very skeptical of statutes like that. one of the reasons is it is very, very difficult to draft eight and meek lines and be specific. this statute said violent video games had to be labeled as violent and if they were labelled as violent if they couldn't be sold to persons under 18, 17 and lower and violent video games it's very difficult to define what that is in the statute used in connection with pornography and obscenity and the hope by california was that violence in and of a self might be put in the same category as pornography and obscenity isn't entitled to protection. because the violent video games were defined in terms of material which did not have any redeeming social largest scientific historic cultural value, the question is what does or what doesn't and if it doesn't have any cultural value, doesn't have any cultural value to be two-year-old and people under 17 seóul kind of ways in which the statute is very vague. second, the court seems unlikely to sing about violence. it's all around us, it's in the bible, it's in the greek tragedies, kids playing -- blease to play cowboys and indians but he probably can't do that anymore. but that sort of thing, children engage in the second games. they are not expressive activity as i read the briefs california didn't contest the fact that its activity and expressive activity is going to be under the rubric brick of the first amendment. you're not going to be a will to distinguish because they are interactive which these games are. technically all the media is getting to the interactive. we are living in an interactive world. and the concern that the supreme court had in the united states versus stevens case which was the cruelty to animals of video is the same kind of concern i suspect the majority of the court is going to have with respect to this statute. are we going to discourage activity which is whether you like it or not is a part of our society and something that might be protected by the first amendment. >> this case is not about whether you can make or sell these violent video games or what their children can view them or play them if their parents purchase them for them. it's about whether they can be sold to minors. maybe the court got off on the wrong track we back in des moines or something i understand the role of first amendment rights but i don't understand why the state can't say you can't sell anything to a minor without your parents. >> of the supreme court has the same arguments on the internet case a couple of years ago, the ashcroft case, a lot of cases and ashcroft of course but this was the protection of internet protection of children so you'd have to have filters before miners could see disturbing adult material on the internet. the supreme court was concerned about the children but sensitive to the fact parents have some responsibility of what their children are seeing or not, number one, and number to come if you enact a statute that is intended to protect children you are going to inhibit the production of the material can go longer be then sold to adults. >> you're going to say you have to put the word silent on it or you can be punished a thousand dollars every time it might be played or something like that. the penalties were quite draconian. the brief we filed suggested that that is going to cause manufacturers of the games to pull back, produce different games which means they won't have access to them or they will over label them as violent, and that will discourage people's use. it clearly doesn't like the idea that you can produce a game that is handed to 11-year-old with the whole purpose of the game is to torture someone and murder them and to be brutally violent towards them. the court isn't sympathetic to that but is to the ideas and not inhibiting but adults can see. >> to what you say, there was one argument made attacking the law which is parents have to take responsibility for taking care of this problem, not statutes which struck me as an odd argument to make when that is going on that is being, sold to kids behind their parents back and so their parents don't have the option of intervening. but i think the first amendment seems likely here, too. >> why don't we turn to a different part of the amendment, the establishment clause. the court heard one case this term on the issue of church and state. it involved in arizona statute that provided tax credits for people who give money to organizations that provide scholarships from private schools i mean for private organizations that then give scholarships for children who attend private schools including religious schools. and if i haven't muddied that too much what me ask you, walter, to talk about that case and especially the fact that the most important part of the case might not be the underlying merits of the establishment clause but different aspects of it. >> by far the most important part about errors on a christian school organizations versus them is the standing issue and this is a profoundly important issue and one liberals have always been by my life on the wrong side the why march under that banner. this involves a tax credit. individuals get tax credits in the amount to make a contribution to a charitable organization which organization provides scholarships to religious schools and the particular organization will be defined by particular collections. so you can get good tax credits for giving money for scholarships to schools, catholic schools or whatever the religious basis is. and this would raise the question whether it violates the dissolution and calls the question is the challenge is brought by another taxpayer who is affected by this respect the 1960's in which the united states held the taxpayer had standing to challenge a federal expenditure program of aid that included religious schools and a taxpayer had a standing even though they couldn't show his own tax bill is affected at all. this program wouldn't decrease his texas so what is he doing there and i think the iranians theory was that some tiny piece of the tax dollar was finding its way to the university of notre dame or whatever even though a tax bill was affected. i think that was fiction. he had no more stake in the outcome of the controversy than anybody else, and indeed, the money we pay in taxes doesn't get to the federal money. the can print money and spend it. we pay tax money to reduce the amount of inflation. if a tree that can be trusted to figure out a tax bill, take out cash and burnet you wouldn't have to sit and meet -- >> [inaudible] >> that's right. >> i think what is troublesome about it is that the court felt the only way it could result the establishment clause is by making it the case for controversy and finding the standing so they could announce with the right constitutional rule was. i think that turns madison literally upside down. chief justice marshall justified the fact that the court got to rule on the constitution by a very simple device by saying we have a job to do. our job is to decide cases. we have to decide between the plaintiffs versus the defendants, the real case and to do our job would have to apply the law, the carter case is the constitution the law? is it unlike the declaration of independence or the star spangled banner or the pledge of allegiance and they answered yes it was intended to be law. we have to apply it. it takes the other wall to do our job we have to interpret the constitution. nothing special about the black robe. >> by the time we get to cohen and chief justice warren our job would be to ultimate kaput planner of the constitution and we have to do that with regard to every issue and therefore if there's not a case we have to make one up and said they did it backwards. we have a lawsuit order to proclaim the constitution and the would-be useful for the court to say some questions are not for us to decide and that's fine. other institutions of government will in some instances be the final constitution decisionmaker and a useful modesty on the part of the court to understand there's nothing special about their ability to proclaim the constitution. particularly in the court that is too seldom differential to the constitutional role of congress order of the president to say to themselves look we get to be that programmers only because we have a job to do in resolving the disputes and she doesn't like this law that she is challenging. she's got no stake in this case and this case ought to be dismissed it >> i think you make very good points although it is true justice marshall also medicine decided the law that gave the distinction to the case was unconstitutional so he performed a little magic himself. the unconstitutional statute allows me to decide the unconstitutional statute is unconstitutional. but i did here in a recent case i had a judge lets just say in a federal circuit talking about the standing issues the supreme court is making up all these standing things preventing judges from deciding cases. preventing us from deciding what call is and i don't know why the supreme court is inventing all of this to keep us from doing what we want to do which is to decide whether things are constitutional or not. >> i'm guinn to be ruling that the designated rule is unconstitutional. [laughter] >> let's turn completely and looking a little of criminal law. the court has served cases, to confrontation clause and a miranda case so an act to amend the criminal procedure. the one the courts decide so far as the confrontation case on the michigan versus bryant. ted, here to talk about that? >> i want to talk about it just to make one point about the dynamics of the court which i think is kind of interesting. it's not a big specialty into law but it's quite active in the recent years because justice scalia particularly feels the right in the constitution to confront the witnesses against one in the sixth amendment means what it says if you can't have someone coming into court we aren't coming into court and giving testimony to someone so now this case comes to the court and the situation was that there had been a person who was calling from was at a filling station mortally wounded. he was still alive when the police got there and fight for six police officers questioned him and during the course of the questioning he said rick did it and that testimony or the statement was used against the defendant, the person, the victim was dead by this time and that statement to the police officer was used as getting the conviction. and there was a testimonial statement that would be prohibited from use against the defendant with the witness wasn't there and the court cannot the other way this time. the second newest justice, justice sotomayor wrote the opinion and was six to two, justice scalia and justice ginsburg and the purpose for which the statement was elicited the person who shot the sky was still on the loose and a dangerous situation and the public from someone who was out there with the gun during the violence, they were not doing that to get evidence to put the guy in jail said the purpose for the interrogation was a testimonial purpose is it was safety purposes. justice scalia went completely ballistic and now he is a writer as i think you know he doesn't hold back and he didn't hold back. he was being strangled by the spread of justice even though the brand new justice had five other votes with her on the finger and so i wanted to read i think it's kind of fun just decided some of the language on which justice scalia would use in an opinion and get away with it and still be friends the next day i hope. >> today's tale which is the condition of the police case is so transparently false and professing to be the that to mean this institution in its attempt to make the incredible plausible perhaps as an intended second goal today's opinion distorts the confrontation to the spartans and we sit in a shambles and this is perhaps intended second goal. in other words, you are intending to wreck everything i wrote in the confrontation clause. you're not going to stand for it. he said instead of clarifying the law the court makes itself the obfuscate of last resort. [laughter] then if you haven't had enough that is just the first few pages. [laughter] he says these things, the court wrings its hands of the only virtual if it can be misnamed a virtue a final word about the court's active imagination the court in vince the world and were used the court's opinion he says is dystopian and then he puts a foot note defining of opposite of utopian in case the jury didn't know what he was talking about. [laughter] he says it presents a distorted view, and in field of view and offers a revisionist , for the emergency, discredited logic, patently false, misunderstands the road map, 1,000 on principled distinction, but could he leave out? after coke in the decision he finally says short on the facts its short on wall. so i don't know. sorted said don't do this to me again. >> your view if he disagrees. [laughter] it's a very interesting dynamic. actually justice thomas concurs in the results of the five including justice sotomayor in the five person majority. what's interesting about this issue is the way the court breaks down. there's a part here you don't normally think of as liberal or conservative or anything like that, but it's between legalistic and pragmatist. it goes back the same term is crawford, the seam split. the cases involving the sentencing guidelines between the justices who thought it was an unconstitutional to give judges the capacity to make the findings not made by attorney that enhance the degree of the that invaded the province of the journey as opposed to the defending justices who said this colin system doesn't work if everything has to be decided by jury. forget what they thought in 1791 or what they were giving in england in 1412. this isn't a workable system. that group was led by black. here's the breakdown in the cases. the majority to overturn the criminal convictions were overturned the adverse for the criminal defendant, they were the conservative lists scalia and thomas and three liberal legal lists, stephen souter and ginsburg and then the defendants in the cases. she's justice rehnquist, justice o'connor, justice kennedy and justice breyer. and it's interesting to see how that plays out. chief justice roberts and justice alito has taken the pragmatist's seat formerly held by rehnquist and o'connor said the protest group remains, kennedy, breyer, roberts and alito. what has happened to squeeze a's majority in this case is that he's still got his justice thomas who concurs especially in this case. >> on the same base in these other ones. >> but the -- what he has lost his souter and replaced by a former prosecutor. justice sotomayor and this is the first time my the we've seen what may be a switch and not come perhaps thomas would have made it inevitable in any event. but you see the first switch of the replacement of sotomayor moving and coming out with a pragmatic wall enforcement result partly as a result of sotomayor coming in. >> you are absolutely right. one thing justice scalia said is when he said of the one virtue that can be called a virtue, misnamed a virtue is it makes us easy to decide the way that we would like to. what makes it easy to come out of the way we think it's fair and that is what you're saying. >> let me turn to a different topic. i read in the paper recently it appears some states are challenging the health care law. [laughter] one day this might think the supreme court. i guess the question for both of you is when do you think will make the court and what are your thoughts on what the court will do with it once it gets there? >> when will be decided by the supreme court is likely but not certain. it's possible it wouldn't go to this record if the court feels he formally upheld it. they struck down a major act of congress and the supreme court would have taken obviously. uniform among the circuits it's possible they might not but i think at this point the expectations are such the justices will answer it. that means i think we can probably identify with some decision of exactly when it will be resolved and the will be the last week in june of 2012. and i say that because the case is well assuming the arguments in april and may in the circuit that would mean i think a decision of the circuits before they break and lose their set of clerks in august and the decisions than which means they filed in the fall and would go on the argument calendar. it doesn't matter, jennifer come federick, march because the court will spend the rest of the term. the decision will not be unanimous so there will be back-and-forth with the majority opinions. up until the very end which means the last week in june of 2012. there is nothing magic about that being a prediction. i'm going to make a prediction in front of all of you and come back here. not only will the court uphold it on the don't think it is going to be as close as people think. itt could think chief justice roberts will confine the opinion to himself and. one of the reasons i think that is i can't see the chief justice adopting a constitutional position that 20 or 40 years the application of the commerce power and i think there are easy answers to the slippery slope problem. so to quickly take those two. one of that is not so shockingly intrusive it seems less intrusive than medicare and social security which are done under the tax and the general welfare but just in terms of anything shocking about it, when you leave your place in the world and go to work in the economy only then does the federal income tax, your taxable income above 18,000 for a couple, then the penalty will apply if you don't have coverage so you have to go to the economy and when you go to work you find out the federal government has financial decisions on you. one is 10.5%, 15 if you're self-employed, you have to pay to take care of your old age assistance of the special secure program. you have to pay to take care of your health care after you're 65 and 2.5% you have to pay if you don't maintain insurance coverage model you are under 65. nobody is going to look at that and say my god, this third one mean's there's nothing left in america that this third one is in that sense it seems less intrusive in that unlike social security and medicare you have a greater choice. you get to choose among the private market, the single-payer medicare proposal has always been the more liberal proposal, the more government takeover than the market approach. >> i don't have any trouble with the limited principal. i.t. to concede that the congress -- it's not so much the regulation of inactivity is an affirmative obligation. in the affirmative obligation is the regulation and activity when the congress in 1792 required everybody to purchase a gun, ammunition and a knapsack nobody said my god this regulation activity. the set know they are using the militia power to the obligation. the same thing with other affirmative obligations like the schools inoculation etc. it's an affirmative obligation to the affirmative obligation where you might want a stronger justification to use the commerce power and to disassembly to the economy and create three products. but unless there's a special justification here is quite simple. congress creates a disincentive to purchase a product when it's a product that's related to a service no one can be assured they won't use and where the cost of acquiring it is going to be transferred to other persons and you put the statistics on the table. 94% of the long-term unemployed have used the health care system. one third of the overall medical cost of the uninsured are paid by the uninsured and themselves and the effort to or transferred to other people. if hospitalization costs, the uninsured pay 10% and 90% is transferred to other people who are sick or the taxpayer. that means it is to we different from any other part of the yellow pages where none of that is true and a flat screen television, could they have a flat screen television ad? no coming and you know what's different? amazingly it seems like they might make final and i've been so that they haven't put aside money for a flat screen television i don't get to watch and say you have to give me a flat screen tv and transfer the cost to others. there's nothing like the emergency medical treatment act. there is no flat screen emergency that requires you a flat screen television and make other people pay the cost of it. if there were you could see congress needs to put a stop to this by giving people an incentive to buy their flat screen television at that time. we let people die emotionally because they can't watch their team on a flat screen television. and we are unwilling to do that with health care and this financial incentive claims to be the distinguishable and where i think let me put it on the principle since chief justice roberts will write the opinion what will we with the argument when i testified before the house 17 members said if the supreme court upholds this there are no limits and congress can do anything it wants to read my reaction is that's right. if the court upholds it the congress can do anything it wants if the opinion says we are not holding it until the following principal. noeth limits anymore. [laughter] but there is no chance whatsoever that is an opinion. they would instead emphasize what is unique about the health care market, its role in the economy and the cost shifting that goes on that creates the incentive to suggest resort to the private market. >> you had me going until you got to the flat screen part. [laughter] >> i did here right before that he said and you heard it here on television walter dellinger said it would be okay for congress to require people to buy guns so they could defend themselves so the government wouldn't have to pay for police departments, pay less for police departments because you defend your own homes and you have to go out and buy a gun. walter said that so we will have one of those bills pending in congress. [laughter] the other one we will have his -- since we need to have energy independence and one of the way some people say is to have lots of electric cars. you can't have a lot of electric cars a musters a lot of places to plug those in every time you go 40 miles or wherever it is. so we are going to require in order to help energy independence and its commerce and in the best interest of the united states and so forth the next car you buy has to be in the electric car because there's a lot of people out there with electric cars and there will be a lot of people where you can plug them in. i'm offering another argument that there has got to be some limit to what the congress can compel you to do for the general welfare. now, i know you have a rebuttal but we are also running short on time. [laughter] i'm going to do what carter philips did to you. [laughter] >> one more thing i'd walter is probably right about timing of this unless the court is convinced on the petition of the circuit court judgment to skip over the intermediate courts because 26 states are saying to the supreme court we've got to know, we have to do planning. some states have legislature's every two years. we have to planning for this. congress has to plan for this. to have to resolve that is a significant challenge to a major significant act of congress so let's get it over with you don't need a lot of the advisory opinions from the circuit courts so let's jump ahead of it. and it does come up and it decided in june of 2012. think of what fun that is going to be in a presidential election, the supreme court does or doesn't strike down the health care law so many people are concerned about and lots of people do not like. so in june of 2012 we will have a really terrific presidential election. [laughter] >> whittled we open up to questions. we have a few more minutes if anyone wants to say hello to walter. >> dewey of microphones or should we repeat the questions? >> do we have any questions? [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> you know, the question is say in the fourth or the sixth or other places delete including the supreme court, mauney hentges is the judges would be hesitant because they know they would be slowing it down and if any one circuit avoids the review that is the case that will go up. i think sometimes they ordered the review before the argument before the path and that is certainly possible here. i think it's possible to say if they would have review but we are on track for the next term of the court. i don't think the jump over the court of appeals. i hope not. this could use some ventilation and the fact is the provision being challenged and it's not going into affect on till 2014. >> i was uncertain whether mr. olson replied to mr. dellinger's observation of what he thought the commerce clause interpretation would be in the court or whether he is silent on the topic. what is your opinion as to what the court will do with the commerce clause questioned? >> i haven't studied it and i don't know. i really have to say i do not know. i think there are good arguments and the have been expressed by walter. there are also good arguments on the cover site. if there is no question this is commerce but that doesn't mean that you can do anything in connection with commerce. and i was trying to make the point that the idea of compelling someone -- if the government had decided to call this a tax and use the taxing mechanism, yes, it could tax everybody in the united states for medical cost. there's no question about that, but the administration insisted it wasn't a tax and that language will come back to the arguments, and instead they did it this other way. sometimes when you do something then you can do lawfully into it some other way for political purposes because you don't want the american public to think they are getting the tax you are going to go around it by forcing people to purchase something that they may not need, many people don't need to buy insurance. and it's not like the insurance that you require year when there's a condition to getting the driver's license and getting out and driving a car on the road you're out there. i make the argument like i did that you have coming back to with respect to the electric car or the gums. there is some limit on what congress can compel you to do when it could do it willfully another way and i think that as a necessary and proper clause doesn't get you there if you can't do it under the commerce clause. >> the argument got complicated by the fact it had been called the attacks throughout the legislative process. they believe to the changed that tax penalty. and what the president said was it's not a tax increase. people should have insurance, it's the incentive, it's not a tax increase but they did change the word. it remains for the internal revenue code it remains a penalty that runs from $95 to as high as 2.5% of the gross adjusted income capped by the amount that insurance would cost so while even if you couldn't justify the tax the fact remains it is about economics. so unlike the law involving u.s. versus lopez that is where the congress is trying to do your job of dealing with the local crime by guns in schools or violence against women and where the court was concerned about using the effect on the national economy from that education or barriers to entering the workforce to matters that were not economic and those were off to one site and that this is a financial penalty and black helicopters don't come and people don't force march you get the bayonet point to the insurance agent it is all economic. it is not local, and that those naked. the argument from the parade which can be cut off and distinguished are always made on the issue whether you have jurisdiction to legislate. so if they get $5 an hour the this is the regulation of commerce. the regulation of commerce to say $5,000 an hour this is true. in the social security takes the argument to the supreme court, council said it thickens at the retirement age 65 and require everybody under that to support it they can save 25 or 40. that is the nature of the jurisdiction. every state has jurisdiction to legislate and to require everybody jurisdiction merely 19 times a day. that is the fact that having jurisdiction. the question is whether it is within the scope of a regulation of commerce and you need a limiting principal i think the court is going to have an easy time coming up with one. >> what scared me. [laughter] >> on that note it's unfortunate we have to wrap this up. we are going to meet debt to:15 at our regular meeting room. i want to thank the panelists for a very interesting discussion. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] the chairman of the house armed services committee today criticized the obama administration's recent to executive order on guantanamo bay detainee's. congressman mckeon said members are concerned about the section granting review for the detainee is subject to long term detention. he talked to reporters of the capitol for about 25 minutes. >> good afternoon. >> i am buck mckeon from california 25th district. is this on? can you hear me? >> and i gathered here today by several members of the armed services committee to discuss our belief that a careful and comprehensive plan is needed for dealing with the law of the war detention for terrorists. while we are not going to detain our way out of the threats we face, the detention is the critical tool necessary to neutralize terrorists and obtain valuable intelligence. previously been on president obama's speech at the national archives in may of 2009 he made a commitment to come together and create a path for work with congress. unfortunately, that has not happened. instead of the white house did exactly the opposite yesterday by emphasizing executive authority and a leveling significant criticism towards congress and calling our actions dangerous. we have seen this before. what i believe is dangerous are terrorists who wish to harm the united states. we have serious concerns about the substance of president obama's sanction order creating the new procedure for the guantanamo detainees. mr. rooney will concern these concerns in further detail. yesterday president obama also announced the resumption of military commissions at guantanamo. this is an important step to moving forward with of the law we focused instead of prioritizing law enforcement. however noted yesterday was any reference to the disposition of the 9/11 case. tomorrow or shortly we will be introducing legislation to deal with the most significant problems raised by the executive order and other detainee issues. in the days ahead we are going to be working closely with ranking member smith and other republican and democratic members to make this a bipartisan fix. my colleagues are going to talk about the various aspects of the book is the asian that we will be introducing, stockley and the concerns we share and then we will take questions. first we will hear from mr. thornberry then mr. forbes, mr. wittman, mr. schilling and mr. griffin. >> thornberry thornberry from the 14th district of kent texas. our time has come to deal with a lot of these issues straight on, not put a band-aid over at cannot give a wink and a nod and do one thing and say another but to deal with them head-on. one of the issues is the authorization for the use of force which as you recall was passed by congress in september, 2001, and focused on those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. as a part of what the bill does is to recognize the world has changed some in the last ten years. but as we have put more pressure on al qaeda central than the various offshoots and affiliate's have sprouted out in various places around the world, and this bill makes it clear that we are engaged in a continuing armed conflict and the president has authorized to detain those who are a part of or are supporting al qaeda, taliban come and associated force is engaged in hostilities against the united states. this approach is along the lines that both bush and obama administration had actually been pursuing this approach is along the lines of the d.c. circuit court opinions. but we think it's important to put into law and make it clear and that is what this legislation will do. >> ayn rand the forbes from the virginias fourth congressional district. as the chairman mr. thornberry said this piece of legislation is important because it's time that we move on. one of the things the executive order mr. president has issued shows us is the difficulty we have when we introduce politics and the national security and also it showed the importance of having a consistency when we are dealing with guantanamo. when the president issued his first executive order it didn't just delete the action so we could think about it in contemplating but one of the serious effects it had is if you went down to guantanamo and talk to the chief prosecutor, he had one of the best teams this country had ever seen to prosecute the worst terrorists that ever hit the united states to defend the 9/11 terrorist attacks. the prosecutor told us and would have told the president, would have told mr. holder he had been working for over 18 months, through 50 different motions and hearings and court and would have had guilty pleas according to him from all of the defendants within six months. that order that was issued in january before anyone went down and inspected the situation not only stopped the prosecution but it dismantled all of the teams that had been put together and dismantle all of the motions that had taken place, all of the prosecution that had taken place since that time so not only did we lose 18 months of prosecuting the worst terrorist this country had ever seen but we have now been delayed from that time until today with no decision. we think it's important we have this piece of legislation to send a clear message to the administration and terrorists across the world we are going to prosecute these matters, we are going to prosecute them efficiently and it's time we move on and get the job done. >> i'm representing the virginia first district and in addition to some of the concerns you heard here, there are a number of concerns about the threats that the detainees place when the reader transferred to another country or supposed to be transferred to place is here and the united states and we know we are dealing with new and emerging threats from terrorists around the bold but the concern is how are we dealing with the transfer of the current detainee's? our legislation would prohibit those detainees from being transferred to the united states and put that into law but also what would do is permanently limit transfers to other countries of the security issues that those countries can demonstrate that they would put in place if they were to receive the detainees. we want to make sure that they don't end up back in the battlefield and that's some of the concern as you look at recidivism and how we are dealing with that issue this would define how we address that and make sure those countries we might have agreements with to transfer are not places can drag the government through endless litigation during this time of war. our legislation allows detainee's to have a personal representative for periodic reviews and that is consistent with the geneva conventions and our current handling of the detainees and afghanistan. we also have several concerns that the role of the department of justice, our military and intelligence community, not the department justice should be leading the wall of the detention and intelligence gathering efforts. the department of justice should not be involved in determining the national to security threat and in individual poses to the united states or the potential intelligence value. our legislation provides a panel of military officers with expertise in operation intelligence and counter terrorism to make our related to the law of the war detention. i also mentioned a former member of the army jag cord as well as my colleague here. we have an amazing group of people as was mentioned sort of earlier that represent military legal community. and that's both prosecutors and defense. and one of the things hopefully we can come away with today is the rule of law and due process would have the utmost respect and due diligence when it comes to the men and women who wear the uniform but also swear to uphold to defend the constitution and the rule of law so thank you very much. [applause] >> lenni ms. body schilling and i represent the 17th district that borders the thompson prison facility. first i would like to thank chairman mckeon for putting together the congressional task force on gitmo. as was mentioned the president took unilateral action without proposing congress how to deal with the remaining terrorists to gitmo. i find this totally unacceptable. and first of all, but i really want to do is think the american people for the votes that allow us some 87 new freshmen to become members of congress and basically ensure gitmo will remain closed to the terrorists and then also we make sure we handle these through the military tribunals. i'm working with chairman mckeon to introduce the legislation double handle the detainee's and stop funding the construction or modification of any facilities inside the united states to house the gitmo detainee's to read and other words the legislation would need no detainee's and thompson illinois or anywhere on the united states, its territories or possessions except in guantanamo bay. i visited gitmo and it's a pretty nice facility. there's always one of the things i asked during the campaign is the fact that number one, why are we closing gitmo and will that make america any safer by bringing some of the world's most terrible people here. i was unable to get a response to that but i am confident that this bill will ensure the terrorists be dealt with in the best interest of the united states. >> thank you. >> tim griffin from arkansas, too. i am currently serving as a jag officer in the army reserve. i do not speak for the army today but i speak in favor of this legislation. the critical part of what is going on down at gitmo and in the war detention is not just to detain the individuals but to collect intelligence, intelligence that can help keep america safe. and the criminal justice system does not allow us to fully attain the intelligence we might gather from the intelligence procedures under law of war. this legislation will require military cuts to the individuals who can be detained under the law of the war to make sure that we are getting the information that we need to keep americans safe. obviously the threats we are facing today have no borders. we are at war. we must continue to take the fight to the enemy overseas wherever we may find them. but as we have seen, the enemy is trying invest to get to us here in the united states. we need to be prepared for that and our legislation is a recognition and first step and we prioritizing the intelligence gathering over traditional law enforcement. that is a distinction. we've included a waiver in this legislation that allows a secretary of defense to determine that someone could be held under the law of the war and should go into the criminal-justice system. but in the default is these individuals should be brought into a system where the law of war government and military custody, and being in military custody will allow for continuous comprehensive intelligence gathering. they won't have to immediately go to a judge for example and they would have to and the civilian or criminal-justice world they don't get the mayor and -- miranda rights read to them. recognizes the difference between war and evidence gathering on the streets of an american city. thank you. .. when you talk about china and detainees in the united states versus in a military commission down at guantánamo and you do with issues of evidence gathering, discovery and whether or not jurisdiction would've passed down the full onset of the comp additional rate that we all enjoy versus where they are now in cuba becomes an issue of potentially three international security and that we are all accustomed to being able to contradict evidence brought against us to face their accusers. oftentimes, the evidence that the accuser cannot be refilled due to national security issues. and to bring into new york city or any other american city would've been a constitutional right which would throw them out of the window and probably run into sources and agents and evidence gathering may be called into question. with military commissions come you are able to guarantee full due process about the same safeguards we enjoy here. >> can imagine the way for? have you been in touch with anyone at the pentagon are the administration? >> not in detail. but we have talked to them. >> to the timetable for when you want to do this? is there any coordination with the fiduciary or intelligence? >> it would be under our jurisdiction in our timeline -- it's going to be pretty busy. we are scheduled to have it go on the floor in may, so probably it will become whether rejoice as a freestanding bill or roll it into the past authorization bill. one way or another, we'll get it for sure. >> you are going to have a profession that would transfer release detainees to other foreign countries unless the secretary of defense in the host country meet certain criteria. just wondering what those are. what are you looking for? >> well, we've been very concerned with detainees and the recidivism rates are very high. we would want to have guarantees that they would keep them safe and provide them the same kind of humane treatment they get at guantánamo. but at the same time on the limit them from having access to the battlefield and come right back and start shooting us. yes. >> do you know anything about the president's timing and orders about radical islam? >> it has nothing to do with congressman king series. we were hearing about the executive order for quite a while and we wanted to wait and see what they finally did. i wrote a letter to the president asking him to not do it, to work with us. he chose to go that route. >> i'm asking, with their executive order at all times? >> from a ca can. it has nothing to do with representing king's hearings. it is tagged -- we had heard that one was going to be given. we had written to him, asking him if it to work with us. he chose to go the executive order out and we've been ready to go with this. so when he did that come a lot to move forward with our alternative. our alternative is the bill. >> you can note the timing is -- [inaudible] >> does anybody have any thoughts? >> we've been hearing about this executive order forthcoming since the middle of january. [inaudible] >> it is very difficult to determine whether untruths somebody else is saying. [inaudible] have you done so? what are your plans -- [inaudible] >> we were very heard to keep the committee bipartisan in nature, focusing everything we do. and we have talked to the democrats about this. our staff is tagged -- i've talked to represent smith and will continue to work. my kids that can we've heard the executive order is forthcoming. he chose yesterday to release a inattentiveness different timetable little bit. [inaudible] -- have you heard from them at all? >> yeah, yeah. i have met and talked to representative smith, the ranking member. he is aware of overdoing. think of the legislation for three weeks. and so, it is not something we were trying to blindside them with. i understand how politics works. even though we are bipartisan, the president is the other party and the other side is the same party. so i think they would be reflecting to jump out and say hey, let's go full bore against the president. it will take time and will work through the us. that's what we believe in. >> it's important to note that lashes the authorization bill focusing on guantánamo bay felt overwhelming support to the republicans and democrats and the chairman of the armed services committee stood on the floor inside that when it comes to terrorists, there is no difference between the republicans and democrats, but we certainly expect it will continue and respond to your questions about the article recourse, it's very difficult to travel in the united states. so we think they will be a huge number of democrats in the legislation. >> last question, please. >> about libya, do you think the state should engage in an inner circle to persuade them to resist the opposition? >> would you like me to second-guess the president? is that what you're asking? [inaudible] [laughter] >> i don't think we'll engage them out at this time. the detainees, let the president is doing a great job of doing nothing. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> pirates operating in the indian ocean caused shipping five to $7 billion here according to u.n. estimates. maritime experts with the u.s. navy, the coast guard and the royal canadian navy discussed the problem in washington d.c. the navy league of the united states hosted this hour-long discussion. >> good morning, everybody. my name is tim wittman. this is a very hot topic of interesting topic and i'm sure one of interesting debates as well for you all. first of all, i'd like to give you brief instruction. we are the largest independent income in the u.k. that operates around the world now as well. within our business we have a growing portfolio of international defense and security events and conferences. a lot of it is dhs i peered this takes place in alternate years and is the world's largest fully integrated tri-service event covering land, sea, air and increasingly security. we are now just seven months away from 2011 which will be held for 13 to the 16th of september in london. we've got a host of new exciting developments of the show they were introducing this year and many of them have a u.s. focus from the u.s. forces in the u.s. experts as well. so i think there'll be a price for those after the event. after the session, we'll be here to answer any specific questions on that as my american colleague, doug schilling in the back of the room now. i'd also like to thank our cosponsors. the navy league is a nonprofit organization with more than 50,000 members spread across 250 councils worldwide. since its founding in 1992, maybe the commission has been to educate the american people and leaders with the powder to a -- and to support the sea services. every much appreciate the full support today. i appreciate dan branch of the national executive director for their contributions for helping pull this together. but now for the core of today's event. the united nations estimates that the indian ocean piracy cost between five and $7 billion annually and though there are only a few attacks to make the news, they still occur on the basis with deaths of four american hostages. they are increasingly resilient, bold and at that give him a refining tactics by implementing triton exercises, increasing manpower, driven recruitment. and the real question is, how can the global community needs this evolving threat as the attacks expand beyond the horn of africa and the ransom demand increase exponentially. i was like in numbers of matches $230 million in 2010, which is roughly about $5.5 million per share. we've assembled a panel of. so please be prepared to. we will for them to you now. first of all khmer rear admiral terrance mcknight. he has commanded ships of the u.s. navy as follows multiple assignments, and at the office of secretary of defense. assistant secretary of the navy and undersecretary of the navy. he assumed his duties as commander, expedition i strike group two in 2007. also, waddell join joined the real canadian in 1990 with nato come united nations and the other coalition forces. he is committed to canadian ships and more recently served as combat officer in the third. he now serves as director of maritime structure for the royal canadian navy. on the left, captain alexander martin as executive officer to force the first marine expeditionary force. after three tours in iraq on the served with the marine expeditionary unit and worked in the middle eastern security forces on maritime assaults. last september, captain martin that his unit for michelin star in the gulf of aden, resulting in the apprehension of may finale entirely in to the rescue of 11 hostages. also, here is what we have assistant commander for marine safety security and stewardship in may 2010. he is responsible for developing and promulgating national safety, security and environmental protection doctrine policy as well as the federal government and its maritime partners. first of all, would like to hear briefly from each of the panelists before we take questions today. first of all, canasta terrance mcknight for brief introduction. in my thank thank you for havine here today and thanks for the navy league to have this event. i just want a little background. i spent a combined task force 151 and january 2009. and this was, as a result of the increased piracy and the goals of aden. the united states navy decided we had to come out in the forefront and so i got a call from admiral who said stan of the task force. that was the good news. we set up a task force that that time with the coalition i had myself on the uss antonio. i do british ship and its initiative. and both ships were definitely well-prepared for the d. tauro operations we face. two things that were significant about his, first of all, it was a coalition task force. i mean, we go in the modern world today and hear a lot of complaints that we fight with the united states is the master seapower. but we were not there is a task force. and today when i talk about it, i said it's a microcosm of what admirable that is the 1000 ship navy. we've got anywhere from 25 to 30 nations that are out there right now fighting piracy. the other significant thing is the united nation is firmly behind it. they were to u.n. security resolutions, 1846 that basically said it gave us all the necessary means to fight piracy in the somali baseman. and also, resolution 1851, which the pullers alexa piracy. this is pretty significant. we have a coalition of the willing and we also have the united nations firmly behind it. so it's pretty significant that these task force are out there and they're fighting the pirate in doing a pretty significant job. a lot's been in the price in the last couple weeks saying that the task force were ineffective. i think you need to first combat can see there are two significant things i'm not that you have to realize. the eerie yet it self is 1.1 million square miles of ocean. that's three times the size of the gulf of mexico. so we say if we have 25 warships out there and you can do the math and say that their ineffective, it is kind of like saying there is crime in washington d.c. in the d.c. police department is not effective. they are very effective out there. it's just a vast ocean. and now they've expanded to the indian ocean, it compounds the problem significantly. so i think the task forces are very effective out there and doing a great job. the other thing i just like to say is the maritime community has also taken significant responsibility out there. and some of the things that they done to deter piracy, whether it's increase the standard transit lane and basically take on the responsibility to combat the pirates. lastly, the thing everybody asks is how to resolve the problem? well, as sure as we can go into somalia and basically start wiping out people there, but who are the pirates? each of them don't have the patch on her i can stand up and say my pirate. one day these are pirates of the next either smuggling drugs or they could be smuggling people. so it's a very complicated problem. the big issue that was addressed is the legal system. when i was out there, we captured anywhere between 30 and 50 suspected pirates, but we had very little opportunity to get prosecuted. if they were going after u.s.-led vessel like in alabama, it's clear the u.s.a. jurisdiction. when you go into a situation for a pirate attacks a panamanian flagged vessel in u.s. stamps the piracy and says it goes back to the nationstate is doing to prosecute them? most of the time they say we just don't want to deal with it. so if the dot pitch in car. so it's a very complicated issue cannot be put to take on your questions after the rest of the panelists speak. >> thank you very much. what a number of points raised already on this complex issue. >> sure, thanks, tim. i certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here today to provide perhaps an international perspective, but a number of key things that the admiral has just indicated. the importance of the coalition by humans, the coalition of bringing the capabilities of several nations abroad in tackling a truly international problem that is piracy and affects all of us. you might think it's a foreign issue. it's on the other side of the planet, so it shouldn't affect dispute the fact of the matter is 90% of all trade occurs by ciba significant importance community not only canada for the u.s. are in deep economy. the problem that occurs abroad affects all of us here at home. the importance of deploying forces to try and deal with the problem. one of the things that we of course know if that was in dealing with the problem, it is expanding at the same time as the admiral was just indicating. it spread across the entire indian ocean, read it to the shoreline with india. we've seen significant spikes in some of the attacks in originally in the gulf of aden, the violent indian ocean now. we cannot put enough assets, enough hard power or ships at that problem when you're talking about the sheer geography and the sheer scale of the operating area the pirates are weakening. certainly some of the adaptive techniques, where we are looking at taking on motherships to take cargo and use them to advantage. it allows them persistence, further distance of the shore in less than the opportunity to not only use that platform to extend the range, to extend the capabilities, but they also sometimes used the crew to assist in some of their future attacks. we've seen a real change in some type dixson procedures. when i went over to the gulf of aden in the fall of 2009, november, i joined nato as the standing tasker. there are three principal western groups operating in the counter piracy campaign. nato is standing at maritime group one as one of the test groups. the e.u. has a force of well and one of the subjects of combined maritime forces in ct at math -- as the admiral is quite aware. that is the principle really national test groups operate in the area to try to do with piracy problem. at the same time, there's a number of any plant players that just depend on to japan, korea russia, china are working together to do with the problem. the deep with more subtle mandate. certainly whether they are escorting convoys to the goal for wegener protecting our national shipping. these are some strategies they are employing. i noted when we were operating there is despite national mandates, despite a few different approaches to how to do with the problem, the crux of the issue is that wanted to do something about piracy. so what we found if everybody was working together to share information, to exchange bits of information that might prove useful to locating pirate action groups to try to do with the problem in the shared responsibility i found a very construct development while we were connecting our work over there. just wanted to put a little vignettes and kind of give you a sense of how we dealt with certain issues they are. and i know that we've got a bit of a strategic overlay any sense of the operational environment. or to put yourself into my position as the ship's captain and it's just the men's geography. and you're trying to reassure the shipping community that is obviously quite concerned about the problem. you can hear it every time they call on the radio. they see something suspicious. they looking for support, looking for the voice on the end of the radio to say we are here and doing our best to reassure you, to suppress any tracks the piracy. time and again, we would tear the jittery voice of the ship's captain full of fear, thinking that something was owing to happen. i recall one night where we heard the captain coming across thing i see something suspicious. we immediately got on the radio to tell them we are on our way. and clearly what came to me was to hear the apprehension and as for his first to admit to hear the relief in his voice once we arrived in and to do what we could. in fact there were three in his vicinity that once we arrived he took off into the night. and his appreciation for the fact there was a naval force there, doing what we could do to try to suppress the facts before they could get on board and take a ship. so i found that time and again, that reassurance of legitimate mariners, those who want to use and need to use the, deceive, to make sure we can transfer cargo to keep our livelihood in place, to keep commerce moving. it's a legitimate use that's important in the reinsurance we provided by dealing with the problem that c. because ultimately other will do what we cannot see, the problem is going to be solved to shore. until time occurs in the were going to be finding ourselves in a position to continue to do our best asset pricing acts of paris you. >> thank you very much. again, it's a good mix of the operation and strategic policy there. it's my operational colleague here. >> thank you for having me from a tactical date. i suppose the small unit to pressure can or piracy operations. i'll just begin our marks with september 2010, a remarkable day, not because the magellan star was recaptured. that's what we're trained to do with the navy and marine corps and all of our elements in the 15th marine expeditionary unit. it was a remarkable day because simultaneous need the 15th neo and the pillar was conducting operations across the theater. and that day there were people arrested in pakistan, bomb strapped on television enduring freedom and the hostage rest do. so that is a remarkable commentary on what the navy and marine corps is doing in the importance of maritime influence i did see. it's a truly remarkable day. our role to force reconnaissance was to provide the 15th with an assault on the to the maritime reports. so my bro and that is a sickly of a bunch of talented individuals that they work for and i stay out of the of the way and let them do their job and that's basically what it comes down to a name on the radio telling that path all the good work they're doing. we were the proof of concept for the marine corps in 2008 from the commandant directed we stand up in maritime raid force and get back of search and seizure that distributed operations at sea. so we were that element. may 2010 we deployed the 15th neo and conducted training operations throughout the pacific southwest and southeast asia in maritime assaults basically preparing for further coalition navies how to conduct the assault on these vessels. on the eighth of september, we had left task force 152 the week prior, which is the task force in the arabian gulf and we'd come into task force 151, which is what the admiral stood up down there. we're basically conducting convoy operations for the internationally recognized transit corridor. a couple days prior, monsoon season that ended and the only way i can describe it to you as the skipper their mention is it's kind of an eerie feeling. if you like you're in a bad neighborhood and i think you'd agree with that feeling. there's just a sense about what the goal for wegener site. a day later, the magellan star and another motor vessel were simultaneously pirated and i was on the eighth of september. we were conduct dean aspirate operations, uss princeton was on scene as well as the turkish flagship who had just assumed command of task force one to one and it was sort of a perfect storm of events in that we had the task force commander on them. we had the u.s. princeton, in the dubuque, which was uniquely task organized to consult and pose little. so that the capability that my unit brought to the raid force that we can conduct an assault against and oppose target. annika september, we were prepared to go through the authority can one of the chain of command and came around to basically work that we launched the assault in the morning of the night, which were to advantage. we were able to use the nice to look at it to mannix and conduct detailed planning and other assets that were unsafe. the pirates are basically saying they were going to stay on it and fight their way through this one. and basically within 15 minutes via we had the pirates apprehended, nine in total. the real work came the three-hour effort. as murphy courtesy of a head, the second attendee to begin our climate, we lost communication with the ships corinna said adel in the pirates made one last attempt to get to them. in short, and basically became a three-hour reach an effort to try to get into their said adel contract to rescue, culminating with a sickly happy to cut a hole and show an american flag patch through to let them know we are the americans and here to rescue any family came out and it was kind of a good close to that afternoon. the big takeaways that i can bring to the table as a junior officer in terms of counter piracy or one that the task force does work, as the admiral said, is a phenomenal thing. of course there's complication and it takes a lot to truly curb what is going on now. the task force is a phenomenal thing. they're created. in terms of them are in navy team that are out there operating in task force in terms of tactics, speed, violence of action and mostly restraint. the leader out there was a professionalism that operated in the sailors that operated that they, certainly within saved multiple times and executed their target site at the highest level of restraint as they should. the level of professionalism that day was phenomenal. the mainly navy team is doing great work. it's very complicated earbuds by the panel of strategy level minded thinkers are here. at the tactical level, the problem is solvable and i think we've proved that on the ninth of september. thank you. >> thank you very much. if i can just passover to the spoken piece,. >> we grappled with piracy and the streets of malacca and perhaps one of the silver linings under the cloud of that tsunami is eliminated many piracy vessels that were operating largely on government territories and the intercollegiate nation of indonesia. if you look back at our history, a book i would commend his jeffersons for the first war on terrorism, which is when the barbary pirates were holding u.s. mariners hostage. in fact, a number of nations would frontload their annual ransom payments to the barbary pirates so they can continue commerce in that part of the globe. here we are in 2011. what has changed the events. the area of operations have expanded as well. those have been defined under the u.n. we are actually looking not doubling that over 2 million square miles because we are now seeing piracy events take place while offshore from there. the use of motherships now expanding the reach to cover the western shores of india and down into the shells and mall bias. the working thread expand and we are seeing this expand. this time appears the monsoon season, which is typically not the most favorable for standard operations in the season is not going to change to the benefit of the pirate. so as we look at jeffersons foreign terrorism, you know, the marine corps hymn from the shores of tripoli, that was the land in asian but ultimately a lemonade of the barbary pirates. what we're looking at is a significant challenge shared rule of law, which does not exist in amalia, which does provide safe haven. these are not vessels that fly the jolly roger on the open sea that we can identify a legitimate deferment to legitimate urchin meant that's out there. so it's very difficult to do. we would call the department of defense kinetic operations. just yesterday i met with the national security staff and we are meeting with state department justice commerce, transportation, defense, department of homeland security, looking at a whole of government approach about other tools can we use to attack this very pernicious threat. we look you ransom payments. you heard average payments of about $5.5 million. these are typically cash payments and it's a very difficult challenge to track down where did the money go. typically having worked at a number of counter drug cases throughout my coast guard career, we've been very successful working with dea, tracking down money payments, money laundering schemes in use and not to get to the head of the hydrate as you well as the threat continues to expand. will we have set up as a contact group for piracy off the coast of somalia and out of that has emerged for workgroups. the u.s. leads a workgroup on working with the maritime industry of situational awareness. this is called worker three. what we look at our trends. so far this fiscal year which commenced on the first of what tober. we spent 81 piracy events. of those 37 were successful. again, what the fight by fight lane dollars payoff. if you are 3781, that would probably get you in the hall of fame if your plane based all. and these are generally viewed from a country where the daily wages maybe $2 a day. the site by $5 million sun is a lucrative business to be in. if you have a large diaspora within somalia, and a largely unemployed youth, this is literally at the opportunity of a lifetime. so what is working? we have to the international maritime organization a number of best management practices again for commercial vessels with height reports, it typically means providing -- eliminating the need to access the vessel, but ultimately increasing speed. other vessels that infuse these best management practices this last year of 19 attempted a fax for these vessels, only five were successful. usually speed with eliminating fat tear. they could not make speed in excess of 50 knots, pirates are going to capture them. what is proved successful, there is yet to be a successful attack against the commercial vessel that had armed security teams on this vessels. that is not a shared philosophy on a global steel and we heard tim lane that this is a challenge for the global community, but we are seeing armed security teams to work. given increase in violence among pirates, but we do know now that this does work. and the challenge out there is, how do you get armed teams from one vessel to another, in areas where you have a foreign team coming into new york about wanting to board a vessel of that state. by the way they are carrying automatic weapons. they probably wouldn't take it to the tsa screening process. we need to treat this as they global comments, but that is one project that is proved successful. we have also seen success in the u.s. at the united state has shown and demonstrated a national will to prosecute. in figure 16, of diwali who was from alabama was sentenced on suppression of unlawful locks to 33 years, nine months, basically a life imprisonment, which is the maximum imprisonment under the suet convention. we also have five pirate that i can make it, awaiting sentencing last month. they staged an attack in april 2010 at night and the vessel they attacked was the uss nicholas. so they are sentencing will take place next month and will see what the outcome of that is. today we have 14 pirates in custody. as we are all familiar with the because of the presence of coalition forces, but we saw how that played out. there is another ricotta that has been going with big u.s. vessels participating. they all pulled into port, but those that has been going with big u.s. vessels participating. they all pulled into port, but those that has been going with big u.s. vessels participating. they all pulled into port, but those, wolof vessels and cleared the area. so i did not expect to see in the u.s. recreational vessels flying those wonders anytime in the near future and we also provided a notice to mariners to a recreational vessels the u.s. and now reached the number of forums that defined the geographic limits our and that this is not a safe place to be operating. so with that, that's everything from our panel and we look forward to entertaining your questions. >> thank you, very much. if i can -- anyone who's asking a question, please identify yourself by name and affiliation and if we wish to address that to any member of the panel, freese feel free to do so. >> yes, to find them of national defense 99. can ask anyone with knowledge, where is the number going because i don't think many people believe these teenagers are walking away with a million dollars each. and so they organized crime involved and are these organized groups outside of somalia were fully within somalia? where's the money really going? >> all probably take that because this is a challenge that we face in the beginning of yesterday with the the national security staff. these are cash payments go directly typically into the molly banks and we do not have good awareness of where the money goes from there. we do know some of the goes to buy property. some of the coast by education and universities. but that is a key piece of information we currently lack. again, these are cash payments. it's not wired money come which does make the tracing of that difficult. we are looking at some of the same methodologies within the department of justice, tracing drug money. right now that is an intelligence cat that exists with show me the money. >> i guess the other question everybody asks this is that money going to terrorists. it was not going that route. when i was out there in 2007, they would exchange the money in dubai. one guy would walk in and appreciates. there is always a middleman in front of the privates at $200 on top. believe me the motion of the cache is done by air drops because they cut down the middleman. it's a clan that knows what they're doing, so it's going somewhere, the lake the admiral said, once the casket outcome of the community is pretty hard to follow the trend. >> i just also like to have q. when i was operating there, there were examples were certainly it's very if you try to get access to some of that money and they were examples of some of the rival pirate clans going at each other essentially to get access to some of that as well. >> clark, judy bettis. the navy has been talking to the coast guard for ages about if you have a sick protection on the ship and nico 15 plus not come you are probably not going to be hit in the number of ships being hit is going up. our company is simply unwilling to spend the extra money to go faster and to take those basic questions. >> let me take that one. we do a lot of work with the global shipping companies and certainly we have a number of them represented here today. there are incentives to follow these best management practices and not through the pni clubs, underwriters for the ships cargo. so that does provide incentive obviously to follow the management practices. i put my hat on because i've been tracing drug smugglers for 34 years and they had to put them out of business yet. we've come very capable. first we were chasing them they were motherships and interdicting them. and so, when we started arming helicopters and shooting up close has come they want some ice submersibles. now we go on a step further and going to fully submersible bull vessels which makes all the more difficult to detect, monitor and ultimately interdict. when you have a lucrative business like that and don't have a lot to prosecute and go back to it the economic conditions are in the government territory, the the industry is just one match, but it's really going to take a combination of private public sector to be able to eradicate this threat. >> any other comments? >> the number of vessels that goes through that is success of the 30,000 vessels. so when we are talking cometh a small number, the so significant. there's a lot of traffic that goes through there and the vessels -- i mean, if you do 15 plus knots, staying in the zone and especially in the transit towns in the place of the pirates attack during the day. the transit that i may come your chances of being pirated are very low. so we have to continue to watch the vessels that are transiting at low speed. i mean, they've got this big economic benefits that come get me, come get me. for those vessels are the ones that are targeted. [inaudible] >> readerships fictionally do 12 knots in the above report. they can't stop commerce because that's what it is given them for their cargo. we've seen this particular shapes that are more portable, so they certainly would he in their best interest to be put on extra measures whether it's legato pfizer hoses or razor wire, but they're also encouraged encouraged to report into the task forces operating so we can provide a little extra awareness as to where the high-risk vessels are operating in that part of the exchange of information between the commercial shipping industry and naval forces operating there. >> q-quebec you just add one thing. these guys are not the most educated people in the world out there. in the last year they've attacked the uss ashland in the u.s. has no, so they they. make him a wake up in the morning and go after ships and they are just looking for a target of opportunity. it's not a this is what comes by [inaudible] >> what they saw on the magellan star, younger mid 20th, you know, the use of of the narcotic effect was played into the decision-making cycle in terms of how threat assessment for what enemy or criminals we thought we'd see on the target site. so you know, certainly there was an initial bravado that said they have, but i think the training are indications mourning the collections were getting from them, just line of sight to the length was they were not well trained. the search of may, creative group of guys who should not be underestimated and that would be something we certainly didn't want to do. >> did you have a view on the resilient if you like but the ships you are looking at two-stage rescue son? >> in terms of their physical security? the security on the magellan star with the citadel was phenomenal. the anti-piracy the ship captains can get through, but certainly the establishment saves the day for the crew of the magellan star. they basically debts on their ships, or they can fall back to continued positions at water and food, had communications. those are very important things you have to consider. there was no part of our security and the upward on the freeboard of the ship. it would certainly raise barbed wire important. the trends like to board from the quarter or being, but they are coming up and use lightweight powders and skits that includes 25 knots, their closest angles of attack is that that quarter. they come on the boards, get one guy out of here the latter. for the crew has to be well rehearsed to get to the citadel. what are they using to contact her crew to tell everyone it might be asleep that you have to go because yummiest minutes are the pirates will go fast enough from their approach, to the bridge and give control of the ship. so certainly the use of the citadel dummies speed, freeboard all come into play, check in with coalition forces, those are all very important things. >> other questions? >> danielle with abs ice magazine system. you've been speaking to this one to 2 million square miles area do you need to survey amok over from the growing threat of piracy. i was wondering if for the military and for the task force if you view it as more valuable to use tactical for the scan eagle type systems or is there a growing need to use more long endurance systems? >> well, when i was out there in 2007 into 2009. i can tell you that scan eagle was a force multiplier. i baked every single day to the staff back at centcom, send a more scan eagles. but the two mp3s, the number of piii's in the inventory decreasing, so to write out scan the type. and that time it was not in the permanent record of the navy, but now we have select get it as a great platform that i strongly endorse its exactly what you need out there. [inaudible] >> -- an international set of assets. how do you find the amount systems which are available? >> in ctf 151 work in a nato and e.u. in the gulf of aden, they were to scan eagles in operation, which we very affect did the locating parts kits, conducting wide surveillance and certainly it was a small player as you indicated bringing intelligence information to the tasker. but i would also note that with the international perspective of whether it was japanese for e.u. and pas operating there, you can't always substitute a set of eyes in the capability to respond for kinetic weapons from a helicopter with just simply unmanned systems. so they are an useful tool but augments your case abilities, but they are the replacements as well. >> another question? >> yes, sam from navy times. i want to ask in the wake of a quest, how did does that change things on a tactical level in terms of the noncompliance board? >> there are various aspects that are still under investigation. there was dissension along the pirates. the two that were -- we had fbi hostage rescue team embarked in trying to cut a deal with two of the pirates, but there was dissension within the ranks that they have assassinated one of their own before we overwhelmed the sailing vessel quest. it probably goes back to what you heard the captain and an admiral mcknight mention the use of cat doesn't make arctic and their state of mind is questionable at best. there remained on adrenaline fenofibrate initiative did u.s. warship. it may clout to judgment, so i think that foreign ticket is. it's a very spontaneous event in that regard. but we did see with the recent case, but the danish vessel, the ing, another sailing vessel with family members on board, we are aware that any attempt to recover those individuals would result in immediate execution. so we are seeing that type of behavior become more prevalent. is it out of frustration? you know, it's very difficult to say right now. but again, the state of mind that these pirate are always in question. >> next question, please. >> this is keith johnson with "the wall street journal." commander waddell, you made a reference to the ships. we have for some different numbers in terms of how many motherships are out there. the concern i had about about identifying tactical operations. what is to prevent the different task force has been targeting them wiping out other ships if we can't go to the land-based pollution? what is to set the naval forces from going that route? >> the first problem with the motherships is that often they are legitimate mariners. so whether it's the yemeni fishing data or perhaps a pakistani cargo tao, a transfer a call from you we down to the african continent. these are legitimate mariners who suddenly find themselves being taken hostage by pirates kids and once the pirates are bored, they get mixed with legitimate managers and suddenly her hostage situation at attack targets. you're in a situation where he could visit mariners at risk. >> just to add that, the mothership issue is not new. i mean, this has been going on for years gridlike commander said, they hijacked the yemeni ship and use it and abandon it. there was a case in late 2008 were the u.k. actually boarded the yemeni fishing dial whenever pirates onboard and they got into a firefight. so it's not something new. they are just using bigger vessels to go further distant lives in the indian ocean. set us up in a copper case issues. usually we'll see if they can be flying the flag or whatever. it's hard to actually set there it is right there unless you see them strategically going after another vessel. >> i think is the same challenge we have peered motherships are used in counter drug operations. we have 37 bilateral agreements, where we can go on board vessels of various flag states. but when you go on board, a number of legitimate vessels and it's only a question of time before we get a d. marsh from the nation for violating their rights, so it's very difficult. again, they are not flying the jolly roger, so it's very difficult to discern legitimate from illegitimate. he just poured every vessel that's out there will probably result in some type of reprisal as well through diplomatic channels. >> okay. >> i am kenyan friend air surface magazine. basically my question is for anyone who can answer. what type of training either. receiving based on your observations? >> you know, i'm not sure the answer to that question in detail, but i can tell you just watching some of the patterns and reading some of the open source analysis, you can see they are doing certainly better than they were a decade ago are back in the 90s, but they're some kind of training going on at that small pirate action group level, so they need to coordinate twos going to be the latter guy, who will be a person they get there. what is it going to do? by watching it and carried it to a conclusion, we ascertain there some training going on. the level to the training on the eighth of september, genesis one event, just one single event. a year ago that these basic things we know how to do with very, very low levels of training, awareness and discipline. .. what they are doing is fabricating the matter so sure and bringing out weapons and doing the best they can fumbling their way through sometimes but obviously it's working. >> we have a question in the front. >> how many actual pirates are we talking about worldwide that are around? on something you said you said the somali makes about $2 a day, sometimes a couple hundred dollars per year but how much does the average pirate meek per year? >> i will take a stab at that. i don't think we have a good number all the way the we've seen just like we have the whole threat which enjoys anywhere from 40 to 80% profit margin, and the fortune 500 companies that enjoyed those numbers would be sitting pretty but the ability to reconstitute the force i think is the real challenge. this is not one where just the attrition we are going to eliminate the threat. it will readily reconstitute but as we talked about the mother ship operations, the fact that the pirate vessels are then turned to now become support pirate activities makes it very difficult to get our arms around with the sheer magnitude but when you look at for a sample the 14 pirates on a 56-foot sailing vessel, if that negotiated settlement had come down to let's say $5 million, how does that it distributed? many of the sponsors have -- pirates have sponsors the help train and equip and so we didn't really get into the investment portfolio would certainly, you know, if you are an investor in somalia investing in piracy it may be a lucrative investment so there may perhaps be a sharing of those proceeds and those are the intelligence that we talked about earlier of where does the money go and falling that cash flow is a challenge but that would help give a better indication of how much profit. we do know that they are making investments in purchasing land oftentimes in somalia but they are also investing in education and universities but very difficult to say how much they actually profited. certainly it provides them a much more promising lifestyle beyond that and what otherwise experience living in somalia. >> another question. >> this is sam from the navy times again. >> my question for you, admiral is about the piracy trend, the number of hostages is nearly doubled since last year. the length of the hostages being held is much longer. they sound like they are going up, and still, we are talking about a law enforcement paradigm. you refer to the discussions going on in a policy level about looking at new ways of handling this problem. are things on the table increasing or taking other aspects of the war on terror paradigm to the piracy problem? >> we explored every option, even putting a bounty on pirates. obviously it's not one we are going to push forward but really looking at this from a number of different strands certainly you have the offensive aspect, the connecticut operations, a defensive posture and the targets that are being pirated following the money flows and then the role of wall. if not somalia at least along of the nations of the wing. we see that with just the membership and the coalition within the cpf151 nearly 30 nations now participate and others are doing india for example of an independent operations off the coast but it's going to be a confluence of offensive defensive posture, averell of law and then other policy following the money flow and then again the whole rule of law challenge ultimately resulting in the prosecution. but it's going to take a combination of all of those. there is no one holy grail to deal with this problem. and that is why we are looking at it the policy level but certainly not a wanted approach and that being strictly kinetic operations and certainly put the boots on the ground in somalia is an option under consideration right now. >> [inaudible] >> i think what you've seen right now within the cpf within several of the successful apprehensions, you know, having overwhelming force when you are able to bring that forced to bear on a pirate vessel or a vessel that has been pirated and ultimately when the crew is in a said citadel is a area on the ship the pirates are not able to penetrate and so as long as the crew is within that compartment and then under the conventions of vessels -- it is an automated security system and it says they are under attack and that provides an indication morning including the name of the vessel and its location that has taken place so that at least allows us and again it's all about proximity. talk about large tierney of distance. so having a vessel in the proximity, but if all of those come together than it does make that type of intervention at least one we can take under consideration. but recognizing we put our people at great risk when we go into intervene as well. >> at the same time there is this homemade business case in the value of the cargo there are some shippers that would assume write a check at the cost of doing business. but that will only cause this type of activity to flourish. so that is within the private-sector which is not something that the policy level we can necessarily control especially within the foreign states but those are some of the challenges we face as well but there are nations willing to write a check. our u.s. government will not sponsor a payment by the u.s. government to free the hostages. >> i have a longwinded answer but there really is no one answer. it's public-private sector really being within our shipping industry and certainly public would be all of our nations' governments but it is a combination of the two. >> there have been persistent rumors for a long time. i've never heard this substantiated but i will throw it out again that there has been iranian involvement on the mother ship, provision of mother ships. any truth to this? >> should i start at that and? >> if you look at the history of somalia of the clan society and even in somalia itself, the al-shabaab in the the pirates don't get along, so to bring in foreign influence in there it would be extreme. it's not something that we saw and it would be a very far extreme. >> i would also note in my operations on several occasions i shared the tactical information with the iranian navy also operating in the navy and they were professional and how they dealt with the sharing of that information and contributing to the antipiracy problem. they were in a position that they would dispatch some of their own security teams on board their national shipping lines which frequently operated just north of the internationally recommended transnet corker so all of my dealings and suppressing piracy were very personal. >> any further questions? we have one more at the front. >> yes, the navy times. one aspect we haven't spoken about is the humanitarian crisis that is also on going in the streets as a proxy at 100,000 migrants that are going to the middle east. so how does that complicate the counter piracy mention, and as a sort of fall lawn or the units over there the multinational coalition ships prepared to render assistance to those who are in distress? >> the migrants to the west of where this high risk area is right now and it's certainly probably more of a european concern right now in terms of maritime migrant flows. certainly the life at sea is incumbent upon any vessel when you see the mariners in distressed to render assistance. it's not a coastguard mission but it is a good samaritan if you will to render assistance to those in distress. but in terms of that, that migrant maritime flow entering this haifa area we are not seeing that nor do we expect it. >> hopefully we have covered everything everybody is looking to learn about today. i would like to thank our panelists and the commander of state waddell, martin once again for their insight. we are hoping to do a number of similar events in the couple of months in washington and we would welcome your feedback on the future topics and we will go around after this so please feel free. corporate members and guests of the navy league are welcome to remain in the room for a networking evin and about 10:30 so on behalf sci exhibition and the navy league many thanks for your participation and i hope that you have enjoyed this and found it useful. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] we are going to try to fix it and bring you our regularly scheduled program in a minute. we fixed or technical problems and on now with our programming, transportation secretary ray lahood spoke today before the transportation committee about his 2012 budget request. [inaudible conversations] >> welcome, mr. secretary, and let me just give aid not a brief opening statement but i will get briefed by leaving out part of it. we have an important discussion on the finance committee and we have three economists and who knew a lot of economics, and the whole principle, and i'm going to get hit over the head by the gentlelady on my left when i say this, but the whole principle is how do you increase jobs. i suggested that if you make cuts that the include things like america competes and certain transportation types stuff that creates jobs, earned income tax credit, child tax care, etc., child tax credit and i asked him if you didn't cut out some of those type programs that we obviously can't see them all here but if you didn't cut them out, but you did cut the budget which would help america grow more in terms of work and you said what you said, senator, and i thought that was very interesting because that question sort of hasn't been enlarged except through vitriol. not from senator hutchinson. she and i are perfect working machines that struck me as interesting. but you are right in the middle of it. that started out with callis that went on to railroads and on to the interstate highway on the av smart, necessary for america's overall way to the future. i support the administration's position. on the surface transportation policy it requires the d.o.t. to the strategic in its decision making and how it awards the taxpayers' dollars of transportation projects. i think the administration was very bold in their nationwide passenger rail network concepts. it seems difficult the fast high-speed railroad and yet it's other countries have it. we ought to come people are increasingly traveling on the railroads and that's a very important part of our system. at some level that has to have some federal support. freight are very profitable, passengers less so and important. the shippers that problem is still the important. obviously the next-gen system which we just passed so therefore not refuse you need to talk about that from my point of view with the next-gen that's money that you've got to have to be a do can't do it with a strong will but i also want to commend the administration on improving the safety of our nation's transportation systems. 33 people died in motor vehicle crashes in 2009 and the number has been going down. that's a good. unacceptably high, that's bad. motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and it was age three through 34. i was rather stunned by that. so is the importance of ntsa. it calls for 20% increase in the city budget that ntsa has hearings last year revealed some weaknesses. it admitted to weaknesses and they have to get the software people and engineers that the need and i'm for rebuilding america and to be responsible senator, i believe in that. i also somehow believe enormously you have to have certain pieces in place. i think the secretary for being here today and turn to senator hutchison. >> thank you mr. chairman. if what you said earlier today is that we should agree on the cap on spending and then determine what priorities would spur job creation and our economy and i agree with you. that is exactly what we ought to be doing and the cuts in spending need to occur. let's put a cap on it and then decide what's going to increase jobs. i appreciate that you are here and also appreciate your accessibility. i've never called you that you didn't respond and i appreciate that very much. i'm looking at a six year 556 billion-dollar surface transportation reauthorization proposal, and i think having separate accounts that replace the highway trust fund could be a good idea, highway rail transit and then the national infrastructure bank. but i don't see any funding mechanism, and of course we know how the highway bill is funded with gas taxes and where you're going to fund the real and the transit portion of the path that you're making. i looked at the proposal for $50 billion in upfront spending on transportation projects in fiscal year 2012, and again, i think a sustainable source of funding is the real question here. rail developing a high-speed program is important. we fell for the appropriate 13 billion for high-speed rail and inner-city projects this adds 53 billion over six years i believe in rail, but i think we've got to again see some kind of a mechanism to fund the rail that has an association with who is getting the service. in aviation the chairman and i worked very hard to pass the reauthorization of the faa bill because we both agree on how the next-gen and the important putting the next generation of technology into our air traffic control system. america needs to be the leader in that. we are over 50% of all aviation traffic in the world so we can provide efficiency if we get next-gen but i just want to point out that in your budget as i see it, there is not a correlation between the priority of next-gen and the faa budget as a whole. it appears that you are cutting their part and provide funding, research funding and capital programs and facilities and equipment accounts but the operations account is growing exponentially. the budget proposal for the faa authorization account would provide 400 million-dollar increase over fy 2010 and over the and expense accounts and the faa. so, it just seems to me that were pretty for infrastructure and the faa which is the correct one is not being supported by the budget priorities that are coming forward today so i look forward to of course working with you to maybe get a budget that we could all agree has the right priorities but i do think we have to address the funding sources other than highway which does have a funding source. the other modes of transportation which are very important but how are we going to have a partnership in funding those priorities something to mr. chairman for holding this hearing and mr. secretary for being here and i will look forward to working with you. thank you. >> thank you, senator hutchison. just a seniority basis, i would call on senator lautenberg and senator phil and if he's here and then senator cantwell who is the chair of the aviation subcommittee and senator demint should he be here so senator lautenberg. >> thanks very much mr. chairman and welcome mr. secretary. our country's roads, rail and runways are to keep our economy moving but much of the infrastructure is now on the cony state and house republicans aren't the least bit interested in rebuilding it. instead the seek billions of dollars of cuts, reckless plans to leave the transportation support to despair. this risky approach would send pink slips to hundreds of thousands of transportation workers including more than 3,000 of them in the state of new jersey and will also slash funding for amtrak, a vital nation, national transportation service that takes 8 million cars off the roads and keeps 50,000 flights out of the sky each year and we don't need more congestion on the roads. we don't need more delays with the airports and we don't need more job losses. we should be focused on rebuilding our economy, creating and secretary lahood has done a good job, mr. secretary w

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Alabama ,Christian School ,Arizona ,Dubai ,Dubayy ,United Arab Emirates ,Arlington ,Texas ,Brooklyn ,New York ,Turkey ,China ,California ,Russia ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Connecticut ,Mexico ,India ,Crawford ,Michigan ,Libya ,Cuba ,South Korea ,Panama ,Greece ,Canada ,Japan ,North Carolina ,Iran ,Afghanistan ,Illinois ,Virginia ,Tripoli ,Tarabulus ,Indonesia ,Ashland ,London ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,Pakistan ,Dan Branch ,Staten Island ,Kenya ,Iraq ,New Jersey ,Denmark ,Westborough ,Geneva ,Genè ,Switzerland ,Princeton ,Newfoundland ,Maryland ,Somalia ,Kansas ,Westboro Baptist Church ,Yemen ,Paris ,Rhôalpes ,France ,Americans ,America ,Canadian ,Chosen ,Turkish ,Panamanian ,Greek ,Pakistani ,Iranians ,Iranian ,British ,Danish ,Yemeni ,Somali ,Kenyan ,Japanese ,American ,Carter Philips ,Tim Wittman ,Terrance Mcknight ,Ted Olson ,Clark Judy Bettis ,Thornberry ,John Roberts ,Tim Griffin ,Carter Phillips ,Kennedy Breyer ,Ruth Ginsburg ,Mike Mullen ,Keith Johnson ,Doug Schilling ,Chris Wallace ,Walter Dellinger ,Theodore Olson ,Stephen Souter ,Roy Cooper ,Mitch Mcconnell ,Ray Lahood ,Melvin Ian Meyer ,Indian Ocean ,Transnet Corker ,Elena Kagan ,