THIS WAS NO ORDINARY CONVENIENCE STORE ROBBERY! RANDALL GOFF WALKS INTO STORE ARMED WITH A GASOLINE CAN. HE POURS GASOLINE ON THE COUNTER AND TELLS CLERK TO GIVE HIM ALL THE MONEY OR HE'LL LIGHT A MATCH. THE CLERKS COMPLY AND GIVE GOFF THE LOOT...BUT JUST FOR KICKS, HE LIGHTS THE GAS ON FIRE ANYWAY AS HE'S LEAVING AND LARGE FIRE ENSUES.

FTG FOR COVERAGE ON POPE JOHN PAUL II FUNERAL 14:33:11 pilgrims holding polish flag outside of window of train 14:33:22 pilgrims walking next to train 14:33:33 crowd exiting train station 14:33:50 crowd entering bus 14:34:00 Vatican flag and polish flag outside of bus window 14:34:12 Vatican testament replay 14:35:47 Vatican security 4 14:35:51 security officials at computers 14:36:00 cu of computer screen with Vatican city grid 14:36:09 side shot of security officials at computers 14:36:17 cu of official speaking into headset 14:36:28 sot from official 14:37:18 missile defense systems set up in field 14:37:31 various of missiles set up in field 14:37:49 aerial of Vatican, helicopter flies alongside 14:38:03 military jets fly alongside 14:38:12 military jets fly alongside, closer shot 14:38:30 military jets, farther away 14:38:41 helicopter in flight, St peters b 14:38:52 shot from inside helicopter 14:39:01 missile defense set ups, rotating SHOTLIST Rome - 7 April 2005 1. Wide shot of Italian Airforce control room, military staff watching monitors of Rome flying zone 2. Monitor 3. Various of Situation Room 4. SOUNDBITE (English) Major General Luciano Massetti, Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff Italian Air Force: "Because we keep aircraft in combat air patrol basically in flight 24 hours a day we can intervene immediately with the reaction time close to nil". 5. Airforce control room staff watching monitors of Rome flying zone 6. SOUNDBITE (English) Major General Luciano Massetti, Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff Italian Air Force: "Actually we started from square one, saying actually this has to be the most safe place in Italy. In this assumption of course we assume the worst case. The worst case meaning threats coming from the sky fast threats from different directions. Stemming from this point, we put in the field all the best resources we had. I don't think we've ever seen in Italy such a large effort to protect a single place." Location Unknown - 7 April 2005 7. Gate in front of military area, sign on gate reading (in Italian) "Military Area, No Access - Army surveillance." 8. Various of anti-aircraft missiles in field 9. Large spot-lights in field 10. Anti-aircraft missiles in field 11. Radar 12. Wide shot of anti-aircraft missiles, building and road in background Rome - 6 April 2005 13. Aerial shots above Rome showing Saint Peters Basilica. 14. Military helicopter in sky (as filmed from another chopper) Rome - 7 April 2005 15. Various of F-16s in sky over Rome Near Rome - 6 April 2005 16. Helicopter flying over Vatican 17. Various of anti-aircraft missiles 15:30:47 Vatican pilgrims 3 15:30:53 aerials of St peters square, zoom into the line of people 15:31:09 pan of line of people waiting to see the pope's body (glitches in some of the video) 15:31:51 int of basilica, people file in to look at pope's body 15:32:13 pan of priests 15:32:21 cu side shot of nun 15:32:26 officiating priest spreading incense 15:32:38 polish pilgrims walk with polish flags 15:32:50 sot from young man 15:32:53 int of sleeping tent 15:32:58 little boy yawns, 15:33:03 woman with head in hands in sleeping tent 15:33:10 sot in italian from woman with red hair, she begins crying as she speaks 15:33:25 women sleeping 15:33:29 ext, train arrives at station, people waving polish flags 15:33:42 pilgrims coming off train 15:33:54 compression of people walking on train stand 15:34:03 crowd exiting train station 15:34:12 bus to circo massimo 15:34:21 people getting on bus Vatican testament replay 15:34:48 steeple 15:34:50 ext of St peters 15:34:54 nun and man reading 15:36:19 Vatican cardinals three 15:36:23 shot through bars of cardinals arriving 15:36:33 Asian cardinal walking 15:36:38 cardinals greet each other 15:36:43 cardinal speaks to press 15:36:48 various shots of cardinals walking and waving to press 15:37:04 cardinal surrounded by press microphones 15:37:27 sot from cardinal 15:37:30 cardinal being surrounded by press 15:37:38 various shots of cardinals 15:37:42 Swiss guard side shot 15:37:47 more cardinals walking into building 15:38:26 black cardinal 15:38:53 int cardinals sitting in auditorium 15:39:02 press conference, 15:39:09 "I've lived here for almost 34 years. to see so many of this cardinals. and the same thing with virtually all of the major leaders of the church. 15:39:55 press cutaway 15:40:00 Vatican security 4 replay 15:51:07 Hong Kong mass SHOTLIST 1. Night time exterior of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception 2. Priests walking into the cathedral 3. People attending mass 4. Priests bowing at the portrait of the Pope John Paul II 5. Various of youths with candles, singing 6. Worshippers at the altar 7. Ceremony inside the cathedral 8. Hong Kong Bishop Joseph Zen giving communion

ZOOM IN ON SECURITY OR SURVEILLANCE CAMERA ON WALL. RED LIGHT BLINKING.

FTG FOR COVERAGE ON POPE JOHN PAUL II FUNERAL 14:33:11 pilgrims holding polish flag outside of window of train 14:33:22 pilgrims walking next to train 14:33:33 crowd exiting train station 14:33:50 crowd entering bus 14:34:00 Vatican flag and polish flag outside of bus window 14:34:12 Vatican testament replay 14:35:47 Vatican security 4 14:35:51 security officials at computers 14:36:00 cu of computer screen with Vatican city grid 14:36:09 side shot of security officials at computers 14:36:17 cu of official speaking into headset 14:36:28 sot from official 14:37:18 missile defense systems set up in field 14:37:31 various of missiles set up in field 14:37:49 aerial of Vatican, helicopter flies alongside 14:38:03 military jets fly alongside 14:38:12 military jets fly alongside, closer shot 14:38:30 military jets, farther away 14:38:41 helicopter in flight, St peters b 14:38:52 shot from inside helicopter 14:39:01 missile defense set ups, rotating SHOTLIST Rome - 7 April 2005 1. Wide shot of Italian Airforce control room, military staff watching monitors of Rome flying zone 2. Monitor 3. Various of Situation Room 4. SOUNDBITE (English) Major General Luciano Massetti, Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff Italian Air Force: "Because we keep aircraft in combat air patrol basically in flight 24 hours a day we can intervene immediately with the reaction time close to nil". 5. Airforce control room staff watching monitors of Rome flying zone 6. SOUNDBITE (English) Major General Luciano Massetti, Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff Italian Air Force: "Actually we started from square one, saying actually this has to be the most safe place in Italy. In this assumption of course we assume the worst case. The worst case meaning threats coming from the sky fast threats from different directions. Stemming from this point, we put in the field all the best resources we had. I don't think we've ever seen in Italy such a large effort to protect a single place." Location Unknown - 7 April 2005 7. Gate in front of military area, sign on gate reading (in Italian) "Military Area, No Access - Army surveillance." 8. Various of anti-aircraft missiles in field 9. Large spot-lights in field 10. Anti-aircraft missiles in field 11. Radar 12. Wide shot of anti-aircraft missiles, building and road in background Rome - 6 April 2005 13. Aerial shots above Rome showing Saint Peters Basilica. 14. Military helicopter in sky (as filmed from another chopper) Rome - 7 April 2005 15. Various of F-16s in sky over Rome Near Rome - 6 April 2005 16. Helicopter flying over Vatican 17. Various of anti-aircraft missiles 15:30:47 Vatican pilgrims 3 15:30:53 aerials of St peters square, zoom into the line of people 15:31:09 pan of line of people waiting to see the pope's body (glitches in some of the video) 15:31:51 int of basilica, people file in to look at pope's body 15:32:13 pan of priests 15:32:21 cu side shot of nun 15:32:26 officiating priest spreading incense 15:32:38 polish pilgrims walk with polish flags 15:32:50 sot from young man 15:32:53 int of sleeping tent 15:32:58 little boy yawns, 15:33:03 woman with head in hands in sleeping tent 15:33:10 sot in italian from woman with red hair, she begins crying as she speaks 15:33:25 women sleeping 15:33:29 ext, train arrives at station, people waving polish flags 15:33:42 pilgrims coming off train 15:33:54 compression of people walking on train stand 15:34:03 crowd exiting train station 15:34:12 bus to circo massimo 15:34:21 people getting on bus Vatican testament replay 15:34:48 steeple 15:34:50 ext of St peters 15:34:54 nun and man reading 15:36:19 Vatican cardinals three 15:36:23 shot through bars of cardinals arriving 15:36:33 Asian cardinal walking 15:36:38 cardinals greet each other 15:36:43 cardinal speaks to press 15:36:48 various shots of cardinals walking and waving to press 15:37:04 cardinal surrounded by press microphones 15:37:27 sot from cardinal 15:37:30 cardinal being surrounded by press 15:37:38 various shots of cardinals 15:37:42 Swiss guard side shot 15:37:47 more cardinals walking into building 15:38:26 black cardinal 15:38:53 int cardinals sitting in auditorium 15:39:02 press conference, 15:39:09 "I've lived here for almost 34 years. to see so many of this cardinals. and the same thing with virtually all of the major leaders of the church. 15:39:55 press cutaway 15:40:00 Vatican security 4 replay 15:51:07 Hong Kong mass SHOTLIST 1. Night time exterior of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception 2. Priests walking into the cathedral 3. People attending mass 4. Priests bowing at the portrait of the Pope John Paul II 5. Various of youths with candles, singing 6. Worshippers at the altar 7. Ceremony inside the cathedral 8. Hong Kong Bishop Joseph Zen giving communion

Metro light rail says a sensor controlling gates at one of its crossings in Tempe stopped working briefly just before a train and a pickup truck collided Monday, and police cited the truck's driver for two traffic violations.A crossing arm where the light-rail line intersects with a Tempe road malfunctioned seconds before the recent collision of a train and a pickup truck, transit of More..ficials said Friday.However, the pickup's driver was cited by police for driving through the crossing while the arm was in motion.According to an investigating board convened by Metro, the crossing arm signal on University Drive west of Rural Road briefly lost electrical contact with an oncoming train last Monday afternoon.Video from a Metro camera showed the arm was down for the passage of an eastbound train, but then rose as the westbound train approached University. The white 2005 Chevrolet pickup driven by Brandon Stovall, 28, then drove west, toward the tracks.Seconds later, the train struck the truck behind the passenger cab.No injuries were reported, Tempe police said, although Stovall disputes that. Travel along the rail line was briefly interrupted.Metro's board said computerized data recorders indicate the oncoming train and the crossing arm were out of contact for seven seconds. Once the train reestablished contact, the arms returned to the down position.The red flashing lights and bells warning drivers of a train continued to operate throughout the event, the investigation found."We are always concentrating on safety," said Metro spokeswoman Hillary Foose. "That is why we take this investigation so seriously, why we convened a board to look into it...."It also serves as a reminder for the public to also be safe and use their traffic signals and obey signals at railroad crossings."A Tempe police report pins the blame on Stovall's failure to yield.But Stovall, who was moving from Mesa to Tempe on the day of the crash, called the reports' conclusions "ridiculous.""That's how you go through the intersection: When (the arms) raise up, you go forward," Stovall said.In addition, he took issue with the police saying no one was injured."I thought I got hit in the side of the face with a baseball bat," Stovall said. "If it had been somebody on a motorcycle, it would've been a different story."Police also cited Stovall for driving with a suspended license.Since the collision, Metro has instituted a "slow order" at the University crossing, requiring trains to slow to no more than 15 mph when approaching and through this crossing to assure that arms are down and pathway clear. The slow order will continue until any technical issues are resolved, Metro said.Also Metro is examining crossings at four other locations, three in Tempe, along on the 20-mile line.This was the second crash between a train and a car since Metro opened to passengers on Dec. 27. On the third day of service, a Honda crossed the tracks at a downtown Phoenix intersection and hit a train.

FTG FOR COVERAGE ON POPE JOHN PAUL II FUNERAL 14:33:11 pilgrims holding polish flag outside of window of train 14:33:22 pilgrims walking next to train 14:33:33 crowd exiting train station 14:33:50 crowd entering bus 14:34:00 Vatican flag and polish flag outside of bus window 14:34:12 Vatican testament replay 14:35:47 Vatican security 4 14:35:51 security officials at computers 14:36:00 cu of computer screen with Vatican city grid 14:36:09 side shot of security officials at computers 14:36:17 cu of official speaking into headset 14:36:28 sot from official 14:37:18 missile defense systems set up in field 14:37:31 various of missiles set up in field 14:37:49 aerial of Vatican, helicopter flies alongside 14:38:03 military jets fly alongside 14:38:12 military jets fly alongside, closer shot 14:38:30 military jets, farther away 14:38:41 helicopter in flight, St peters b 14:38:52 shot from inside helicopter 14:39:01 missile defense set ups, rotating SHOTLIST Rome - 7 April 2005 1. Wide shot of Italian Airforce control room, military staff watching monitors of Rome flying zone 2. Monitor 3. Various of Situation Room 4. SOUNDBITE (English) Major General Luciano Massetti, Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff Italian Air Force: "Because we keep aircraft in combat air patrol basically in flight 24 hours a day we can intervene immediately with the reaction time close to nil". 5. Airforce control room staff watching monitors of Rome flying zone 6. SOUNDBITE (English) Major General Luciano Massetti, Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff Italian Air Force: "Actually we started from square one, saying actually this has to be the most safe place in Italy. In this assumption of course we assume the worst case. The worst case meaning threats coming from the sky fast threats from different directions. Stemming from this point, we put in the field all the best resources we had. I don't think we've ever seen in Italy such a large effort to protect a single place." Location Unknown - 7 April 2005 7. Gate in front of military area, sign on gate reading (in Italian) "Military Area, No Access - Army surveillance." 8. Various of anti-aircraft missiles in field 9. Large spot-lights in field 10. Anti-aircraft missiles in field 11. Radar 12. Wide shot of anti-aircraft missiles, building and road in background Rome - 6 April 2005 13. Aerial shots above Rome showing Saint Peters Basilica. 14. Military helicopter in sky (as filmed from another chopper) Rome - 7 April 2005 15. Various of F-16s in sky over Rome Near Rome - 6 April 2005 16. Helicopter flying over Vatican 17. Various of anti-aircraft missiles 15:30:47 Vatican pilgrims 3 15:30:53 aerials of St peters square, zoom into the line of people 15:31:09 pan of line of people waiting to see the pope's body (glitches in some of the video) 15:31:51 int of basilica, people file in to look at pope's body 15:32:13 pan of priests 15:32:21 cu side shot of nun 15:32:26 officiating priest spreading incense 15:32:38 polish pilgrims walk with polish flags 15:32:50 sot from young man 15:32:53 int of sleeping tent 15:32:58 little boy yawns, 15:33:03 woman with head in hands in sleeping tent 15:33:10 sot in italian from woman with red hair, she begins crying as she speaks 15:33:25 women sleeping 15:33:29 ext, train arrives at station, people waving polish flags 15:33:42 pilgrims coming off train 15:33:54 compression of people walking on train stand 15:34:03 crowd exiting train station 15:34:12 bus to circo massimo 15:34:21 people getting on bus Vatican testament replay 15:34:48 steeple 15:34:50 ext of St peters 15:34:54 nun and man reading 15:36:19 Vatican cardinals three 15:36:23 shot through bars of cardinals arriving 15:36:33 Asian cardinal walking 15:36:38 cardinals greet each other 15:36:43 cardinal speaks to press 15:36:48 various shots of cardinals walking and waving to press 15:37:04 cardinal surrounded by press microphones 15:37:27 sot from cardinal 15:37:30 cardinal being surrounded by press 15:37:38 various shots of cardinals 15:37:42 Swiss guard side shot 15:37:47 more cardinals walking into building 15:38:26 black cardinal 15:38:53 int cardinals sitting in auditorium 15:39:02 press conference, 15:39:09 "I've lived here for almost 34 years. to see so many of this cardinals. and the same thing with virtually all of the major leaders of the church. 15:39:55 press cutaway 15:40:00 Vatican security 4 replay 15:51:07 Hong Kong mass SHOTLIST 1. Night time exterior of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception 2. Priests walking into the cathedral 3. People attending mass 4. Priests bowing at the portrait of the Pope John Paul II 5. Various of youths with candles, singing 6. Worshippers at the altar 7. Ceremony inside the cathedral 8. Hong Kong Bishop Joseph Zen giving communion

FTG FOR COVERAGE ON POPE JOHN PAUL II FUNERAL 14:33:11 pilgrims holding polish flag outside of window of train 14:33:22 pilgrims walking next to train 14:33:33 crowd exiting train station 14:33:50 crowd entering bus 14:34:00 Vatican flag and polish flag outside of bus window 14:34:12 Vatican testament replay 14:35:47 Vatican security 4 14:35:51 security officials at computers 14:36:00 cu of computer screen with Vatican city grid 14:36:09 side shot of security officials at computers 14:36:17 cu of official speaking into headset 14:36:28 sot from official 14:37:18 missile defense systems set up in field 14:37:31 various of missiles set up in field 14:37:49 aerial of Vatican, helicopter flies alongside 14:38:03 military jets fly alongside 14:38:12 military jets fly alongside, closer shot 14:38:30 military jets, farther away 14:38:41 helicopter in flight, St peters b 14:38:52 shot from inside helicopter 14:39:01 missile defense set ups, rotating SHOTLIST Rome - 7 April 2005 1. Wide shot of Italian Airforce control room, military staff watching monitors of Rome flying zone 2. Monitor 3. Various of Situation Room 4. SOUNDBITE (English) Major General Luciano Massetti, Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff Italian Air Force: "Because we keep aircraft in combat air patrol basically in flight 24 hours a day we can intervene immediately with the reaction time close to nil". 5. Airforce control room staff watching monitors of Rome flying zone 6. SOUNDBITE (English) Major General Luciano Massetti, Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff Italian Air Force: "Actually we started from square one, saying actually this has to be the most safe place in Italy. In this assumption of course we assume the worst case. The worst case meaning threats coming from the sky fast threats from different directions. Stemming from this point, we put in the field all the best resources we had. I don't think we've ever seen in Italy such a large effort to protect a single place." Location Unknown - 7 April 2005 7. Gate in front of military area, sign on gate reading (in Italian) "Military Area, No Access - Army surveillance." 8. Various of anti-aircraft missiles in field 9. Large spot-lights in field 10. Anti-aircraft missiles in field 11. Radar 12. Wide shot of anti-aircraft missiles, building and road in background Rome - 6 April 2005 13. Aerial shots above Rome showing Saint Peters Basilica. 14. Military helicopter in sky (as filmed from another chopper) Rome - 7 April 2005 15. Various of F-16s in sky over Rome Near Rome - 6 April 2005 16. Helicopter flying over Vatican 17. Various of anti-aircraft missiles 15:30:47 Vatican pilgrims 3 15:30:53 aerials of St peters square, zoom into the line of people 15:31:09 pan of line of people waiting to see the pope's body (glitches in some of the video) 15:31:51 int of basilica, people file in to look at pope's body 15:32:13 pan of priests 15:32:21 cu side shot of nun 15:32:26 officiating priest spreading incense 15:32:38 polish pilgrims walk with polish flags 15:32:50 sot from young man 15:32:53 int of sleeping tent 15:32:58 little boy yawns, 15:33:03 woman with head in hands in sleeping tent 15:33:10 sot in italian from woman with red hair, she begins crying as she speaks 15:33:25 women sleeping 15:33:29 ext, train arrives at station, people waving polish flags 15:33:42 pilgrims coming off train 15:33:54 compression of people walking on train stand 15:34:03 crowd exiting train station 15:34:12 bus to circo massimo 15:34:21 people getting on bus Vatican testament replay 15:34:48 steeple 15:34:50 ext of St peters 15:34:54 nun and man reading 15:36:19 Vatican cardinals three 15:36:23 shot through bars of cardinals arriving 15:36:33 Asian cardinal walking 15:36:38 cardinals greet each other 15:36:43 cardinal speaks to press 15:36:48 various shots of cardinals walking and waving to press 15:37:04 cardinal surrounded by press microphones 15:37:27 sot from cardinal 15:37:30 cardinal being surrounded by press 15:37:38 various shots of cardinals 15:37:42 Swiss guard side shot 15:37:47 more cardinals walking into building 15:38:26 black cardinal 15:38:53 int cardinals sitting in auditorium 15:39:02 press conference, 15:39:09 "I've lived here for almost 34 years. to see so many of this cardinals. and the same thing with virtually all of the major leaders of the church. 15:39:55 press cutaway 15:40:00 Vatican security 4 replay 15:51:07 Hong Kong mass SHOTLIST 1. Night time exterior of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception 2. Priests walking into the cathedral 3. People attending mass 4. Priests bowing at the portrait of the Pope John Paul II 5. Various of youths with candles, singing 6. Worshippers at the altar 7. Ceremony inside the cathedral 8. Hong Kong Bishop Joseph Zen giving communion

NSA SPYING / GONZALES The Senate Judiciary Committee starts their hearing into NSA spying with Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. 13:00:00 WHAT I JUST SAID. THAT WE, AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE 13:00:02 PROVIDE TO THE FISA COURT INFORMATION ABOUT THE SOURCES OF 13:00:05 THE INFORMATION THAT FORMS THE BASIS OF AN APPLICATION -- 13:00:09 >> I'M NOT ASKING HOW YOU GET THE INFORMATION FROM THE 13:00:12 PROGRAM. I'M ASKING YOU, DO YOU TELL THE 13:00:15 FISA COURT THAT YOU GOT IT FROM THE PROGRAM? 13:00:18 I WANT TO KNOW IF THEY'RE DECLINING TO ISSUE WARRANTS 13:00:22 BECAUSE THEY ARE DISSATISFIED WITH THE PROGRAM? 13:00:24 . >> YOU ARE REPRESENTING TO THIS 13:01:34 COMMITTEE THAT BEFORE THERE IS AN INTERCEPTION THAT THERE IS A 13:01:37 DETERMINATION THAT ONE OF THE PARTIES IS A MEMBER OF 13:01:39 AL-QAEDA, AN AGENT OF AL-QAEDA, OR AN AFFILIATED TERRORIST 13:01:44 ORGANIZATION? IS THAT TRUE? 13:01:47 >> SIR, I BELIEVE THAT GENERAL HAYDEN, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF 13:01:55 INTELLIGENCE, CONFIRMED BEFORE THERE IS ANY INTERCEPTION THERE 13:01:58 IS A DETERMINATION MADE BY A INTELLIGENCE OFFICER AT NSA 13:02:05 THAT, IN FACT, WE HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE 13:02:07 THAT ONE PARTY IN THE COMMUNICATION IS A MEMBER OR 13:02:11 AGENT OF AL-QAEDA OR AN AFFILIATE TERRORIST 13:02:13 ORGANIZATION. >> IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN 13:02:15 GIVE US ASSURANCE OF THAT? IS IT TRUE WITHOUT DISCLOSING 13:02:21 THE METHODS AND SOURCES OF YOUR PROGRAM? 13:02:25 IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT IS A -- A VERY IMPORTANT STATEMENT, 13:02:30 AND IF WE WERE REALLY SURE THAT ARE YOU DEALING ONLY WITH THE 13:02:33 COMMUNICATION WHERE YOU HAVE A MEMBER OF AL-QAEDA, AN AGENT OF 13:02:38 AL-QAEDA, OR AN AFFILIATEDED -- AN AFFILIATED OF AN AL-QAEDA 13:02:43 TERRORIST ORGANIZATION IT WOULD BE ONE THING, BECAUSE THE 13:02:46 CONCERN IS IF THERE IS A BROAD SWEEP WHICH INCLUDES PEOPLE 13:02:51 THAT HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH AL-QAEDA, WHAT -- WHAT 13:02:54 ASSURANCES CAN YOU GIVE TO THIS COMMITTEE AND BEYOND THIS 13:03:00 COMMITTEE TO MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO ARE VITALLY 13:03:04 INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE AND FOLLOWING THESE PROCEEDINGS? 13:03:07 >> WELL, I WILL SAY, SENATOR, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND TO 13:03:11 THIS COMMITTEE, THAT THE PROGRAM AS OPERATED, IS A VERY 13:03:18 NARROWLY TAILORED PROGRAM. AND WE DO HAVE A GREAT NUMBER 13:03:22 OF CHECKS IN PLACE TO ENSURE -- I AM TOLD BY -- BY THE 13:03:29 OPERATIONS FOLKS THAT TO A GREAT DEALING OF CERTAINTY, A 13:03:34 HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE, THAT THESE CALLS ARE SOLELY 13:03:39 INTERNATIONAL CALLS, WE HAVE THESE CAREER PROFESSIONALS OUT 13:03:42 AT NSA, ARE EXPERTS IN AL-QAEDA TACTICS, AL-QAEDA 13:03:49 COMMUNICATIONS, AL-QAEDA AIMS. THEY ARE THE BEST AT WHAT THEY 13:03:52 DO, AND THEY ARE THE ONES THAT MAKE THE JUDGMENT AS TO WHETHER 13:03:55 OR NOT SOMEONE IS ON A CALL THAT IS A MEMBER OF AL-QAEDA OR 13:03:59 A MEMBER OF AN AFFILIATE ORGANIZATION. 13:04:03 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS I'VE INDICATED HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN 13:04:07 THIS PROGRAM FROM ITS EARLY STAGES. 13:04:10 >> LET ME INTERRUPT YOU, BECAUSE I WANT TO COVER A 13:04:12 COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS IN TIME -- TIME IS FLEETING. 13:04:16 I THINK HAVE YOU GIVEN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE RESPONSE. 13:04:19 WE HAVE CONTACTED FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT ABOUT 13:04:24 HIS AVAILABILITY TO TESTIFY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. 13:04:27 AND HE HASN'T SAID YES, AND HE HASN'T SAID NO. 13:04:30 HE'S CONSIDERING THAT. I BELIEVE THAT THE TESTIMONY OF 13:04:35 A FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT WOULD FALL UNDER A 13:04:40 LITTLE DIFFERENT LINE THAN LINE ATTORNEYS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT 13:04:43 WHO ARE GIVING INFORMATION AND THE CONCERN ABOUT HAVING A 13:04:48 CHILLING EFFECT IF THEY KNOW THEIR VIEWS ARE LATER TO BE 13:04:53 DETERMINED. I THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS 13:04:56 DIFFERENT, AND MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WOULD -- YOU HAVE ANY 13:05:00 OBJECTION TO FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT'S APPEARANCE 13:05:03 BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE ON THIS ISSUE? 13:05:05 >> I WOULD NOT, SENATOR, ALTHOUGH, OF COURSE, IF IT 13:05:10 RELATES TO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE LAW AND THE POSITION OF THE 13:05:13 EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THAT IS WHAT I'M DOING TODAY, CONVEYING TO 13:05:17 THIS COMMITTEE WHAT -- WHAT IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH POSITION 13:05:21 ON THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PRESIDENT IN AUTHORIZING THE 13:05:26 TERRORIST PROGRAM? >> THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD ASK HIM 13:05:28 ABOUT. WE WOULD ASK HIM ABOUT THE 13:05:30 OPERATIONS. I WOULD TAKE IT I HEARD YOU 13:05:33 CORRECTLY YOU WOULD NOT HAVE AN OBJECTION? 13:05:36 >> SENATOR, COMMITTEE CAN, OF COURSE, ASK WHO THEY WANT TO 13:05:38 ASK TO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. 13:05:40 >> I KNOW WE CAN ASK. TOTALLY DIFFERENT QUESTION IS 13:05:45 TO WHAT WE HEAR IN RESPONSE. HE HASN'T TOLD US THAT HE'S 13:05:48 GOING TO LOOK TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 13:05:50 BUT I THINK HE WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE KNOWING THAT YOU 13:05:55 HAD NO OBJECTION. I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY 13:05:58 EARLIER THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE AN OBJECTION. 13:06:01 >> I DON'T THINK I WOULD HAVE AN OBJECTION. 13:06:03 >> OK. TWO MORE QUESTIONS, I WANT TO 13:06:05 ASK BEFORE MY RED LIGHT GOES ON. 13:06:09 ON LOOKING AT CONGRESSIONAL INTENT, AS TO WHETHER THE 13:06:12 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE USE OF FORCE, WHETHER CONGRESS 13:06:19 INTENDED FOR THAT GENERALIZED RESOLUON TO CARRY AN 13:06:24 AUTHORIZATION FOR THIS ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND A 13:06:28 DISTINCTION ON TO THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT, 13:06:31 YOU WERE QUOTED AS SAYING, QUOTE, THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING 13:06:34 WE COULD LIKELY GET. NOW, THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE 13:06:38 RESPONSE YOU HAD THAT IT MIGHT INVOLVE DISCLOSURES. 13:06:43 I'LL LIMIT I TO THIS ONE QUESTION IF THIS IS SOMETHING 13:06:46 YOU COULD NOT LIKELY GET, THEN HOW CAN YOU SAY CONGRESS 13:06:50 INTENDED TO GIVE YOU THIS AUTHORITY? 13:06:52 >> SENATOR -- >> LET THE RECORD SHOW MY RED 13:06:55 LIGHT WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE STATEMENT. 13:06:57 >> SENATOR, IN THAT SAME PRESS CONFERENCE, I CLARIFIED THAT 13:07:01 STATEMENT, I THINK THE NEXT PRESS CONFERENCE, I WAS HIT 13:07:05 WITH MIKE CHERTOFF. I CLARIFIED THAT STATEMENT. 13:07:07 AND THAT IS THE CONSENSUS WAS IN A MEETING THAT LEGISLATION 13:07:11 COULD NOT BE OBTAINED WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE, I.E., 13:07:18 DISCUSING -- -- CLOSING THE PROGRAM, THOUSAND OPERATED AND 13:07:24 EFFECTIVELY KIG THE PROGRAM. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 13:07:27 SENATOR LEAHY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU RAISE SOME 13:07:32 INTERESTING POINTS, AND I -- YOU KNOW, I I LISTEN TO THE 13:07:39 ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO IS NOW ARGUING THAT THE PRESIDENT'S 13:07:42 WIRE TAPPING ON AMERICANS WITHOUT A WARRANT IS LEGAL, NOT 13:07:47 VIOLATE THE CONTROL LAW, THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 13:07:52 SURVEILLANCE ACT. THEY GIVE IT A FANCY NAME TO 13:07:56 THE PRESIDENT'S SURVEILLANCE, BUT I WOULD REMIND HIM THAT THE 13:08:01 TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM IS THE FISA LAW, WE PASSED. 13:08:07 I THINK YOU ARE VIOLATING EXPRESS PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 13:08:13 LET ME JUST ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS THAT COULD BE EASILY 13:08:17 ANSWERED YES OR NO. I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT OPERATION 13:08:19 OF DETAILS. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHEN 13:08:22 THE ADMINISTRATION CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE 13:08:27 CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED IN THE MILITARY 13:08:32 FORCE AGAINST AL-QAEDA, WHERE WE HAD HOPED WE COULD ACTUALLY 13:08:36 CATCH OSAMA BIN LADEN, THE MAN WHO HIT US, BUT WHERE YOU CAME 13:08:39 TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT AUTHORIZED WARRANTLESS WIRE 13:08:43 TAPPING OF AMERICANSED IN THE UNITED STATES. 13:08:47 DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION BEFORE THE SENATE PASSED THE 13:08:51 RESOLUTION ON SEPTEMBER 14, 201? 13:09:04 >> I CAN SAY THAT THE DECISION WAS MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE 13:09:10 AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE, OUR -- 13:09:13 >> SO -- >> AND IT WAS COMPLETED PRIOR 13:09:15 TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF THAT PROGRAM. 13:09:17 >> SO YOUR ANSWER IS YOU DID NOT COME TO THAT CONCLUSION 13:09:19 BEFORE THE SENATE PASSED THE RESOLUTION ON SEPTEMBER 14, 13:09:23 2001? >> SIR, I HAD CERTAINLY NOT 13:09:25 COME TO THAT CONCLUSION. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHERS IN 13:09:28 THE ADMINISTRATION WHO DID. >> WERE YOU AWARE OF ANYONE IN 13:09:32 THE ADMINISTRATION THAT CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION BEFORE 13:09:34 SEPTEMBER 14, 2001? >> SENATOR, SITTING HERE RIGHT 13:09:38 NOW, I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. 13:09:42 >> WERE YOU AWARE OF ANYBODY COMING TO THAT CONCLUSION 13:09:45 BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE RESOLUTION ON SEPTEMBER 18, 13:09:52 2001? >> NO, SIR. 13:09:53 THE ONLY THING I CAN RECALL IS WE HAD JUST BEEN ATTACKED, AND 13:09:57 WE HAD BEEN ATTACKED BY AN ENEMY FROM WITHIN OUR OWN 13:10:01 BOARDSERS -- >> ATTORNEY GENERAL, I 13:10:03 UNDERSTAND. I WAS HERE WHEN THAT ATTACK 13:10:06 HAPPENED. AND I JOINED WITH REPUBLICANS 13:10:09 AND VIRTUALLY EVERY MEMBER OF THIS CONGRESS TO TRY TO GIVE 13:10:12 YOU THE TOOLS THAT YOU SAID YOU NEEDED FOR US TO GO AFTER 13:10:16 AL-QAEDA, AND ESPECIALLY TO GO AFTER OSAMA BIN LADEN, THE MAN 13:10:19 THAT WE ALL UNDERSTOOD MASTERMINDED THE ATTACK, THE 13:10:22 MAN WHO IS STILL AT LARGE. NOW, BACK TO MY QUESTION. 13:10:26 DID YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE THIS 13:10:30 WARRANTLESS WIRE TAPPING OF AMERICANSED IN THE UNITED 13:10:33 STATES PROTECT US BEFORE THE PRESIDENT SIGNED THE RESOLUTION 13:10:37 ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2004 1? YOU WERE THE WHITE HOUSE 13:10:41 COUNCIL AT THE TIME. >> WHAT I CAN SAY IS WE CAME TO 13:10:46 A CONCLUSION THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE 13:10:49 THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY BEFORE HE ACTUALLY AUTHORIZED THE 13:10:51 ACTIVITY. >> WHEN THAT WAS? 13:10:53 >> IT WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY 13:10:56 FORCE. >> WHEN? 13:10:57 >> SIR, IT WAS JUST A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AFTER THE 13:11:00 AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE. 13:11:02 >> IT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER NSA BEGAN ITS SURVEILLANCE 13:11:07 PROGRAM? >> AGAIN, THE -- THE NSA DID 13:11:11 NOT COMMENCE THE ACTIVITIES UNDER THE TERRORIST 13:11:14 SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM BEFORE THE PRESIDENT GAVE HIS 13:11:16 AUTHORIZATION AND BEFORE THE PRESIDENT GAVE THE 13:11:18 AUTHORIZATION. HE WAS ADVISED BY LAWYERS 13:11:20 WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION THAT HE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO 13:11:23 AUTHORIZE THIS KIND OF SURVEILLANCE. 13:11:25 >> SO NSA DIDN'T DO THIS UNTIL THE PRESIDENT GAVE HIM 13:11:28 THE GREEN LIGHT THAT THEY HAD -- TO AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS 13:11:31 WIRE TAPPING OF AMERICANSED IN THE UNITED STATES, UNDER THE 13:11:36 CIRCUMSTANCES YOU HAVE DESCRIBED IN YOUR EARLIER 13:11:38 TESTIMONY. >> OF COURSE, SENATOR, THE 13:11:41 NSA HAS OTHER AUTHORITIES TO ENGAGE IN ELECTRONIC 13:11:44 SURVEILLANCE. >> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE 13:11:45 SPECIFIC PROGRAM. >> I'M TOLD THEY TOOK ADVANTAGE 13:11:48 OF THOSE AUTHORITIES. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I 13:11:50 BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE THAT THE NSA DID NOT COMMENCE ANY 13:11:54 KIND OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE WHICH I'M DISCUSSING HERE TODAY 13:11:57 PRIOR TO THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORIZATION. 13:12:00 >> THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID PUBLICLY HE GAVE ABOUT 30 OF 13:12:02 THESE AUTHORIZATIONS HAVING HELD OFF FOR A PERIOD OF TIME I 13:12:06 THINK WHEN THE ADMINISTRATION HEARD THE "NEW YORK TIMES" WAS 13:12:10 LOOKING INTO IT, BUT YOUR WHITE HOUSE COUNT SILL. 13:12:15 DID THE PRESIDENT GIVE HIS FIRST AUTHORIZATION BEFORE, OR 13:12:21 AFTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL AFTERNOON CROFT MET WITH US AND 13:12:24 GAVE US THE PROPOSALS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, ULTIMATELY WENT 13:12:29 INTO THE U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT? >> SIR, I DON'T KNOW. 13:12:34 I DON'T KNOW WHEN HE GAVE YOU THOSE PROPOSALS. 13:12:37 >> WELL, WE ENACTED THE PATRIOT ACT IN OCTOBER 2001. 13:12:41 WE USED THE -- AND YOU WERE THERE AT THE SIGNING CEREMONY. 13:12:45 WE USED THE -- WE TRIED TO ENCOMPASS THOSE THING THAT THE 13:12:52 ADMINISTRATION SAID THEY NEEDED. 13:12:53 WAS THE FIRST ONE OF THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORIZATIONS DONE 13:12:56 BEFORE HE SIGNED THE U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT? 13:12:59 >> I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK. 13:13:01 I DON'T KNOW. >> YOU WILL BE BACK THIS 13:13:04 AFTERNOON. PLEASE CHECK, BECAUSE I'LL ASK 13:13:06 THIS QUESTION AGAIN. HAVE YOU GOT -- I'M LOOKING 13:13:08 AROUND THE ROOM. AN AWFUL LOT OF STAFF. 13:13:11 LET'S HAVE THAT ANSWER BEFORE. YOU WERE THERE WHEN HE SIGNED 13:13:14 THE ACT. LET US KNOW WHEN HIS FIRST 13:13:17 AUTHORIZATION, WHETHER IT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER HE SIGNED THAT 13:13:20 ACT. >> SIR, MAY I MAKE A STATEMENT? 13:13:25 WE BELIEVE THE AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE CONSTITUTED 13:13:30 STATUTORY GRANT OF AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN THIS 13:13:33 COUNTERSURVEILLANCE, IT, THEREFORE, BE NECESSARY TO SEEK 13:13:35 AN AMENDMENT TO FISA THROUGH THE PATRIOT ACT. 13:13:38 >> OK. YOU -- MY QUESTION STILL 13:13:42 REMAINS, AND, LIKE SENATOR SPECTER, I WANT -- I'M TRYING 13:13:46 TO ASK THESE THINGS BASICALLY YOU CAN ANSWER YES OR NO. 13:13:49 YOU TALK ABOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE U.S. -- 13:13:52 FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. WE HAVE A CHART UP OVER THERE. 13:13:57 IT SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT'S AUTHORIZED TO USE ALL NECESSARY 13:14:00 AND APPROPRIATE FORCE AGAINST THOSE NATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS 13:14:03 THAT PLANS TO COMMIT, AID, OR AUTHORIZE THE TRIRS ATTACKS 13:14:08 THAT OCCURRED ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, OR HARBOR PERSONS TO 13:14:12 PREVENT FUTURE ACTS OF TERRORISM AGAINST THE UNITED 13:14:14 STATES BY SUCH NATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, OR PERSONS. 13:14:19 NOW, BASICALLY WHAT ARE YOU SAYING IS THAT CONGRESS MUST 13:14:23 HAVE UNDERSTOOD TO HAVE AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO DO 13:14:27 IT, NOT THAT WE ACTUALLY DID, BUT WE MUST HAVE UNDERSTOOD IT. 13:14:31 NOW, THIS AUTHORIZATION IS NOT A WIRE TAP STATUTE. 13:14:34 I WAS A PROSECUTOR, SENATOR SPECTRE WAS A PROSECUTOR. 13:14:39 A LOT OF OTHER PROSECUTORS HERE. 13:14:40 WE KNOW WHAT THE WIRE TAP STATUTE LOOKS LIKE. 13:14:43 THIS IS NOT IT. LET ME ASK THIS. 13:14:45 UNDER THAT LOGIC, IS THERE ANYTHING TO STOP YOU FROM 13:14:52 IRWIRE TAPPING WITHOUT A WARRANT SOMEBODY IN THE UNITED 13:14:55 STATES THAT YOU SUPPORT OF HAVING AL-QAEDA CONNECTION? 13:15:01 >> CLEARLY, SENATOR, THAT IS NOT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, FIRST 13:15:05 OF ALL. THE PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORIZED A 13:15:07 MUCH MORE NARROW PROGRAM. WE ARE ALWAYS, OF COURSE, 13:15:10 SUMMING TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. 13:15:13 SO THE ACTIVITIES OF ANY KIND OF SURVEILLANCE WITHIN THE 13:15:16 UNITED STATES WOULD, OF COURSE, BE SUBJECT TO THE FOURTH 13:15:19 AMENDMENT. >> MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, WE ARE 13:15:21 GETTING THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION IS KIND OF 13:15:24 PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO. 13:15:26 CAN YOU SHOW US IN THE AUTHORIZATION OF A USE OF 13:15:29 MILITARY FORCE WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE YOU SAY 13:15:32 THAT'S AUTHORIZED IN WIRE TAPPING OF AMERICANS WITHOUT A 13:15:36 WARRANT? >> SIR, IS NO SPECIFIC 13:15:39 LANGUAGE, BUT NEITHER IS THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE DETAIN 13:15:44 AMERICAN CITIZENS, THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THE WORDS ALL 13:15:49 NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FORCE MEANS ALL ACTIVITIES 13:15:52 FUNDAMENTALLY INCIDENT -- >> BUT THERE WASN'T A LAW -- 13:15:54 THEY DIDN'T HAVE A LAW SPECIFICALLY ON THIS. 13:15:57 >> SURE THEY DID, SIR. >> THE JACKSON TEST, THEY HAVE 13:16:00 A LAW ON WIRE TAPPING, IT'S CALLED FISA. 13:16:03 IT'S CALLED FISA, AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT LAW IF THAT LAW 13:16:08 DOESN'T WORK, WHY NOT JUST -- WHY NOT JUST ASK US? 13:16:13 >> SIR, THERE WAS A LAW AT QUESTION IN HAMDI. 13:16:18 18 U.S.C. 4001-A, YOU CANNOT DETAIN A U.S. CITIZEN EXCEPT AS 13:16:24 AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS AND HAMDI CAME IN SAYING THE 13:16:27 AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE ISN'T SUCH A PERMISSION 13:16:30 BY CONGRESS TO DETAIN AN AMERICAN SAID ZEN, THE SUPREME 13:16:35 COURT, JUSTICE O'CONNOR SAID EVEN THOUGH THE WORDS WERE NOT 13:16:38 INCLUDED IN THE THORKS JUSTICE O'CONNOR SAID CONGRESS CLEARLY 13:16:44 AND UNMISTAKEABLY AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT TO DETAIN AN AMERICAN 13:16:50 CITIZEN, AND DETENTION IS FAR MORE INTRUSIVE THAN ELECTRONIC 13:16:55 SURVEILLANCE. >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. 13:16:57 UNDER YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THIS, CAN YOU GO IN AND DO MAIL 13:17:01 SEARCHES, CAN YOU GO INTO E-MAILS? 13:17:04 CAN YOU OPEN MAIL? CAN CAN YOU DO BLACK BAG JOBS? 13:17:08 AND UNDER THE IDEA THAT YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME TO GO 13:17:12 THROUGH WHAT YOU DESCRIBE AS A CUMBERSOME PROCEDURE, CHA WHA 13:17:16 MOST PEOPLE THINK IS A PRETTY EASY PROCEDURE TO GET A FISA 13:17:20 WARRANT, CAN YOU GO AND DO THAT, OF AMERICANS? 13:17:22 >> SIR, I'VE TRIED TO OUTLINE FOR AND YOU THE COMMITTEE WHAT 13:17:26 THE PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORIZED, THAT AST ALL THAT HE HAS 13:17:29 AUTHORIZED. >> DID IT AUTHORIZE THE OPENING 13:17:31 OF FIRST-CLASS MAIL OF U.S. CITIZENS? 13:17:36 THAT YOU CAN ANSWER YES OR NO. >> THERE IS ALL KINDS OF WILD 13:17:40 SPECULATION -- >> DID IT AUTHORIZE IT? 13:17:43 >> LET HIM FINISH. >> THIS IS WILD SPECULATION 13:17:47 ABOUT WHAT THE PRESIDENT AUTHORIZED. 13:17:49 AND WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING. I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO A 13:17:52 DISCUSSION ABOUT -- >> ATTORNEY GENERAL, YOU ARE 13:17:55 NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. DOES THIS LAW -- ARE YOU THE 13:17:59 CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE COUNTRY. 13:18:02 DOES THIS LAW AUTHORIZE THE OPENING OF FIRST-CLASS MAIL OF 13:18:06 U.S. CITIZENS? YES OR NO, UNDER YOUR 13:18:09 INTERPRETATION? >> SENATOR, I THINK THAT, 13:18:12 AGAIN, THAT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. 13:18:15 WE'RE ONLY FOCUSED ON COMMUNICATIONS, INTERNATIONAL 13:18:20 COMMUNICATIONS WHERE ONE PART OF THE COMMUNICATION IS 13:18:23 AL-QAEDA. THAT'S -- THAT'S WHAT THIS 13:18:24 PROGRAM IS ALL ABOUT. >> THAT DOESN'T ANSWER MY 13:18:27 QUESTION. WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL COME 13:18:35 BACK TO THIS, AND THE TONE GENERAL UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME 13:18:38 DATES HE IS GOING TO CHECK DURING THE BREAK, I'LL GO BACK 13:18:41 TO HIM. >> FROM EARLIER TODAY, SENATOR 13:18:44 LEAHY AND THE CHAIRMAN, SENATOR SPECTER, QUESTIONING ATTORNEY 13:18:49 GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES, HERE IN HART 216 ON CAPITOL HILL. 13:18:53 THE HEARING RESUMES AT 1:45, BACK FROM A LUNCH BREAK AND 13:18:57 MORE ROUND OF 10-MINUTE QUESTIONING FOR THE ATTORNEY 13:19:01 GENERAL. BACK AT 1:45 THIS AFTERNOON, 13:19:03 YOU CAN SEE THE HEARING AGAIN TONIGHT AT 8:00 ON C-SPAN. 13:19:08 ALSO IN WASHINGTON ON CAPITOL HILL AND ELSEWHERE, THE RELEASE 13:19:11 OF THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET, HIS FISCAL BLUEPRINT FOR THE 2007 13:19:17 FISCAL YEAR. WE'RE COVERING THE RELEASE AT 13:19:20 THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. 13:19:22 SEVERAL CABINET SECTS TALKING ABOUT THEIR BUDGET. 13:19:24 WE'LL SHOW YOU SOME OF THAT LATER IN OUR PROGRAM SCHEDULE 13:19:27 HERE ON C-SPAN AND ALSO ON C-SPAN 2. 13:19:30 IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE BUDGET AND SOME OF 13:19:32 THE ELEMENTS IN IT, GO TO C-SPAN.ORG IN THE FEATURED LINK 13:19:40 SECTION, YOU'LL HAVE ACCESS TO THE BUDGET. 13:19:42 IN THE MEANTIME, WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE HEARING TO COME BACK, 13:19:47 WE'LL TAKE TO YOU THE WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING. 13:19:50 LOTS OF QUESTIONS ON THE BUDGET AND THE NSA SURVEILLANCE 13:19:53 PROGRAM FOR SCOTT MCLELLAN. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. 13:19:56 I'VE GOT TWO CALLS TO READ OUT TO YOU BRIEFLY, THEN I'LL BE 13:20:01 GLAD TO GO TO YOUR QUESTIONS. THE PRESIDENT THIS MORNING 13:20:04 CALLED DAN ROONEY, THE OWNER OF THE PITTSBURGH STEELERS TO 13:20:08 CONGRATULATE HIM, THE COACH, AND THE PITTSBURGH STEELERS ON 13:20:11 A GREAT SUPER BOWL VICTORY. AND THEN LATER THIS MORNING, 13:20:16 THE PRESIDENT MADE A WORLD LEADER CALL. 13:20:18 THE PRESIDENT CALLED THE AMIR OF KUWAIT TO EXTEND OUR 13:20:23 PERSONAL CONDOLENCES ON THE DEATH OF HIS BROTHER, THE LATE 13:20:27 AMIR, TO OFFER CONGRATULATIONS AND BEST WISHES AS HE TAKES 13:20:30 OVER THE POSITION. THE AMIR EXPRESSED APPRECIATION 13:20:35 TO THE CALL AND INDICATED HE WOULD CONTINUE ON THE PATH OF 13:20:39 HIS BROTHER, CONTINUING BEING ON STRONG U.S.-KUWAIT 13:20:43 RELATESES. HE INVITED THE AMIR TO VISIT 13:20:46 THE WHITE HOUSE AT HIS CONVENIENCE. 13:20:47 EARLIER TODAY, YOU HEARD FROM OUR BUDGET DIRECTOR, JOSH 13:20:51 BOLTEN ABOUT THE BUDGET RELEASED EARLIER TODAY. 13:20:54 THIS IS A BUDGET THAT CONTINUES TO BUILDING UPON THE PRO-GROWTH 13:20:58 POLICIES WE HAVE PUT IN PLACE TO GET OUR ECONOMY GROWING AND 13:21:02 CALLS FOR MAKING TAX CUTS PERMANENT. 13:21:05 WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS THE CREATION OF 13:21:09 NEARLY 4.8 MILLION NEW JOBS, UNEMPLOYMENT RATE THAT'S DOWN 13:21:12 TO 4.7%. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO BUILD ON 13:21:15 THAT BY BUILDING UPON THE PRO-GROWTH POLICIES THAT THE 13:21:18 PRESIDENT HAS OUTLINED IN MAKING TAX CUTS PERMANENT. 13:21:21 IT'S ALSO A BUDGET THAT RESTRAINS PENDING AND BUILDS 13:21:25 UPON THE PROGRESS CONGRESS HAS MADE TO REDUCE NONSECURITY 13:21:30 DISCRETIONARY SPENDING AND REDUCE GROWTH IN OUR 13:21:33 ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS, IT FOCUSES ON OUR MOST IMPORTANT 13:21:36 PRIORITIES, FROM WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM TO 13:21:40 STRENGTHENING OUR HOMELAND DEFENSES TO HELPING THE PEOPLE 13:21:42 OF THE GULF COAST RECOVER AND REBUILD THEIR LIVES AND THEIR 13:21:46 COMMUNITY AS WELL AS FUNDING IMPORTANT DOMESTIC PRIORITIES 13:21:49 TO REDUCE HEALTHCARE COSTS AND REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON 13:21:52 FOREIGN SOURCES OF INJURY, TO KEEP AMERICA THE MOST 13:21:56 COMPETITIVE COMMITTEE IN THE WORLD. 13:21:57 AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO GO TO YOUR QUESTIONS. 13:22:01 >> IRAN HAS ANNOUNCED ITS CUTTING OFF TRADE TIES WITH 13:22:07 DENMARK OVER THE CARTOON WITH THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD. 13:22:11 DOES THIS WORRY YOU AT ALL? >> I HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT REGIME 13:22:14 IN IRAN -- I THINK WE HAVE MADE OUR VIEWS VERY CLEAR WHEN IT 13:22:19 COMES TO THE REGIME, BUT IN TERMS OF THE ISSUE RELATING TO 13:22:22 THE CARTOONS, WE HAVE SPOKEN OUT ABOUT THIS VERY ISSUE. 13:22:26 WE CONDEMN THE ACTS OF VIOLENCE THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE. 13:22:29 THERE SIMPLY IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO ENGAGE IN 13:22:32 VIOLENCE. WE CALL FOR CONSTRUCTIVE AND 13:22:36 PEACEFUL DIALOG BASED ON RESPECT FOR ALL RELIGIOUS 13:22:41 FAITHS. THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH THE 13:22:45 VIEWS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS. 13:22:49 BUT THEY SHOULD DO SO IN A PEACEFUL MANNER, WE URGE ALL 13:22:54 GOVERNMENTS TO TAKE STEPS TO LOWER TENSIONS AND PREVENT 13:22:58 VIOLENCE, INCLUDING AGAINST DIPLOMATIC PREMISES, 13:23:00 BUSINESSES, AND INDIVIDUALS. AND LET ME MAKE A COUPLE OTHER 13:23:05 IMPORTANT COMMENTS. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE NEED 13:23:06 FOR TOLERANCE AND RESPECT, FOR PEOPLE OF ALL COMMUNITY AND ALL 13:23:12 FAITHS. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR 13:23:14 EVERYONE TO HEED. WE HAVE ALSO SAID THAT WE 13:23:19 UNDERSTAND FULLY WHY MUSLIMS FIND THE CARTOONS OFFENSIVE, WE 13:23:24 HAVE SPOKEN OUT ABOUT THAT. IN A FREE SOCIETY, PEOPLE HAVE 13:23:28 THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE 13:23:32 OFFENSIVE AND WRONG. WE SUPPORT AND RESPECT THE 13:23:34 FREEDOM OF PRESS, BUT THEY ARE ALSO IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITIES 13:23:38 THAT COME WITH THAT FREEDOM, THAT'S WHY WE CONTINUE TO URGE 13:23:44 TOLERANT RESPECT FOR PEOPLE OF ALL FAITHS. 13:23:45 WE URGE ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE CRITICIZING OR CRITICAL OF THE 13:23:51 CARTOONS TO FORCEFULLY SPEAK OUT AGAINST ALL FORMS OF 13:23:54 HATEFUL SPEECH, INCLUDING CARTOONS AND ARTICLES THAT 13:23:56 FREQUENTLY HAVE APPEARED IN THE ARAB WORLD ESPOUSING 13:24:01 ANTI-SEMITIC AND ANTI-CHRISTIAN VIEWS, SO THOSE ARE THE POINTS 13:24:05 WE WOULD EMPHASIZE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS VERY ISSUE. 13:24:08 >> GOOD, DEB. >> IN THE NSA HEARING THIS 13:24:12 MORNING, SPECTER SUGGESTED THAT THE LEGALITY OF THE PROGRAM BE 13:24:17 PERMITTED TO A SPECIAL COURT SET UP THROUGH THE FISA ACT, 13:24:21 AND GONZALES INITIALLY DIDN'T SAY MUCH ABOUT IT, BUT THEN HE 13:24:25 DIDN'T -- HE DIDN'T EXACTLY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT IDEA 13:24:28 IS THAT SOMETHING THE WHITE HOUSE IS CONSIDERING? 13:24:31 >> A COUPLE OF THING, ONE, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO DOING ON 13:24:35 THE SPOT ANALYSIS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S TESTIMONY 13:24:39 TODAY. THIS IS ONGOING, I WON'T DO A 13:24:42 PLAY BY PLAY COMMENTARY ON IT. THE PROGRAM IS A VITAL PROGRAM. 13:24:46 IT'S TARGETED AND LIMITED. ITS ONE SPURP DIRECTED TO 13:24:51 PREVENTING AND DETECTING ATTACKS. 13:24:53 AS YOU HAVE HEARD FROM DIRECTOR HAZARD AYDEN, MULLEN, 13:24:59 NEGROPONTE, IT'S A USEFUL AND SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM. 13:25:01 AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS EXPLAINING THE LEGAL 13:25:04 JUSTIFICATION BEHIND THAT PROGRAM. 13:25:05 WE ARE A NATION AT WAR, AND SURVEILLANCE OF THE ENEMY IS 13:25:10 CRITICAL TO WAGING AND WINNING WAR. 13:25:13 NOW IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC ISSUE YOU BRING UP, I WON'T GET 13:25:16 INTO RULING THINGS IN OR OUT FROM THIS PODIUM THIS IS 13:25:19 SOMETHING WE HAVE BRIEFED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON OVER THE 13:25:22 COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. 13:25:24 WE WILL CONTINUE TO BRIEF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ABOUT THIS 13:25:27 VITAL PROGRAM. IT IS CRITICAL TO PROTECTING 13:25:30 THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IT IS ONE TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX 13:25:33 THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US TO WIN THE WAR ON TERRORISM, AND 13:25:38 TO DISRUPT PLATS HERE AT HOME AND PREVENT ATTACKS. 13:25:41 >> IS IT SAFE TO SAY THAT THE WHITE HOUSE WILL ENTER TAKEN -- 13:25:46 >> I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT I JUST SAID. 13:25:50 >> SINCE THE PRESIDENT SAID HE BELIEVES HE IS STRONGLY ACTING 13:25:54 WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY, WOULDN'T A REVIEW BE WELCOMED SO IT 13:25:57 COULD GIVE GREATER ASSURANCE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT HE IS 13:26:02 DOING THAT? WOULD HE SUPPORT THAT IDEA? 13:26:04 >> THE PRESIDENT DID -- THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDED TO 13:26:08 THAT VERY QUESTION EARLIER TODAY. 13:26:10 I HAVE EXPRESSED OUR VIEWS FROM THIS PODIUM, KEEPING MEMBERS OF 13:26:14 CONGRESS ABOUT THIS VITAL PROGRAM IS IMPORTANT. 13:26:16 THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE IT FROM THE VERY 13:26:18 BEGINNING. THIS IS A LIMITED PROGRAM IN 13:26:20 NATURE. WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH 13:26:21 CONGRESS AS WE MOVE FORWARD, BUT I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 13:26:24 UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRESIDENT DOING EVERYTHING 13:26:27 HE CAN WITHIN HIS POWER TO PREVENT ATTACKS FROM HAPPENING. 13:26:30 HE HAS NOT ONLY THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS, BUT HE HAS THE 13:26:35 RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THIS. THE 9/11 COMMISSION TALKED 13:26:38 ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS OF AL-QAEDA, E-MAIL 13:26:43 COMMUNICATIONS, INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS, AND CELL PHONE 13:26:46 COMMUNICATIONS FROM WITHIN THE UNITED STATES TO ABROAD. 13:26:49 THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, DETECTING AND PREVENTING 13:26:53 ATTACKS, AND FOCUSING ON AL-QAEDA OR 13:26:57 AL-QAEDA-AFFILIATEDED COMMUNICATIONS. 13:27:00 >> -- ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION? 13:27:03 >> I'M NOT GOING TO RULE THINGS IN OR OUT FROM THIS PODIUM. 13:27:08 >> DO YOU THINK HE SHOULD OBEY THE LAW? 13:27:11 HE PUT HIS HAND ON THE BIBLE TWICE TO UPHOLD THE 13:27:14 CONSTITUTION. WIRE TAPPING IS NOT LEGAL UNDER 13:27:16 THE CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT A WARRANT. 13:27:18 >> I GUESS YOU DIDN'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE ATTORNEY 13:27:20 GENERAL'S HEARING EARLIER TODAY, BECAUSE HE WALKED 13:27:22 THROUGH VERY CLEARLY THE RATIONALE BEFORE -- BEHIND THIS 13:27:27 PROGRAM, HELEN, YOU HAVE TO ASK -- WELL, HE'S NOT. 13:27:30 ARE WE A NATION AT WAR? >> THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION. 13:27:34 >> THAT IS THE ISSUE. >> THE QUESTION IS THERE ARE 13:27:37 MEANS TO GO GET A WARRANT TO SPY ON PEOPLE. 13:27:40 >> ENEMY SURVEILLANCE IS CRITICAL TO WAGING A WINNING 13:27:43 WAR. IT'S A TRADITIONAL TOOLS OF 13:27:46 WAR. >> BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE RUNNING 13:27:49 ROOM. >> AND IT'S CLEAR HOW PREVIOUS 13:27:52 ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE CITED THE SAME AUTHORITY, AND WE'LL 13:27:57 CONTINUE TO GO EVERYTHING WE CAN IN THE POWER TO PROTECT THE 13:28:01 AMERICAN PEOPLE THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU 13:28:03 KNOW THAT. >> NO, I DON'T. 13:28:05 >> TWO QUESTIONS. ONE, TWO WILL -- 13:28:08 >> GO BACK AND THROIVEN WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS. 13:28:12 THERE ARE CAREER OFFICIALS TO MAKE THE DECISIONS WHEN IT 13:28:15 COMES TO THIS. GOOD. 13:28:19 >> [INAUDIBLE] 13:28:33 AND -- [INAUDIBLE] 13:28:38 U.S. RELATIONS BY MAKING COMMENTS THAT INDIA MORE BE IN 13:28:44 FAVOR OF THE U.S. OTHERWISE -- [INAUDIBLE] 13:28:53 NOW SOME SAY IN INDIA -- [INAUDIBLE] 13:29:05 >> I THINK ACTUALLY THE STATE DEPARTMENT CLARIFIED THESE 13:29:08 VIEWS THAT WERE BEING EXPRESSED AS PERSONAL VIEWS, PERSONAL 13:29:11 OBSERVATIONS THAT THE AMBASSADOR WAS MAKING, THEY 13:29:14 TALKED ABOUT THIS VERY ISSUE AND WENT ON TO COMMENT FURTHER 13:29:16 ABOUT IT. I WOULD LEAVE IT WHERE THE 13:29:18 STATE DEPARTMENT DID IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS SAID. 13:29:25 [INAUDIBLE] NOW WE ARE ON THE SPOTLIGHT, SO 13:29:34 IT PUTS THE RELATIONS ON THE SPOTLIGHT. 13:29:37 >> THE PREDENT LOOKS FORWARD TO GOING TO I UNDERSTAND IN A 13:29:41 FEW WEEKS AND VISITING WITH PRIME MINISTER SINGH AND 13:29:45 VISITING THE COUNTRY AND VISITING WITH PEOPLE IN INDIA. 13:29:48 THAT'S WHERE THINGS STAND. BUT IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC 13:29:50 ISSUES, I THINK THE STATE DEPARTMENT CLARIFIED THAT. 13:29:57 >> PUTTING IN THE SPOTLIGHT. BUT AMONG THOSE, THERE WAS NO 13:30:03 PRESIDENT OF IRAN. HOW DOES THE PRESIDENT FEEL 13:30:08 ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF OF IRAN, YEFFS NOT AMONG THOSE, BUT THE 13:30:13 CHINESE WERE THERE. >> WELL, IF YOU ARE TALKING -- 13:30:16 YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY 13:30:19 AGENCY? >> NO. 13:30:20 >> I'M SORRY? >> NO. 13:30:22 THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT THE WORST DICTATORS ON THIS GLOBE TODAY. 13:30:26 >> YEAH, WE VERY CLEARLY EXPRESSED OUR CONCERNS ABOUT 13:30:30 THE REGIME IN IRAN WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR SPONSORSHIP OF 13:30:34 TERRORISM, THEIR BEHAVIOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, THEIR PURSUIT 13:30:37 OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE COVER OF OF A CIVILIAN PROGRAM AND 13:30:41 INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HAS SPOKEN VERY CLEARLY IN TERMS OF 13:30:43 ITS VIEWS AND CONCERNS WHEN IT COMES TO THE REGIME'S CONTINUED 13:30:49 BEHAVIOR THAT IS MOVING IT IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, THAT'S WHY 13:30:51 THE MATTER HAS BEEN REPORTED AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE 13:30:55 NUCLEAR PROGRAM, IT'S BEEN REPORTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS 13:30:57 SECURITY COUNCIL. GOOD, KARL. 13:30:59 >> AND THE PROGRAM IS VERY VIEWED EVERY 45 DAYS BY THE 13:31:03 ADMINISTRATION, THE PRESIDENT SAID THA HE -- HE WOULD OPPOSE 13:31:06 ANYTHING THAT MIGHT COMPROMISE THE OPERATIONS SECURITY AND 13:31:09 EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS PROGRAM. AS A MATTER OF PRIN SPELL, IS 13:31:13 THE ADMINISTRATION OPEN TO THE IDEA OF MAKING THE PROGRAM 13:31:16 SUBJECT TO SOME LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT, EVEN FROM THE 13:31:18 LEGISLATIVE OR JUDICIAL BRANCHES? 13:31:20 >> A COUPLE OF THINGS. THERE ALREADY IS OVERSIGHT, 13:31:22 BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN BRIEFING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ABOUT THAT. 13:31:24 WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, AND THERE IS OVERSIGHT WHEN IT 13:31:28 COMES TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM, 13:31:32 BECAUSE YOU HAVE NSA LAWYERS THAT ARE VERY INVOLVED IN 13:31:37 OVERSEEING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS PROGRAM. 13:31:38 YOU HAVE THE -- AN INSPECTOR GENERAL THAT HAS RIGOROUS 13:31:42 OVERSIGHT OF THE PROGRAM, AND, AGAIN, I EMPHASIZE THAT THERE 13:31:45 IS THE CAREER OFFICIALS ARE THE ONES IN PLACE MAKING THESE 13:31:49 DISCUSSIONS, AND AS GENERAL HAYDEN HAS POINTED OUT 13:31:55 REPEATEDLY, THE LIMITED NATURE OF THIS PROGRAM, HOW ITS 13:31:58 TARGETED AL-QAEDA COMMUNICATIONS, AND HOW WE 13:32:00 DON'T HAVE TIME TO SPEND OUR TIME ON OTHER COMMUNICATIONS. 13:32:03 WE ONLY HAVE THE RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO FOCUS ON ONES THAT 13:32:08 ARE RELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WHICH IS TO 13:32:12 PREVENT AND DETECT ATTACKS. >> THE BRIEFINGS THAT ARE AND 13:32:15 HAVE BEEN PROVIDED CONSTITUTE OVERTIGHT BY THE LEGISLATIVE 13:32:19 BODY, AS WELL AS BY THOSE IN THE FISA COURT HAVE THAT HAVE 13:32:23 BEEN BRIEFED? >> LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT, 13:32:26 ABSOLUTELY. AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POINTED 13:32:28 OUT EARLIER TODAY, THE LEADERSHIP, BOTH THE SENATE AND 13:32:32 HOUSE, REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT HAVE BEEN BRIEFED, AS WELL AS 13:32:36 THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE. 13:32:38 THE BIPARTISAN LEADERSHIP, AND -- 13:32:40 >> WOULD YOU AGREE THEN THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF 13:32:43 OPINION. >> I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO 13:32:45 TALKING ABOUT THE FISA COURT THIS IS A COURT THAT PREFERS 13:32:48 NOT TO COMMENT PUBLICLY, SO I'LL LEAVE IT TO THEM IF THEY 13:32:52 WANT TO SAY MORE. >> THE BRIEFINGS ARE NOT, IN 13:32:55 FACT, OVERSIGHT, THAT IT'S INADEQUATE, LOOK AT SUFFICIENT 13:32:59 INFORMATION, WOULD YOU AGREE THERE'S A DIFFERENCES OF 13:33:01 OPINION ON THE DEFINITION OF BRIEFING VERSUS OVERSIGHT? 13:33:05 >> THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST HIGHLY CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS IN 13:33:09 OUR GOVERNMENT, OR IT WAS UNTIL ITS UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE, 13:33:13 THAT'S WHY WE STILL DON'T GET INTO TALKING ABOUT OPERATIONAL 13:33:15 ASPECTS OF THE, BUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS BRIEFED MEMBERS OF 13:33:18 CONGRESS MORE THAN A DOZEN TIMES ABOUT THIS VITAL TOOL 13:33:22 THAT WE ARE USING IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM. 13:33:24 AND YOU'VE HEARD MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO HAVE BEEN BRIEFED 13:33:28 TALK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS VERY PROGRAM, AND WE WILL 13:33:32 CONTINUE TO KEEP THEM BRIEFED. LET'S GO BACK A LOOK OVER THE 13:33:35 COURSE OF HISTORY, YOU LOOK AT EVEN THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT. 13:33:39 THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT SPELLS OUT OR TALKS ABOUT WHEN 13:33:41 IT COMES TO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND BRIEFINGS, AND IT 13:33:45 SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT HOW WHEN HAVE YOU A PARTICULARLY 13:33:50 SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY MATTER LIKE THIS, IT'S 13:33:54 PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE TO BRIEF IN THE MANNER THAT WE DID. 13:33:56 >> TO THE EXTENT THAT LEGISLATORS MAY DETERMINE THAT 13:33:59 THEY WANT SOME ADDITIONAL SUPERVISION AND OVERSIGHT 13:34:02 BEYOND THE BRIEFINGS THAT YOU PROVIDE, WOULD THE 13:34:05 ADMINISTRATION OPPOSE THAT AS AN INTRUSION ON THE 13:34:08 PRESIDENT'S, QUOTE, INHERENT AUTHORITY. 13:34:10 >> SOME MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN BRIEFED HAVE SAID THAT THE 13:34:14 UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN HARM TOLVE 13:34:17 NATIONAL SECURITY. WE HAVE HEARD TOP INTELLIGENCE 13:34:19 OFFICIALS TALK ABOUT HOW THE DISCLOSURE OF THIS PROGRAM HAS 13:34:22 BEEN HARMFUL TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, AND THE CONCERN HAVE 13:34:26 YOU IS THAT VERY ISSUE. WE DON'T WANT AL-QAEDA TO HAVE 13:34:33 OUR DELAY BOOK. AL-QAEDA IS A VERY -- HANG ON. 13:34:36 NO, NO, HANG ON. WE KNOW AL-QAEDA IS A VERY 13:34:40 SOPHISTICATED ENEMY THEM HAVE SOPHISTICATED COMMUNICATIONS. 13:34:43 THEY ARE TRAINED AND -- IN COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND 13:34:49 COUNTERSURVEILLANCE OPERATIONS. WE KNOW THEY ARE CONSTANTLY 13:34:53 ADAPTING AND CHANGING TACTICS, THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT 13:34:56 WE DON'T GET INTO TALKING ABOUT PROGRAMS OF THIS NATURE. 13:34:59 NOW, BECAUSE OF ITS DISCLOSURE, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT IN A 13:35:03 VERY LIMITED WAY AND TALKED ABOUT WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT IS 13:35:05 NOT. AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO POINT 13:35:07 THAT OUT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 13:35:09 I THINK THE MESH PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF 13:35:12 WHAT WE'RE WORKING TO DO I WILL NOT TRY TO RULE THINGS IN OR 13:35:16 OUT. WE'LL CONTINUE WORKING WITH 13:35:17 CONGRESS. >> WHAT IS THE UPDATE ON THE 13:35:20 MISSING AL-QAEDA -- [INAUDIBLE] 13:35:25 >> AND IS THE ADMIN STATION SATISFIED THAT THE GOVERNMENT 13:35:29 HAS BEEN COOPERATING? >> THAT'S A QUESTION TO ASK 13:35:35 INTERPOL, BUT WE HAVE CLOSE COOPERATION WITH THE YEMENI 13:35:39 GOVERNMENT. WE SHARE INFORMATION WHEN IT 13:35:40 COMES TO COUNTERING TERRORIST THREATS THAT WE BOTH FACE IN 13:35:46 TERMS OF THE PRISONERS THAT ESCAPED, IT IS A DISAPPOINTING 13:35:50 DEVELOPMENT THAT AL-QAEDA OPERATIVES ESCAPED, ESPECIALLY 13:35:54 ONE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN TARGETING AND KILLING 13:35:59 AMERICANS. WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH 13:36:05 INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS TO GO AFTER AND CAPTURE THESE 13:36:09 DANGEROUS TERRORISTS. >> HAS THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED 13:36:14 ANY INFORMATION ABOUT HOW IT HAPPENED? 13:36:15 >> I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 13:36:20 [INAUDIBLE] DEMOCRATS ARE OBVIOUSLY FEELING 13:36:31 LIKE THESE ARE HAVEP CUTS TO THE POOR AND VULNERABLE, BUT 13:36:34 ALSO CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS WHO SAYS THIS IS DISASTROUS 13:36:40 POLITICALLY FOR CERTAIN REPUBLICANS WHO BELIEVE THAT 13:36:43 THESE CUTS DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH. WHAT IS THE WHITE HOUSE SAY TO 13:36:47 THOSE WHO FEEL THAT THE VULNERABLE -- 13:36:51 >> I'M SURE THERE ARE A LOT OF COMMENTS MADE. 13:36:55 THIS IS A BUDGE THAT'S CONTINUES TO KEEP THE ECONOMY 13:36:58 GROWING AND BUILDS UPON THE SPENDING RESTRAINTS THAT 13:37:02 CONGRESS HAS MOVED FORWARD ON AT OUR URGING AND MAKES SURE 13:37:06 THAT OUR NASHE PRIORITIES ARE FULLY FUNDED, LIKE PROTECTING 13:37:12 THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND WING WART ON TERRORISM, HELPING THE 13:37:16 PEOPLE GULF COAST REBUILD THEIR LIVES, MOVING FORWARD ON KEY 13:37:20 DOMESTIC PRIORITIES, THAT WILL KEEP AMERICA THE MOST 13:37:23 COMPETITIVE AND INNOVATIVE ECONOMY IN THE WORLD. 13:37:25 YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BUDGET. SOME OF THE PEOPLE YOU POINT 13:37:29 OUT, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE BGET. 13:37:33 THE PRESIDENT TALKED ABOUT IN THE STATE OF THE UNION OF THE 13:37:36 IMPORTANCE OF ELEVATING THE TONE AND WORKING TOGETHER TO 13:37:39 MEETING PRIORITIES AND CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE SPENDING THE 13:37:41 TACK PAYER DOLLARS WISELY, THAT'S WHAT HE WILL CONTINUE TO 13:37:45 DO. WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER AND 13:37:47 FOCUS ON KEY PRIORITIES FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND BUILD UPON 13:37:50 THE BUDGET THAT WE GAS PASSED THIS PAST YEAR. 13:37:54 CONGRESS ENACTED IMPORTANT SPENDING RESTRAINTS. 13:37:57 CONGRESS MOVED FORWARD ON 89 OF THE PROGRAMS THAT THE PRESIDENT 13:38:01 CALLED FOR EITHER BEING REDUCED OR ELIMINATED LAST YEAR. 13:38:04 THEY ACTED ON 89 OF THE 150 OR SO PROGRAMS, WE'RE CALLING FOR 13:38:09 ANOTHER 141 NOW TO EITHER BE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED. 13:38:14 CONGRESS ALSO JUST PASSED 40 BILLION IN MANDATORY SAVINGS, 13:38:18 AND THE REAL FISCAL DANGER THIS COUNTRY FACES FROM ENTITLEMENT 13:38:22 PROGRAMS AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO BUILD UPON THAT, 13:38:25 AND THE PRESIDENT PROPOSED AN ADDITIONAL $65 MILLION IN THE 13:38:30 GROWTH OF ENTITLEMENT SPENDING, AND HE ALSO IN THE STATE OF THE 13:38:33 UNION CALLED FOR A BIPARTISAN COMMISSION TO WORK TOGETHER TO 13:38:37 ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS FACING OUR ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS LIKE 13:38:40 MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICAID. 13:38:43 >> HOW DO YOU FEEL -- [INAUDIBLE] 13:38:53 >> THE WAY I JUST SAID, EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. 13:38:56 I THINK YOU'RE IGNORING WHAT'S IN THIS BUDGET AND WHAT THIS 13:38:59 BUDGET DOES. NOW, WE WILL CONTINUE TO TALK 13:39:04 ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF MEETING OUR NATIONAL PRIORITIES. 13:39:06 BUT WE'VE GOT TO CONTINUE TO CUT NONSECURITY DISCRETIONARY 13:39:09 SPENDING. WE ARE A NATION AT WORE WAR. 13:39:13 WE'LL FUND OUR TROOPS. BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO REDUCE 13:39:16 NONSECURITY DISCRETIONARY SPENDING ELSEWHERE. 13:39:18 WE DID THAT LAST YEAR, AN ACTUAL CUT NOW WE ARE PROPOSING 13:39:22 ANOTHER CUT IN NONSECURITY DISCRETIONARY SPENDING. 13:39:25 SO WE HAVE A GOOD RECORD OF CHANGING THE DIRECTION OF 13:39:29 SPENDING IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THAT'S WHY IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT 13:39:32 TO CONTINUE TO MAKE THE TAX CUTS -- OR KEEP TAXES LOW AND 13:39:36 THAT MEANS KEEPING TAX CUTS PERMANENT, AND THAT'S SOMETHING 13:39:40 THIS BUDGET CALLS FOR. WE'LL CONTINUE TO URGE CONGRESS 13:39:43 TO MOVE FORWARD. THAT WILL KEEP REVENUES UP, 13:39:45 WHILE WE REDUCE SPENDING ELSEWHERE THAT, WILL HELP US 13:39:49 CUT THE DEFICIT IN HALF HALF THIS IS A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET TO 13:39:54 KEEP THE DEFICIT IN HALF. AND IT TAKES STEPS TO REIN IN 13:39:57 THE GROWTH OF ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. 13:40:00 REMEMBER, THE ONE THAT WAS JUST PACED, THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME 13:40:03 IN SEVERAL YEARS THAT CONGRESS HAD ACTED TO REIN IN THE GROWTH 13:40:07 AND REDUCE THE GROWTH IN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS. 13:40:11 >> I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU. 13:40:14 COMING UP ON FIVE YEARS SINCE OSAMA BIN LADEN OSTENSIBLY FLED 13:40:20 AFGHANISTAN. ISN'T THE PRESIDENT FRUSTRATED 13:40:22 THAT ALL OF THE INTELLIGENCE SOURCES, ALL OF THESE 13:40:25 MONITORING OF COMMUNICATIONS, ALL THIS INTELLIGENCE 13:40:31 SATELLITES, CAN'T FIND ONE TALL MAN? 13:40:32 WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? >> IT'S AL-QAEDA THAT HAS BEEN 13:40:35 FRUSTRATED, FIRST OF ALL. WE'VE ALREADY BROUGHT TO 13:40:38 JUSTICE 3/4 OF THEIR KNOWN LEADERSHIP. 13:40:42 WE'RE WINNING THE WASN'TOR TERRORM, BUT AS THE PRESIDENT 13:40:45 SAID FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A LONG WAR. 13:40:48 IT'S AN UNCONVENTIONAL WALL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 13:40:51 THIS IS A SOPHISTICATED ENEMY WE'RE UP AGAINST. 13:40:53 WE HAVE THEM ON THE RUN. THEY ARE UNDER A LOT OF 13:40:56 PRESSURE. WE HAVE SEEN TIME AND AGAIN 13:40:59 THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO JUSTICE. 13:41:03 PEOPLE THAT ARE MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AS WELL AS -- AS WELL 13:41:08 AS OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATION AND IS HE SOMEONE WHO IS ON THE 13:41:13 RUN AND IS HIDING. AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND 13:41:16 OTHERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN TESTIMONY LAST WEEK. 13:41:18 WHY THAT HAS BEEN THE SITUATION. 13:41:20 >> HOW CAN HE -- >> IT'S BROADER THAN JUST -- 13:41:23 >> -- HIDE FORFY YEARS? >> WE HAVE TO THARM WE ARE A 13:41:28 NATION THAT REMAINS AT WAR, THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT WE 13:41:34 ACT ON ALL FRONT, USE EVERY TOOL AT OUR DISPOSAL TO GO 13:41:38 AFTER AND BRING TO JUSTICE THOSE WHO SEEK TO DO US HARM. 13:41:41 >> OK. MY SECOND QUICK QUESTION IS HOW 13:41:44 IS YOUR MOTHER? WE'RE PAYING YOU FOR YOUR 13:41:48 LOYALTY. >> MY MOTHER IS DOING GREAT. 13:41:50 THANK YOU. I SAW HER THIS WEEKEND. 13:41:53 >> GOOD, RICHARD. >> THE SAME LOBBY THAT FOUGHT 13:41:58 SO HARD AGAINST THE SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN THIS YEAR IS 13:42:01 GOING TO GEAR UP TO FIGHT AGAINST THESE MEDICARE 13:42:04 PROPOSALS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS MAKING IN THE BUDGET TO REDUCE 13:42:07 SPENDING LEVELS ON MEDICARE, ESPECIALLY REIMBURSEMENTS TO 13:42:11 HOSPITALS AND SO FORTH. HOW DO YOU PLAN IT TO BATTLE 13:42:13 THAT? THIS IS A PRETTY POWERFUL 13:42:17 LOBBY. >> CONGRESS MOVED FORWARD AND 13:42:19 PASSED IMPORTANT REDUCTIONS IN THE COST OF MEDICAID JUST THIS 13:42:23 YEAR. WE HAVE SEEN IMPORTANT SUCCESS. 13:42:25 WE NEED TO BUILD UPON THAT. REMEMBER THE MEDICARE MODERN 13:42:29 IZATION INCLUDED SOME COAST CONTROLS. 13:42:32 WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO BUILD UPON THAT. 13:42:33 WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE THAT THERE ARE GREAT 13:42:39 CHALLENGES FACING OUR ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS THAT IS 13:42:41 WHERE THE REAL FISCAL DANGER LIES, WE NEED TO START TAKING 13:42:44 STEPS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. WE NED TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT 13:42:48 MEDICARE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. 13:42:50 THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. IF WE DON'T ACT AND IT 13:42:53 CONTINUES ON THE COURSE THAT IT IS GOING, WE ARE GOING TO -- 13:42:57 OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN WILL BE IN A SERIOUS SITUATION. 13:42:59 WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS THERE FOR OUR CHILDREN AND 13:43:02 GRANDCHILDREN WHEN THEY ARE SENIORS. 13:43:04 WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT CONTINUES TO BE THERE FOR 13:43:07 PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO TAKE 13:43:09 THESE STEPS TO REDUCE THE GROWTH. 13:43:11 AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS BUDGET. 13:43:15 GOOD. >> SCOTT, IN THEIR VERY 13:43:21 EXTENSIVE PAGE ONE AND BIOGRAPHICAL REPORTING ON THE 13:43:24 NEW HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER, JOHN BOEHNER, NEITHER THE "NEW YORK 13:43:28 TIMES" NOR THE "WASHINGTON POST" EVER MENTIONED HIS 13:43:32 LAWSUIT OF DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMAN MCDERMOTT OF SEATTLE FOR 13:43:37 VIOLATING THE FEDERAL WIRE TAPPING LAW, IN WHICH A FEDERAL 13:43:40 COURT ORDERED MCDERMOTT TO PAY $3560,000. 13:43:44 AND MY FIRST QUESTION TO YOU AS THE PRESIDENT'S PRESS 13:43:47 SECRETARY, BELIEVE THESE TWO CIRCULATIONS SHRINKING 13:43:50 NEWSPAPERS OUGHT TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH? 13:43:53 >> LES, OBVIOUSLY HAVE YOU SOME OPINIONS ON THOSE NEWSPAPERS, 13:43:58 I'LL LET YOU EXPRESS THOSE ON YOUR SHOW. 13:44:01 I TRY TO AVOID BEING A MEDIA CRITIC. 13:44:03 LET ME JUST ADD THAT THE PRESIDENT LOOKS FORWARD TO 13:44:07 CONTINUING TO WORK WITH THE NEW MAJORITY LEADER, CONGRESSMAN 13:44:10 BOEHNER. HE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION LAST 13:44:13 WEEK, THE PRESIDENT LOOKS FORWARD TO WORKING WITH HIM TO 13:44:19 MOVE FORWARD ON IMPORTANT PRIORITIES FOR THE AMERICAN 13:44:21 PEOPLE. PARTICULARLY ONES OUTLINED IN 13:44:23 OUR BUDGET. >> KEN MEHLMAN SAID YESTERDAY 13:44:28 WHETHER IT'S THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE PLANTATION OR THE WORST 13:44:31 ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY, HILLARY CLINTON SEEMS TO HAVE A 13:44:34 LOT OF ANGER, AND NEW YORK "DAILY NEWS ON" -- 13:44:41 >> WE'LL LEAVE THIS AND GO BACK TO THE HART SENATE OFFICE AND 13:44:45 THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE HEARING WITH ALBERTO GONE HALF HE IS. 13:44:48 >> IT'S UNUSUAL TO HAVE A MONDAY MORNING SESSION FOR THE 13:44:51 UNITED STATES SENATE, WE HAVE DONE THIS BECAUSE THIS 13:44:54 COMMITTEE HAS BEEN SO BUSY, AND WE HAVE ASBESTOS REFORM LADIES 13:45:00 AND GENTLEMEN LATION WHICH SENATOR LEAHY AND I ARE 13:45:05 COSPONSORING COMING TO THE FLOOR TODAY, WE HAVE A FULL 13:45:08 PLATTER WITH THE CONFIRMATION OF JUSTICE ALITO, AND WE WANTED 13:45:12 TO HAVE THIS HEARING AT AN EARLY DAY, THIS WAS THE 13:45:16 EARLIEST WE COULD DO, WHICH, GIVEN THE INTERVENING HOLIDAYS 13:45:21 AFTER THE PROGRAM WAS ANNOUNCED BACK ON DECEMBER 16, WE HAVE 13:45:26 PROCEEDED. WE ANTICIPATED A FULL DAY OF 13:45:30 HEARINGS, AT LEAST TWO ROUND, AND IT'S APPARENT TO ME AT THIS 13:45:33 POINT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FINISH TODAY WITHIN 13:45:36 A REASONABLE TIME. SENATOR FEINGOLD IS NOD 13:45:40 NEGOTIATE AFFIRMATIVE. THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I HAVE 13:45:43 GOT HIM TO NOD IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. 13:45:45 SO YOU SEE WE'RE MAKING SOME PROGRESS. 13:45:47 BUT I DO BELIEVE THERE WILL BE A FULL SECOND ROUND, AND WE 13:45:53 DON'T FUNCTION TOO WELL INTO THE EVENING. 13:45:55 IF WE HAVE TO, WE DO. BUT IT'S DIFFICULT FOR THE 13:46:00 WITNESS AND I HAVE CONFERRED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO 13:46:02 HAS GRACIOUSLY CONSIDERED TO COME BACK ON A SECOND DAY, WE 13:46:06 WILL PROCEED THROUGH UNTIL ABOUT 5:00 THIS AFTERNOON, WE 13:46:12 WILL RESCHEDULE ANOTHER DAY. BY THAT TIME, EVERYBODY WILL 13:46:15 HAVE HAD A FIRST ROUND, IT WILL GIVE US TIME TO DIGEST WHAT WE 13:46:19 HAVE HEARD, AND WE WILL PROCEED ON THE SECOND DAY. 13:46:24 SENATOR FEINGOLD, ARE YOU RECOGNIZED. 13:46:27 >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL. 13:46:29 MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME SAY, OF COURSE, WE HAVE A DISAGREEMENT, 13:46:34 MR. CHAIRMAN WORK WHETHER THIS WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SWORN, 13:46:39 THAT IS A SERIOUS DISAGREEMENT. BUT LET ME NOD IN AN 13:46:43 AFFIRMATIVE WAY ABOUT YOUR PITTSBURGH STEELERS, FIRST OF 13:46:46 ALL. SECONDLY, LET ME SAY -- 13:46:49 >> GREEN BAY -- >> GREEN BAY WILL BE BACK. 13:46:55 >> WITH GREEN BAY OUT OF IT, WHY NOT ROUTE FOR THE STEELERS? 13:47:00 >> RESET THE CLOCK AT 10 MINUTES. 13:47:05 I WAS ONLY KIDDING. >> LET ME ALSO SAY, MR. 13:47:09 CHAIRMAN, DESPITE OUR DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE SWEARING 13:47:12 IN ISSUE THAT I PRAISE YOU FOR YOUR CANDOR AND YOUR LEADERSHIP 13:47:16 ON THIS ISSUE. AND FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING 13:47:19 AND THE OTHER HEARINGS YOU MAY BE HOLDING. 13:47:22 I ALSO WANT TO COMPLIMENT SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER 13:47:28 SIDE OF THE AISLE, SENATOR DEWINE, SENATOR GRAHAM, SENATOR 13:47:35 BROWNBACK. MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT ME TO 13:47:37 MENTION THEIR NAMES, THEY HAVE PUBLICLY QUESTIONED THIS 13:47:41 FANTASY VERSION. IT'S A FANTASY VERSION THAT NO 13:47:44 SENATOR CAN BELIEVE WE AUTHORIZED THIS WIRE TAPPING. 13:47:47 THE FACT IS THIS CAN AND SHOULD BE A BIPARTISAN ISSUE. 13:47:50 I SEE REAL ISSUE FOR THIS BEING A BIPARTISAN ISSUE. 13:47:53 AND IT SHOULD BE. BUT THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT 13:47:56 THE ADMINISTRATION -- WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID IS WHEN 13:47:59 IT COMES TO NATIONAL SECURITY, THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE 13:48:02 DEMOCRATS HAVE A PRE-9/11 VIEW OF THE WORLD WHAT I THINK THE 13:48:11 REAL PROBLEM IS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS A PRE-1776 VIEW 13:48:16 OF THE WORLD. THAT'S THE PROBLEM HERE. 13:48:18 ALL OF US ARE COMMITTED TO DEFEATING THE TERRORIST WHO'S 13:48:22 THREATEN OUR COUNTRY, MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL. 13:48:24 IT IS, WITHOUT A DOUBT, OUR TOP PRIORITY. 13:48:27 IN FACT, I WANT TO READ AGAIN YOU WHAT SAID. 13:48:29 AS THE PRESIDENT SAID, IF YOU ARE TALKING WITH AL-QAEDA, WE 13:48:31 WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 13:48:34 ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. NO ONE IN THIS COMMITTEE, NO 13:48:39 ONE IN THIS BODY BELIEVES ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT. 13:48:42 AND I WANT STATE IT AS FIRLLY AS I CAN. 13:48:45 I BELIEVE WE CAN AND MUST DO THAT WITHOUT VIOLATING THE 13:48:48 CONSTITUTION OR JEOPARDIZING THE FREEDOMS ON WHICH THIS 13:48:51 COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED. OUR FOREFATHERS FOUGHT A 13:48:55 REVOLUTION, A REVOLUTION TO BE FREE FROM RULERS WHO PUT 13:48:58 THEMSELVES ABOVE THE LAW. I HAVE TO SAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, 13:49:02 THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN VIOLATING THE LAW AND IS 13:49:05 MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO TRY TO JUSTIFY IT. 13:49:07 THIS HEARING IS NOT JUST A HEARING ABOUT FUTURE, POSSIBLE 13:49:13 SOLUTIONS. THAT IS FINE TO BE PART OF THE 13:49:16 ANSWER AND PART OF THE HEARING. THIS HEARING, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS 13:49:21 ALSO AN INQUIRY INTO POSSIBLE WRONGDOING. 13:49:27 MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN A FEW 13:49:30 MENTIONS TODAY OF YOUR TESTIMONY IN JANUARY OF '05, 13:49:34 YOUR CONFIRMATION HEARING. I AM GOING TO ASK YOU A FEW 13:49:37 QUICK, SIMPLE, FACTUAL QUESTIONS. 13:49:39 BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS HEARING IS ABOUT OUR 13:49:43 EXCHANGE, OR WHAT YOU SAID TO ME IN PARTICULAR. 13:49:45 I'M CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY AT THAT TIME, BECAUSE 13:49:48 I DO BELIEVE IT WAS MATERIALLY MISLEADING, BUT I AM EVEN MORE 13:49:52 CONCERNED ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF YOUR ADMINISTRATION, EVEN 13:49:56 MORE CONCERNED THAN THAT ABOUT THE RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW 13:49:59 IN THIS COUNTRY. SO THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF MY 13:50:02 QUESTION. ATTORNEY GENERAL, YOUER ISED AS 13:50:06 WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL FROM JANUARY 2001 UNTIL YOU BECAME 13:50:09 ATTORNEY GENERAL IN 2005. ON JANUARY 6, 2005, HAD YOU A 13:50:14 CONFIRMATION HEARING FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL POSITION 13:50:18 BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. YOU TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT 13:50:20 HEARING, DIDN'T YOU? HER YES, SIR. 13:50:22 >> AND, SIR, I DON'T MEAN TO BELABOR THE POINT, DO YOU OR 13:50:29 ANYONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION ASK CHAIRMAN SPECTER OR HIS 13:50:34 STAFF THAT YOU NOT BE PUT UNDER OATH TODAY? 13:50:36 >> I HAVE ALREADY INDICATED FOR THE RECORD THAT MY CHAIRMAN 13:50:39 ASKED MY VIEWS ABOUT BEING SWORN IN, I SAID I HAD NO 13:50:43 OBJECTION. >> BUT DID YOU OR ANYONE IN THE 13:50:46 ADMINISTRATION ASK THE CHAIRMAN TO NOT HAVE YOU SWORN? 13:50:49 >> SIR, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >> THE ANSWER IS NO. 13:50:52 >> THAT'S FINE. AT THE TIME YOU TESTIFIED IN 13:50:55 JANUARY '05, YOU WERE FULLY AWARE OF THE NSA PROGRAM, 13:50:58 WERE YOU NOT? >> YES, SIR. 13:51:00 >> YOU WERE ALSO FULLY AWARE AT THE TIME YOU TESTIFIED THAT THE 13:51:04 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAD ISSUED A LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE 13:51:07 PROGRAM, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES, THERE HAD BEEN LEGAL 13:51:11 ANALYSIS PERFORMED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 13:51:13 >> AND YOU AS WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL AGREED WITH THAT LEGAL 13:51:17 ANALYSIS, DIDN'T YOU? >> AGREED, YES. 13:51:19 >> AND YOU HAD SIGNED OFF OFF THE PRAB, RIGHT? 13:51:23 >> YES, I DO BELIEVE AT THE TIME THE PRESIDENT HAS THE 13:51:27 AUTHORITY TO HAVE THAT. >> AND YET WHEN I SPECIFICALLY 13:51:32 ASKED YOU AT JANUARY 5, 2005 HEARING, WHEN IN YOUR OPINION 13:51:38 THE PRESIDENT CAN AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SURVEILLANCE, YOU 13:51:44 DIDN'T TELL US YES. NO WHY THE? 13:51:46 >> THE HYPOTHETICAL YOU POSED, DIE CONSIDER IT A HYPOTHETICAL, 13:51:50 WHICH IS WHETHER OR NOT HAD THE PRESIDENT AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY 13:51:55 SPECIFIC ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IN VIOLATION OF 13:51:57 THE LAW, AND I HAVE TRIED TO MAKE CLEAR TODAY THAT IN THE 13:52:03 LEGAL ANALYSIS IN THE WHITE PAPER, THE POSITION OF THE 13:52:08 ADMINISTRATION IS THAT WE -- THE PRESIDENT HAS AUTHORIZED 13:52:13 ELECTRONICS SURVEILLANCE IN A MANNER THAT'S TOTALLY 13:52:16 CONSISTENT, NOT IN VIOLATION, NOT IN -- NOT OVERRIDING 13:52:20 PROVISIONS OF FISA, BUT TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH FICE FISA. 13:52:23 >> ATTORNEY GENERAL, IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT A 13:52:26 HYPOTHETICAL AS WE NOW KNOW. >> SIR, YOUR QUESTION WAS 13:52:32 WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT AUTHORIZED CERTAIN CONDUCT IN 13:52:35 VIOLATION OF THE LAW. >> MY QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE 13:52:38 PRESIDENT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE THIS WIRE TAPPING. 13:52:41 >> IN VIFLINGS THE LAW. AND OUR INTERPRETATION IS, NO, 13:52:45 IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTES. 13:52:46 >> YOU SAID THE QUESTION WAS MERELY HYPOTHETICAL THIS IS 13:52:50 WHAT YOU SAID, IT'S NOT THE POLICYOR AGENDA OF THIS 13:52:53 PRESIDENT TO AUTHORIZE ACTIONS THAT WOULD BEEN IN 13:52:55 CONTRAVENTION OF OUR CRIMINAL STATUTES. 13:52:57 AND WHEN YOU SAID THAT, YOU KNEW ABOUT THIS PROGRAM. 13:52:59 IN FACT, YOU TOLD ME YOU APROVED IT AND WERE AWARE OF 13:53:02 THE LEGAL ANALYSIS TO JUSTIFY IT. 13:53:04 YOU WANTED THIS COMMITTEE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO THINK 13:53:07 THIS KIND OF PROGRAM WAS NOT GOING ON. 13:53:09 BUT IT WAS, AND YOU KNEW THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S 13:53:13 UNACCEPTABLE. >> SENATOR, YOUR QUESTION WAS 13:53:14 WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT HAD AUTHORIZED CONDUCT IN 13:53:17 VIOLATION OF LAW, AND I HAVE LAID OUT -- 13:53:20 >> MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, MY QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE 13:53:23 PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE THE POWER TO DO THAT. 13:53:25 >> AND, SENATOR, THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT AUTHORIZED CONDUCT IN 13:53:28 VIOLATION OF OUR CRIMINAL STATUTES. 13:53:30 WE'VE LAID OUT A 42-PAGE ANALYSIS OF OUR LEGAL POSITION 13:53:35 HERE. THE AUTHORITY THE PRESIDENT HAS 13:53:37 EXERCISED ARE TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CRIMINAL 13:53:40 PROVISION. THE PRIMARY CRIMINAL PROVISION 13:53:42 IN FISA, IS SECTION 109. >> I HAVE HEARD ALL OF YOUR 13:53:47 ARGSULTS. MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ANYBODY 13:53:49 THAT READS BASICALLY REALIZES YOU WERE MISLEADING THIS 13:53:53 COMMITTEE. YOU COULD HAVE ANSWERED THE 13:53:54 QUESTION TRUTHFUY, YOU COULD HAVE TOLD THE COMMITTEE, YES, 13:53:57 THE PRESIDENT HAS THAT AUTHORITY. 13:54:00 BY SIMPLY SAYING THE TRUTH, THAT YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT 13:54:02 HAS THE POWER TO WIRE TAP AMERICANS WITHOUT A WARRANT 13:54:05 WOULD NOT HAVE EXPOSED ANY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, MY 13:54:08 QUESTION WASN'T WHETHER SUCH ILLEGAL WIRE TAPPING WAS GOING 13:54:12 ON, LIKE ALMOST EVERYONE IN CONGRESS, I DIDN'T KNOW, OF 13:54:15 COURSE, ABOUT THE PROGRAM THEN IT WASN'T ABOUT WHETHER THE 13:54:18 ADMINISTRATION BELIEVED THE PRESIDENT HAD THIS AUTHORITY. 13:54:20 IT WAS A QUESTION ABOUT YOUR VIEW OF THE LAW. 13:54:22 ABOUT YOUR VIEW OF THE LAW. DURING A CONFIRMATION ON YOUR 13:54:26 NOMINATION TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 13:54:28 SO, OF COURSE IF HAD YOU TOLD THE TRUTH, MAYBE THAT WOULD 13:54:30 HAVE JEOPARDIZED YOUR NOMINATION. 13:54:32 YOU WANTED TO BE CONFIRMED. AND SO YOU LET A MISLEADING 13:54:36 STATEMENT ABOUT ONE OF THE CENTRAL ISSUES OF YOUR 13:54:40 CONFIRMATION, YOUR VIEW OF EXECUTIVE POWERS, STAY ON THE 13:54:42 RECORD UNTIL THE "NEW YORK TIMES" REVEALED THE PROGRAM. 13:54:44 >> SENATOR, I TOLD THE TRUTH THEN, I'M TELLING THE TRUTH 13:54:47 NOW. YOU ASKED ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL 13:54:50 SITUATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AUTHORIZING 13:54:54 ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IN VIOLATION OF OUR CRIMINAL 13:54:56 STATUTES. THAT HAS NOT OCCURRED. 13:55:00 >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THE WITNESS HAS TAKEN MINCING WORDS 13:55:04 TO A NEW HIGH. THERE'S NO QUESTION IN MY MIND 13:55:08 THAT WHEN YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION AS A HYPOTHETICAL, YOU 13:55:10 KNEW IT WASN'T A HYPOTHETICAL, KNEW IT AT THE TIME. 13:55:14 LET ME SWITCH -- >> DO YOU CARE TO ANSWER THAT, 13:55:18 ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES? >> SENATOR, AS I'VE STATED 13:55:23 BEFORE, WHAT I SAID WAS THE TRUTH THEN, IT IS THE TRUTH 13:55:27 TODAY. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 13:55:28 STATES HAS NOT AUTHORIZED ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE IN 13:55:32 VIOLATION OF OUR CRIMINAL STATUTE. 13:55:34 WE HAVE LAID OUT IN GREAT DETAIL OUR POSITION THAT THE 13:55:38 ACTIVITIES ARE TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CRIMINAL 13:55:42 STATUTE. >> ALL YOU HAD TO DO, MR. 13:55:43 ATTORNEY GENERAL, IS INDICATE IT WAS YOUR VIEW IT WAS LEGAL. 13:55:46 THAT WAS WHAT MY QUESTION WAS. I WOULD HAVE DISAGREED WITH 13:55:50 YOUR CONCLUSION. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID, 13:55:53 YOU REFERRED TO THIS AS MERELY A HYPOTHETICAL. 13:55:56 ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN VERY MISLEADING IN CLAIMS 13:55:59 JUSTIFYING THE SPYING PROGRAM. TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, LAST 13:56:02 WEEK IN THE STATE OF THE UNION, THE PRESIDENT REPEATED SOME OF 13:56:04 THESE CLAIMS. FOR ONE THING, THE PRESIDENT 13:56:06 SAID HIS PREDECESSORS HAVE USED THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL 13:56:09 AUTHORITY HE HAS. ISN'T IT TRUE THE SUPREME COURT 13:56:12 FIRST FOUND THAT PHONE CONVERSATIONS ARE PROTECTED BY 13:56:14 THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IN THE 1967 KASZ CASE? 13:56:18 >> YES. IN THE 1967 KATZ CASE, THE 13:56:23 SUPREME COURT DID FIND THAT TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS ARE 13:56:25 COVERED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. 13:56:27 >> SO WHEN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POINTS TO PRESIDENTS 13:56:31 WILSON AND ROOSEVELT'S ACTIONS, THOSE ARE REALLY IRRELEVANT, 13:56:34 AREN'T THEY? >> THEY ARE IMPORTANT IN 13:56:36 SHOWING THAT PRESIDENTS HAVE RELIED UPON THEIR 13:56:39 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ENGAGE IN WARRANTLESS 13:56:44 SURVEILLANCE OF THE ENEMY DURING A TIME OF WAR. 13:56:47 THE FACT THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT MAY APPLY DOESN'T 13:56:50 NECESSARILY MEAN A WARRANT IS REQUIRED IN EVERY CASE, AS YOU 13:56:53 KNOW. THERE IS A JURIS PRUDENCE AT 13:56:55 THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING SPECIAL NEEDS. 13:56:57 NORMALLY IN THE MASS SECURITY CONTEXT, OUTSIDE THE ORDINARY 13:57:00 CRIMINAL LAW CONTEXT, WHERE, BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, 13:57:05 SEARCHES WITHOUT WARRANTS WOULD BE JUSTIFIED. 13:57:08 >> MR. CHAIRMAN, MY TIME IS UP. I'LL CONTINUE THIS LINE OF 13:57:11 QUESTIONING LATER. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR 13:57:15 FEINGOLD. SENATOR GRAHAM. 13:57:16 >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE 13:57:19 YOU ALSO FOR HAVING THESE HEARINGS. 13:57:21 I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT 13:57:25 FOR THE COUNTRY IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE CONDUCT OF WARS AND HOW 13:57:29 WE RELATE CONSTITUTIONALLY TO EACH OTHER. 13:57:32 AND, PERSONALLY HOW WE RELATE. I FIND YOUR TESTIMONY HONEST, 13:57:37 TRAIT FORWARD, YOUR LEGAL REASONNING IS WELL ARTICULATED. 13:57:42 I DON'T AGREE WITH ALL OF IT. ABOUT HIDING SOMETHING ABOUT 13:57:46 THIS PROGRAM, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THE CONGRESS HAS BEEN 13:57:50 BRIEFED EXTENSIVELY, AT LEAST A SMALL GROUP OF CONGRESSMEN, 13:57:53 SENATORS ABOUT THIS PROGRAM? >> SENATOR, I HAVE NOT BEEN 13:57:57 PRESENT, AS I HAVE TESTIFIED BEFORE, AT ALL OF THE 13:57:59 BRIEFINGS. BUT IN THE BRIEFINGS I HAVE 13:58:01 BEEN PRESENT, THE BRIEFINGS WERE EXTENSIVE. 13:58:04 THE BRIEFINGS WERE DETAILED. MEMBERS -- MEMBERS WHO WERE 13:58:09 PRESENT AT THE BRIEFING WERE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK 13:58:12 QUESTIONS, TO VOICE CONCERNS, AND IF ANY MEMBER OF THIS BODY 13:58:15 BELIEVES THAT YOU'VE DONE SOMETHING ILLEGAL, THEY COULD 13:58:18 PUT IN LEGISLATION TO TERMINATE THIS PROGRAM, COOPERATE THEY? 13:58:22 ISN'T THAT IN OUR POWER? >> CERTAINLY, SENATOR -- 13:58:25 >> WELL, I WOULD THINK IF YOU BELIEVED OUR PRESIDENT WAS 13:58:28 BREAKING THE LAW, WOULD YOU HAVE THE COURNL OF YOUR 13:58:32 CONVICTIONS AND STOP FUNDING FOR IT. 13:58:34 NOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THERE ARE TWO WAYS WE CAN DO THIS. 13:58:38 WE CAN ARGUE WHAT THE LAW IS, WE CAN ARGUE IF IT WAS BROKEN, 13:58:44 WE CAN PLAY A POLITICAL DANCE OF SHIRTS VERSUS SKINS, OR WE 13:58:50 CAN SIGN CONSENSUS AS TO WHAT THE LAW SHOULD BE, AND I 13:58:54 ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH SENATOR DEWINE AS TO WHAT I THINK IT 13:58:57 SHOULD BE. IN A DANGEROUS AND DIFFICULT 13:58:59 TIME FOR OUR COUNTRY, I CHOOSE INQUIRY VERSUS INQUI 13:59:05 SIGNIFICANCE, COLLABORATION VERSUS CONFLICT. 13:59:07 TO ME,

INT BROLL GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRAYVON MARTIN TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL FEED KATIE HUBER LOG **NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS IN CAPS **NAMES OF WITNESSES IN RED **VISUAL DESCRIPTIONS IN (PARENTHESES) **GOOD STATEMENTS/VIDEO BOLD 13:53:10 like this! Objection! leading OVERRULED.. erect sir? at one point, yes. 13:53:24 have any trouble understanding him when he spoke? no 13:53:37 in your conversations did you ask about caliber of gun? yes. what did he say? 9 millimeter 13:54:06 asked about statements made about shooting the individual, were you out there during this? after it happened. see the shooting where zimmerman shot martin in chest? no. inkling on how it happened, self-defense or not? no. rionda: I have nothing else 13:55:24 west: nothing further, thank you 13:55:28 CALL NEXT WITNESS.... 13:56:25 (sworn in) 13:56:42 guy: name? ricardo ayala. employed where? Sanford pd... how long? 11 years. position? police officer. how long in patrol unit? just over a year. before that? investigations 13:57:15 how long in that? 6 years. duties? general and major crimes 13:57:26 prior law enforcement before Sanford? yes corrections. how long and where? 6 years, 5 in Seminole, 1 in lake 13:57:42 Sunday Feb. 26th 2012, working? yes. respond to scene of shooting at twin lakes? yes. dispatched there? yes 13:57:56 nature at first? suspicious person in area. recall time? just after 7pm 13:58:09 what area of town were you in? north end of city. how long to get there? less than 5 minutes. receive updates to first dispatch en route? yes. stated shots were fired. first on scene? no. who was? Tim smith 13:58:48 states 1, aerial of twin lakes? yes. 13:59:03 where main entrance is? right there 13:59:09 off of Oregon ave? yes. where you went when you got in and where you parked? came this way through the entrance went around a ways I believe and parked in this area here... upper right hand corner? yes 13:59:45 took long way around? yes I wasn't familiar with the area. see officer smith? yes. where? that general area right there... in the T 14:00:07 lighting like back there? very dim almost dark 14:00:13 using flashlight to find way in between? yes. weather? misty... raining on and off. what was officer smith doing? white male at gun point. zimmerman? yes. see him here? yes. stood up? yes 14:00:52 any interaction with defendant? no. why not? focused on male on ground. 14:01:03 male on ground, later to be martin? yes. go over to martins location? I walked towards it yet. how was it positioned? faced down hands underneath his body. first to approach martin? yes 14:01:29 dead or alive? I did not. his involvement at that point? no. commands to martin? yes. asked to see his hands? where were they? underneath him. lying on stomach? yes. respond to commands? no. 14:02:02 did you see any movement from martins body? I did not. hear sounds? I did not 14:02:13 did other officers approach you and martin while giving commands? sergeant ramondo. try to get pulse? sergeant ramondo did. able to get a pulse? no 14:02:40 did you or sergeant move body? yes... stomach to back? correct. to your knowledge move or disturb evidence when you rolled him over? no 14:03:09 did martin respond when you rolled body over? no sir.... after rolling over, see a gunshot wound? after he's moved around, yes. where? underneath he had a pin or button, underneath his button 14:03:39 gunshot wound was near that? right under button 14:03:46 how did you find the wound? move the sweater, button lift up... lifted up sweater and shit... exposing bare chest? yes. see gunshot round? yes 14:04:09 perform CPR? yes. training? yes. 14:04:20 ask anybody for anything while performing CPR? sergeant ramondo asking for plastic bag. someone provide? yes. describe, plastic? correct. color? I do not. who provided? I didn't not 14:04:53 continue to perform CPR? correct. see signs of life from body? no 14:05:03 your role in CPR? chest compressions. ramondos role? mouth to mouth. rescue respond? yes. take over the treatment after they arrived? yes 14:05:26 was martin pronounced dead on scene? yes. any further contact with this defendant after CPR with martin? no sir 14:05:41 investigators and crime scene respond when you were present? yes. take over scene? yes. any further involvement with case? no. that's all CROSS 14:06:09 O'Mara: heard on your way that officer smith had just arrived to the scene? as I was getting there, yeah he was just responding to the scene... right behind Tim smith to get there? yes. 14:06:37 estimate how fast after him you got there? less than 2 minutes... 14:06:50 so quick that officer still had zimmerman at gun point? yes. in a shots fired situation, protocol to take out weapon and control situation? correct. not to suggest danger from zimmerman, just what you do when shots are fired? yes. appropriate he did that here? correct 14:07:26 come up to me, how would you tell me or what would you tell to me to do? I want to see your hands. say that? yes sir. 14:07:45 if I had a cell phone, appropriate to go like this? no. drop it where it's at... why? to make sure you have nothing in your hands 14:08:10 take out your weapon as well? yes. dont know what's going on? no. can't see much? no. flash light in one hand and gun on the other? no flashlight is on gun... 14:08:34 you were protecting officer smith? correct. focus on this initially? correct. 14:08:47 realize that officer smith had that part of situation under control...? weapon out until.... having eyes on Zimmerman and trayvon at the same time, didn't know what was going on... as soon as he secured zimmerman and focused on trayvon to notice the threat 14:09:25 another person there? probably, only focused on officer and the interested parties 14:09:51 from your awareness of it, concerns with securing zimmerman? he got him secured and took him to vehicle and secured him there, he was gone, he was good. compliant? yes. did what was asked? yes. disobey? no. 14:10:26 look at his face? I didn't focus... quick glance? yes. notice blood? I can't tell you I did... 14:10:43 shift over to martin who was off to the left? yes. quite dark? yes sir. not able to see martins body but for your flash light? yeah 14:11:07 attempted to do what you could as first responder to deal with martin? correct 14:11:20 did not see... see zimmerman again in back of patrol car? no.. I didn't make contact with him after he was secured. moment? YES 14:11:39 no further. ANY REDIRECT 14:11:44 guy: complied with commands, holding him at gun point? yes 14:11:58 YOU MAY BE EXCUSED... CALL NEXT WITNESS. stacey livingston. 14:12:40 (sworn in) 14:12:58 guy: name? stacey livingston.. employed? Sanford fire department. how long? a little over 25 years. current position? firefighter emt. emt? emergency medical technician. firefighter and emt? yes. duties? anything from fire calls to medical calls or anything citizens call for 14:13:49 description of training and education for duties? certification of Florida fire fighter and emt, continuing education at work 14:14:09 February 26, 2012... working? yes. respond to shot at twin lakes? yes 14:14:23 where were you when dispatched? fire station 38. dispatched with others? yes. recall the time? I do not 14:14:41 approximately 7:20 in evening? yes. how long it took to arrive? it would be a guess 14:15:17 look at this document, is that your incident report from this event? yes. on that report, a time of dispatch? yes. what time? 19:2... 7:21 pm? yes. arrival time? 19:27. about 6 minutes later? yes 14:15:58 officers on scene? yes. directed to location of shooting victim? yes. learn to be martin? yes 14:16:12 were Sanford police officers present when you arrived? yes. doing? CPR 14:16:23 how was martins positioned when you got there? on his back. other Sanford personnel take over CPR when you arrived? took over assessing him, not CPR 14:16:45 check for pulse? yes. how? on his neck. find? no pulse 14:16:56 while treating. move clothing? yes. what? lifted his shirts. notice anything in his sweatshirt when you moved it? I wasn't sure at the time, I know what it is now. where? in front. what was it? felt like a can. what did you do? took it out and move to the right. examine? no. why not? not a concern, trying to get to patient 14:17:50 feel anything else? yes. what was that? a small bag when I moved the shirt it made a crinkly noise. do anything with the bag? no. in his sweater? I dont know, just felt it when I moved it up 14:18:19 see any injuries? yes. gunshot wound? yes 14:18:28 where? in his chest 14:18:33 what steps did you and other personnel take to assess martin? cardiac monitor. why? to assess heart rhythm. what was detected? incompatible to life. pronounced dead at scene? yes. does report indicate time he was pronounced dead? 19:30 14:19:21 just a few minutes after you arrived? yes. hear martin make any sounds? no. did you or anyone transport martins body from the scene? no. why not? not part of our job. deceased left for medical examiner's office? yes 14:19:56 other than taking can out, move or collect other items? no 14:20:09 states exhibit 20, recognize? yes. fair and accurate on how he appeared after pronounced dead? we had shirt up, but yes. states 25, accurate? yes. and states 80? yes. and states 28, what's depicted? gunshot wound. (Fulton turning away from screen) when his sweatshirts were pulled up? yes 14:21:04 see zimmerman in court this afternoon? yes. standing to my left? yes 14:21:19 where was he when you made contact? sitting in police car 14:21:29 met with him, talk to him? yes. appear to have difficulty understand? no. difficulty understanding him? no. memory problems? no. Objection! SUSTAIN. DISREGARD QUESTION AND ANSWER 14:22:08 glascoe scoring system? to determine response of patient... three sections., series of numbers ... command to pain. 14:22:45 what's the highest score they can get, most alert? 15. what was defendants score? 15. indicate to you? for eye response it was spontaneous, obeyed commands 14:23:17 observe injuries? yes. what? swollen, bleeding nose, lacerations to back of head. nose bleeding when you arrived? I dont believe it was actively bleeding, still moist. treat his nose? tried to clean up injuries to see them better to determine... 14:23:54 describe lacerations on the back? I recall two... approximately an inch long... were either of those bleeding? not actively, but had been. how did you treat? clean up a little to view injury better 14:24:24 at any point while treating, did he stand up? yes. trouble with balance? I dont believe so 14:24:36 how long were you treating him? maybe 5 minutes 14:24:45 transport from scene? no. why not? determined if he needed further treatment Sanford PD would take him. leave him in custody with police? yes. any further involvement with him? no 14:25:18 fair and accurate as he appeared in back? yes. states 76, fair and accurate of back of his head? yes. CROSS 14:25:43 O'Mara: afternoon. how are you 14:25:52 speaking about when you came in contact with my client, in back of patrol car? yes. 14:26:03 front picture... didn't do evaluation, did you... two other paramedics? what do you mean evaluation. to identify injuries, wasn't mike in lead? myself and kevin treated zimmerman. wasn't mike there as well? on scene 14:26:41 when you did evaluation, noticed nose was swollen? yes very swollen. 14:26:52 explain, we saw the picture.... fairly and accurately depict face and nose? yes. may have even wiped it a bit... before that picture? I dont know 14:27:49 tell me what you see there as far as his injuries? the bridge of nose is swollen... off to his right or nose? both sides swollen... left side swollen as well? the entire area 14:28:21 what is that on the bridge of nose toward right eye, that little red spot? small laceration. note that as well? I did not. 14:28:40 how does someone get a laceration like that? I dont know 14:28:47 consistent with getting struck by a fist? it could 14:28:56 consistent with fist strike to nose? very possibly 14:29:11 injuries to left forehead, markings up there? abrasion 14:29:24 how that may have been? I cannot 14:29:31 agree separate injury than nose injury? yes 14:29:39 on the tip of his nose? blood... still moist in process of drying? yes. coming from where? nose. inside? yes. indicate to you? 14:30:11 as best you can, describe how a shot to the nose would cause bleeding like that? blood vessels would initiate bleeding. exist up in nose? yes 14:30:30 blood that breaks or escapes when laying on your back.... that injury laying on back, where would blow go? you would swallow it... 14:30:53 swallowing own blood? right 14:31:07 injuries on back of head... that night the same way? yes. cleaned them off? I did. lacerations an inch long each? approximately. not actively bleeding when you saw them? no 14:31:38 concerns with head injury... medical condition that may happen because of those injuries? asked if he lost consciousness... if he felt dizzy 14:32:15 concerned to concussive injuries? correct. concussion when head hit that way? correct. brain injury from that? possibly. something to be aware of? yes. only as treating him? yes 14:32:45 reasonable in your opinion for someone to be concerned about their safety? repeat 14:32:58 someone who got those injuries should be concerned with medical safety? possibly 14:33:26 did... what is the normal procedure for head injuries and getting them x rayed? transported to medical facility to be x rayed. take to hospital? if they choose to go. who makes that decision? if patient is awake they make it 14:34:05 left to non-medical personnel? we discussed and said happy to transport him, if he was going to receive medical care, police would take him. 14:34:31 had it not been for police involvement, suggest to that person to get x rays? happy to transport, but up to them 14:34:49 moment? YES 14:35:23 able to get up ... stood up without trouble, able to stand? sitting sideways in police car... door open and feet were out... said he had been dizzy, we asked him to stand up and he was able to stand up... with assistance of officer smith and paramedics? I dont recall if he was hand cuffed behind his back... recall Tim smith helping him out of the car when complaining about being dizzy? I do not... if mike helped him out? I do not 14:36:31 focus on injuries, clean and evaluate? yes REDIRECT 14:36:40 guy: observations, both physical and mental capabilities... concern about brain injury? I wouldn't make that determination. ever complain of anything other than dizziness? not to me 14:37:06 ever lose consciousness? not while we were with him. did someone else about that prior to arrival? I believe so. what did he say? I dint ask, I dont know 14:37:28 measure lacerations? no. approx. an inch is a guess? yes. defer to someone who actually measured them? to be exact, yes 14:37:50 MAY SHE BE EXCUSED? CALL NEXT WITNESS.... Tim smith 14:38:37 (sworn in) 14:38:57 guy: name? officer timothy smith. employed? Sanford pd. since? 2008. 14:39:12 how long in patrol? 7 years 14:39:20 February 26 2012, working? yes. standard patrol uniform? yes. traveling? in my marked Sanford police vehicle. alone? alone 14:39:38 respond to dispatch? yes I did. approximate time? shortly after 7 pm 14:39:49 nature of dispatch? suspicious persons. where before? approximately a 1 mile and a half away. respond? a few minutes 14:40:18 receive update on route? yes. shots fired 14:40:25 address to respond to? yes. what address? 1231 twin trees 14:40:39 where when you received the update? entering gates of community. how did you get through the gate code? dispatch 14:41:05 states exhibit 2, aerial photo? yes. show jury the complex.... 14:41:28 your location when you received dispatch? right here... the route you took/ down Rinehart to Oregon to the front entrance here 14:41:50 states exhibit 1.. aerial of complex itself? yes 14:42:01 where you went first when you entered the complex? through the front gates her, down through here... this is twin trees 14:42:21 went first to 1231, update to location? 1231 was what I was originally given.... where did you go? given update from address on retreat view, behind that location... recall address given? 2821 retreat view. where did you go? down twin tress, to retreat view, address in this area 14:43:18 as you were en route, stop anywhere and observe things or use flash light? I did... where? in between sets of town homes. what did you do? used spot light to shine down walk way... inside the car. what did you see? toward end of walk way at least one person standing outside 14:43:59 anything more? not from where I was 14:44:05 continue around to address? yes 14:44:12 where you parked and what you did? roughly in this area, went around to the left to go in between the town homes... lighting conditions? dark 14:44:33 flashlight with you? yes. use that? I did... weather? raining. got behind townhomes, see anyone? I did. how many? at least two standing and one on ground 14:45:02 where they were that were standing up? in this area here... person on ground? in grassy area to left of sidewalk 14:45:25 shine flashlight on person on ground? yes. how positioned? face down. see their hands? no I could not 14:45:43 learn that to be martin? yes. approach at that time? I did not. why not? in contact with gentleman on side walk 14:45:58 states 5, general idea of lighting conditions? yes. states 77, recognize that? I do. accurate depictions of body? yes 14:46:23 contact with who was standing up to be zimmerman? yes. see him here today? yes. standing to left? yes he is 14:46:46 did defendant have trouble standing? no he did not. appear to have trouble balancing? no sir 14:46:58 say anything to defendant? I did. what? asked him if he saw what happened. he said he did. asked if the subject on ground had been shot, he responded he did and he was still armed 14:47:26 have trouble understanding your questions? no. trouble understanding answers? no. 14:47:49 still armed, what did you do? I took my weapon and he complied 14:48:04 where was his gun? right hip 14:48:11 handcuff? I did. in front of in back? back. why? policy 14:48:20 remove gun from person? yes. in holster? yes. take gun or gun and holster? gun and holster. where did you put it? on me because I was not near my vehicle... tucked in between magazine and vest 14:48:53 inside pants or outside when he showed to you? I dont. see gun when you approached? no. see holster when you approached? no 14:49:14 what did you do with defendant after hand cuffs? in patrol car... trouble walking? no 14:49:33 Sanford PD respond in short order? yes. who first after you? officer ayala 14:49:46 what did he do when he arrived? went to attend to martin 14:49:55 recall any other officers going to martins body? yes. who? sergeant ramondo 14:50:13 wearing gloves when you removed gun and holster? I was not. 14:50:21 handle fire arm in special way? no sir. why not? not enough time 14:50:38 secure firearm? I did. how? removed magazine from firearm and locked slide to rear 14:50:52 remove magazine, semi-automatic pistol.. .locked to rear, round in chamber? yes. what happened? ejected. collect it? I did. keep all together with firearm? yes. put them? in my vehicle until I got a gun box 14:51:27 what's that? cardboard box to secure evidence. 14:51:36 what did you do with the ammunition and holster? also admitted into evidence... turn those over to wife Diana smith? correct. also called to scene? correct 14:52:10 states 154, examine that... recognize contents? yes. that would be hand gun, holster and magazine I removed 14:52:35 case information your hand writing, etc.? yes 14:52:41 for the jury's sake, hold up fire arm.... holster..... and the magazine and rounds 14:53:06 all of this you turned over to Diana smith? yes. crime scene technician assigned to case? yes sir 14:53:28 was fire rescue dispatched? yes. respond to scene? yes. examine and treat defendant? yes. what injuries did you observe? bloody noise, lacerations to head and contusions 14:53:56 did another Sanford police officer take picture? yes. who? officer mike Wagner 14:54:08 aware civilian took photo of back of head? not at that time. before you arrived? yes sir 14:54:33 states exhibit 6, is that another depiction of lighting? yes. states 34, recognize? yes. approximate area you parked patrol car? yes. states 132, photo of the entrance of the retreat? yes. states 133, recognize that to be closer shot of front entrance? yes. states 134, shot going into complex with clubhouse in the right? yes. states 135, what's that? front of club house. states 136, recognize? mail box kiosk 14:55:42 states 137, close up of mail box? yes sir 14:55:50 states 138, depiction of rear gate? yes it is 14:56:00 states 79, recognize? yes. the photo Wagner took of defendant? yes 14:56:11 states 76, depict defendants head or close to it? yes. 14:56:30 recall what defendant was wearing? red and black jacket and blue jeans 14:56:41 first made contact, jacket pushed up in any way? I dont believe so. tears in his jacket? no. what did you notice? the back of it was wetter than the front of it... covered in grass 14:57:14 condition of his pants? vaguely. blue jeans? yes sir. anything else? the back was wetter than the front 14:57:29 after rescue clean defendant, what did you do? transported to station. why? to be interviewed by criminal division. how long did trip take? roughly 15 minutes 14:57:56 while you were making transport did defendant say anything about injuries? felt he was light headed. what did you do? forward opportunity to go to hospital. asked him if he wanted to go... he said he wasn't sure what he should do... decided he didn't want to go to hospital 14:58:41 en route with defendant did he faint? no. arriving at the station, any injuries? no. park where? sally port 14:59:11 remove defendant from car, any trouble bouncing or walking? yes. still handcuffed? yes sir 14:59:26 walk with you inside station? yes sir. still handcuffed? yes sir. trouble walking throughout the station? no sir 14:59:39 are portions of interior surveyed by video cameras? yes. defendant arriving at station video? yes. fairly and accurately depict? yes. after he got out of car.. any blood in car? no sir 15:00:18 where did you take defendant after station? interview room 15:00:37 stats 192... composite. ANY OBJECTION? O'Mara: moment with council. 15:00:59 GOOD MINUTE FOR RECESS?... 15 MINUTE RECESS =================== 15:16:38 PLEASE BE SEATED 15:17:10 (zimmerman walking back in) READY TO BRING JURY BACK IN? yes. yes. 15:18:56 PLEASE BE SEATED. YOU MAY CONTINUE 15:19:04 guy: publish states 192 (playing the police surveillance video)... inside the sally port area? yes. that your patrol car pulling in? yes it is... is that you that just got out? yes sir 15:21:18 accurate depiction as he got out? yes. 15:21:39 (playing police video of the halls) you and defendant walking through? yes. 15:22:02 (playing another clip) again you and defendant walking through another portion? yes 15:22:25 take into interview room? yes. anyone in there? no. uncuff defendant? yes. offer a drink? yes. stay in with him? no. where did you go? rooms monitor by one way glass. see defendant? yes. watch until someone arrived to speak with him? yes. how long? 30-40 minutes 15:23:06 watching defendant did he lose consciousness? no. fall out of chair? no 15:23:20 anything that caused concern with health? no. who was it that arrived? investigator 15:23:37 where were you when they were speaking? one way glass.. hear it? not enough to make it out 15:23:51 that's all I have CROSS 15:24:01 O'Mara: afternoon 15:24:07 how long an officer? since 2005. training? attended law enforcement academy. how long? 700 hours 15:24:23 taken any other courses community college? attended Seminole state college 15:24:35 what type of courses? general education. focus on criminal justice? not at Seminole state, no sir 15:24:50 how long did you want to be a cop? since I was little. life goal? yes. why? enjoy helping and educating 15:25:07 protect and serve, goal of yours? yes sir. noble goal? yes. enjoy it? yes sir 15:25:23 can't enjoy when you get a shots fired called, concerning? yes sir. 15:25:32 radio and get call of disturbance? suspicious person. shots fired? yes. what do you do then? you wait for a little more information, officer safety issue

INT BROLL GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRAYVON MARTIN TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL FEED KATIE HUBER LOG **NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS IN CAPS **NAMES OF WITNESSES IN RED **VISUAL DESCRIPTIONS IN (PARENTHESES) **GOOD STATEMENTS/VIDEO BOLD 8:56:29 (zimmerman walking in.... blue jacket, khaki pants, white shirt, yellow tie) 9:01:18 PLEASE BE SEATED. GOOD MORNING.. ON RECORD. STATE VS ZIMMERMAN. READY TO BRING JURY IN? rionda: may we approach? YES (sidebar) 9:03:09 (martin family) 9:05:36 TELL THEM TO WAIT ONE SECOND WE WANT TO WAIT ON THE AVAILABILITY OF A WITNESS...... OK WE CAN BRING THEM IN 9:06:15 GOOD MORNING LADIES AND GENTLEMAN. PLEASE BE SEATED. WELCOME BACK. QUESTIONS: CONVERSATIONS WITH EACHOTHER ABOUT THE CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR RESEARCH? NO HANDS RAISED. CREATE SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. MR MANTEI CALL WITNESS....... greg mckinney 9:07:40 (sworn in) 9:08:00 mantei: name? greg mckinney... work for united security alliance... video surveillance, IT department. how long? over a yr and a half 9:08:31 do what? cameras out there to monitor and card system to get in. based where? Tampa, fl. monitor video outside of Tampa? yes. retreat at twin lakes? yes 9:09:13 states exhibit 185... review and download video surveillance? yes. remotely? yes. connect over internet to the DVRs on site and view them and download them. 9:09:43 an incident on 2-26-12? yes. 9:09:54 states exhibit 1, the clubhouse layout? yes. how many cameras does your company monitor? 9. located at the front gate? yes. what did we learn about them? not functioning, a mower hit the cables 9:10:39 as far as the videos from clubhouse, able to download all known video surveillance from the period of time that day? yes. depicted in 185? yes. 9:11:03 what is the second disc? one is label copy and the other is video clips from original data 9:11:21 move into evidence if no objection. omara: approach for a moment? YES (sidebar) 9:13:08 omara: moment to review? YES YOU MAY 9:16:43 ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE EXHIBIT? no. COME IN AS STATES 185 9:17:13 mantei: cameras you located, what did you learn about the time on the footage? the video footage is 18 minutes off approximately. slow? yes. add 18 minutes for the accurate time? correct. the way system was recording? yes 9:17:47 camera locations, you mentioned 9... 2 particular... interior and exterior to clubhouse? yes. kitchen camera? yes. that camera right about this area? yes. faces? the front. street, retreat view circle? yes. 9:19:03 exterior, one in the east pool hall? yes. and west pool hall? yes. is the east pool hall located outside in this vicinity? yes. its direction of view is this way? correct 9:19:31 this here, what's that? mailboxes... camera faces mailboxes? yes. this is twin trees lane? correct 9:19:50 clips you referenced, first show you what we talked about as the kitchen video... is what we're talking about? yes. looking out from kitchen camera? correct. time on it is 18:50:33, but add 18 minutes, 19:08:33? yes 9:20:54 (kitchen camera playing) was that something we saw go by that window? Object! Improper Foundation for this witness SUSTAINED 9:21:25 next view is east pool hall camera? this the view? yes 9:21:38 mail box out here? yes 9:21:44 (playing east pool hall video) 9:22:19 back up and play this one more time from beginning.... 9:22:40 (playing east pool hall video) 9:23:20 time beginning for this tape is depicted in lower right hand corner? yes. add 18 minutes to that one as well? yes CROSS 9:23:55 omara: good morning. working for company back in Feb. 2012? yes. 9:24:07 when did you do this work that you're talking about? the day afterwards and 3-21 was asked to get the record again 9:24:21 previous to this event...ever been to this area? no. looks like a pool because of...? well I went there last night. to familiarize with yourself with area before today? yes 9:24:48 where those cameras were? yes 9:24:54 are they identified at your remote location by a number, so you know where to look? by name, east pool. west pool 9:25:14 when did you notice the timing? Feb. 28 2012 9:25:25 any explanation how system is 18 minutes off? nature of computers and clocks like that... they drift. don't know exactly? no. could be 19 seconds? within 18 seconds.... 15 or so either way... total span of 30 seconds? yeah I'm just guessing. don't guess? then I don't know 9:26:09 somewhere around 18 minutes? correct. could be 19 or 17? possibly, that'd be a guess though. could be 17 could be 19? I don't know 9:26:30 know if this was a concern that kept going... lose a second an hour and might be more...? I don't know how long it lasted or the drifts 9:26:49 could be several minutes more if there was a malfunction if it happened, two days later 18 minutes but could've been 25? that'd be speculation, I don't know. 9:27:13 nothing to support? right just know that it was 18 minutes when I checked it. CALL NEXT WITNESS. john good. 9:28:09 (sworn in) 9:28:29 rionda: name? Jonathan Good. 9:28:38 married? yes. how long? a little over a year. kids? no 9:28:50 what do you do for a living? finance. how long? 6 years 9:28:58 education background? FSU graduate 9:29:05 currently living in Seminole? yes 9:29:15 Feb. 2012, retreat twin lakes... 1221 twin tree lane? yes. upstairs bedrooms and living downstairs? correct. how long at that time? 3-4 years 9:29:41 enter into residence? come in right passed the bathroom and the downstairs living quarters. where are the stairs? on the right 9:30:07 toward the back exterior of the house.... living quarters? yes. sliding glass door that goes out to backyard? yes 9:30:23 back porch? I guess it would be considered a back porch... just a slab of concrete with two pillars. no screened in? correct 9:30:49 backyard have walk way? yes. 9:31:02 sliding glass door, any blinds? yes. tell us about it? always closed. what type of blinds? junky white tall blinds. vertical or horizontal (computer malfunctioned--- asked him about the sounds he heard.) 9:37:34 what did you see at that time? a tussle... a dog attack, a lot of dogs walk in back area... only see an object 9:37:49 what did you observe? a tussle... vertical to me... just like the blinds... I yelled out what's going on and stop it I believe 9:38:10 football, instant replay? yes. try to do that with you.... 9:38:20 stepped outside... one foot out... seconds, minutes? seconds 9:38:32 estimating and wife was not timing you at all... how long was it? a few seconds 9:38:56 mentioned when you put your foot out and saw something out there... mentioned vertical? looking at someone in the backyard, they're faced directly to the ground.... they would be making a t with the sidewalk 9:39:29 how close to the sidewalk was.... one or two? I couldn't tell. how close was object to sidewalk? they weren't on sidewalk, but they were vertical, hard to see 9:39:55 did object end up moving? yes. 9:40:01 where it was when you first observed it and the second time, how far from the original place? not far, just up onto the concrete 9:40:23 one individual there or two? two when they were still vertical 9:40:33 describing who was on top? only colors of clothing? on top? dark.... on bottom? light red or white color 9:40:55 not making notes when you're doing this? no. 9:41:05 positions changed, how long did it take for them to change... ongoing process? quick, only seen a few seconds of what happened... 10 seconds max. 9:41:26 as little as 2 or 3 seconds? it could be 9:41:32 change in position, they were horizontal... still two individuals? yes. 9:41:42 able to describe their faces or just clothing? going back to vertical... on bottom was lighter skin color. saw them horizontal, who was on top or bottom? same position still 9:42:07 person on top to the bottom? a straddling position 9:42:15 what do you mean? legs over the lower part of the body 9:42:23 person on bottom... face up or down? face up 9:42:32 see whether bottom was face up or down? when they were vertical? when you first saw them? no I couldn't see anybody 9:42:52 observed the second time... saw the person on bottom was face up? correct. person on top was straddling? correct 9:43:09 what was going on? I thought it was serious. why? looked like strikes or punches.... could've also been holding down... arm movement going downward... from person on top? correct. dark colored attire? correct 9:43:42 person on top... arm movement? shoulder down... see their hands? too dark to see that 9:43:58 person on top was striking and going like this? I could not hear that... hear this? no. (loud noises) 9:44:20 holding the person on the bottom? Object! That's leading OVERRULED 9:44:31 person on top holding down the bottom? possible, arm motion downward not just once 9:44:51 mention you said something, did you yell or say please.... recreate in your tone you used? pretty hard going back to that day 9:45:11 loud? enough for them to hear me. 9:45:16 what did you say? what's going on... no one answered and then at that point... the person on bottom I could hear a help... I said cut it out and I'm going 911 when I thought it was getting really serious 9:45:40 pretty quickly or pausing? pausing... equate to the time I said too... yelling it? yes 9:45:57 first stepped out... hear any yelling? not initially when I stepped out 9:46:09 when you did step out... any individuals say something at that point? no 9:46:20 mentioned they said something, after you said something? yes. who was saying something? 100%, no 9:46:40 person on bottom would've been saying something? correct. if it was the top there would've been an echo and not direct at me 9:47:03 person who said help, person who said help was it help help help continuous? one or maybe two. what happened? moved onto sidewalk. what happened? in the straddle position, thought it was getting serious and call 911 9:47:34 go in and call? yes. close door? didn't care about door 9:47:44 turning around and going back inside... hearing any screams or yells from outside? adrenaline was going, I can't remember 9:48:01 first heard something and stepped outside, was volume still going? it was muted 9:48:27 light outside, remain on? remained on 9:48:33 stepped out and mentioned two individuals, anyone else? not at first. at the very end 9:48:47 did you notice other neighbors peeking out from any windows? my focus wasn't on that 9:49:13 point seeing the individuals, straddling position... see their hands? side view, so I don't think so 9:49:29 tell whether person on bottom had gun out already? I can't tell, no 9:49:53 I'm going to play the 911 recording... ANY OBJECTIONS? no your honor 9:50:18 states exhibit 162 9:50:24 (911 audio playing---- heard a shot... yelling for help... pretty sure the guys dead out here, holy shit.... anything else you heard, no guy yelling help... guy with flashlight in backyard now... I think there's flashlights and a guy... don't know if it's a cop... there's two guys in the backyard with flashlights... a black guy down, looks like he's shot and dead... laying and multiple people calling right now I'm thinking.) 9:52:35 recognize that being your voice? unfortunately 9:52:44 somebody with a flashlight? yeah people came around the corner at some point 9:52:55 straddling position, because of the posture of the person on top? both, yeah 9:53:08 descriptive words as MMA style? yes. what? as a straddle position like that.. common position you would see in mixed martial arts 9:53:35 position of person on top over bottom? in the actions of the arms, looked like something I'd seen on TV. like wrestling? I don't understand 9:53:59 ever see the person on top slam them into concrete? no. see them slam head into concrete over and over? no. see the bottom slam head into concrete? no 9:54:40 back when you were living in your residence... ms lauer also lived there, neighbor? correct 9:54:53 you actually heard the recording that 911 call she made with the cries for help? yes. heard that before in depo? no. at that depo did that sound the same? it did not sound the same as I heard that night 9:55:30 states exhibit 1, recognize this? yes... the sidewalk, here? yes. 9:56:08 area you're talking about here? yes. 9:56:28 states exhibit 6, make out your back yard on that exhibit? I guess 9:56:41 would this have been lauers and yours is here? yes 9:56:51 conditions of the weather that night... 2-26-12 around 7:05-7:15, dark? yes. weather... raining snowing? defitenily wasn't snowing, but I was very nasty outside 9:57:21 nasty meaning? raining off and on all night 9:57:28 exhibit 7... what we're looking at? yes 9:57:37 dog garbage... going toward your residence here? yes. 9:57:58 exhibit 33 this is your residence here and ms goods here? incorrect... we don't live in separate homes... ms lauers? correct 9:58:34 street address is right there in the front? that's the number address... yes 9:58:49 twin tree lane? yes 9:59:10 states exhibit 39, recognize that? yes. 9:59:19 your backyard here? yes. see the sliding door? the one of the left actually 9:59:45 this was ms lauers back porch? correct 10:00:05 exhibit, the big diagrams... courts assistance? YES YOU MAY 10:00:55 approach witness? YES 10:01:00 back to February of last year... states 139... live at 1221? yes. 10:01:22 this exhibit... 1221, depiction of person... this area you saw? beginning or end.... 10:01:43 observed and went back inside? yes 10:01:50 concrete is this sidewalk were talking about? yes 10:02:03 went back inside and called 911... hear a gun shot? yes. recall if that was before you called 911 or during or after? while it was dialing 10:02:24 how long it took to dial? it was probably right inside, usually keep phone next to me 10:02:45 shot was while dialing or on the line? on the line waiting to get picked up 10:03:00 moment? YES 10:03:29 heard a gunshot any more yells? I wasn't focused on that... focused on calling 911? yes 10:03:49 in terms of the 3 cries for help... when you went outside? I said 1 or 2, possibly 3... I don't know 10:04:04 all one voice or more than one? sounded to be the same voice 10:04:16 not able to identify that voice? not 100%, no 10:04:30 what you heard when you looked out there... only heard one help help or anything else? that's all I heard 10:05:01 no further questions CROSS 10:05:10 I need a few minutes for exhibits....SURE 10:05:54 omara: very reluctant to be involve in case? correct. anonymity be continued because of concerns? correct. accomplish until today, but couldn't because of process? correct 10:06:28 recall what you said that night and told other people? yes 10:06:39 that night.... I want to define the terms you used... watching TV? yes. heard noise outside that gets attention? yes. 10:07:01 noise or yells? I didn't say yells... just a noise in the distance 10:07:16 lived there? yes. noise came from which way when you first heard? couldn't tell where it came from... it was faint and getting closer 10:07:38 could've been from this area? I thought we weren't speculating... I'm just asking you where you think. Objection! Speculation SUSTAINED 10:07:59 next thing that caught attention? heard it again... it was getting louder.. where? just closer to where I was 10:08:12 what did you do? muted the TV again and I preceded to sliding door 10:08:21 time in between where you turned TV down and back on? yes. how long? no. 10:08:34 maybe a couple of minutes? you were wanting a time frame, so yes 10:08:44 sound about right still? I guess, we weren't keep track of time. 10:08:55 caught attention, muted it and then what? muted it and I went to sliding door 10:09:05 looked outside and say again what you saw..... first looked out after second noise, what did you see? couldn't tell what was out there. 10:09:26 your view and what it was? couldn't tell what was out there, opened sliding door and screen... took step out to see better view 10:09:43 what you saw? possibly a dog tussle... could only see one person out there 10:09:52 vertical, horizontal and want to clarify? horizontal as laying flat on ground, ok? that's your perception 10:10:18 horizontal would mean they're laying on the ground flat...? they were laying on the ground 10:10:32 vertical would be standing up vertical, agree? correct 10:10:47 with that in mind, describe the scene you saw and your perspective.. how far away? closer to sidewalk, but not on side walk. 15-20 ft.? I guess 10:11:08 sidewalk about 20 ft. away, would that be close to accurate? I guess 10:11:24 use for now... how far then, about 20 ft. almost to the pathway? yeah close to the sidewalk 10:11:38 using the terms how were they? they were laying on ground, if you fell back vertically that was how I was looking at them 10:11:59 back was toward me, but facing downward 10:12:06 saw his back? yes. like this? at beginning no.... go to the ground, like that? no. more like flat or flat... horizontal on top of the other? correct... when did that change? closer to the side walk 10:12:44 position of the two? more of a straddle position when on side walk 10:12:53 explain that in more detail? more just person on tops legs were over the person laying on the ground 10:13:15 person on top like this? that's accurate 10:13:21 and person on bottom was flat? correct. on his back or not? back 10:13:32 person on top was wearing what? same person on the top when they were t shaped. did not change positions? no... guy on top wearing black was now straddling him? correct 10:14:04 now closer to the cement pathway? on the cement at that point 10:14:13 what movement were you... walk us through that... at point tell me your focus on what they're doing? on the entire time... only 8-10 seconds, so quick 10:14:37 saying.... on concrete, arm movement going downward 10:14:49 step out to watch them was 8-10 seconds? very quick... not a long time 10:15:01 rionda asked you if you said as little as 2? I didn't state the entire thing was 2 10:15:12 the entire time you watched? 8-10 seconds... what turned out to be martin and zimmerman? correct 10:15:27 8-10 watching them do whatever was happening? I would say, yes 10:15:40 movement or struggle? at the beginning or the end or the whole thing.... beginning? walked out and looked like one person, then could see the second... looked like a tussle... got more serious on sidewalk with straddle and arm movement going downward 10:16:13 trying to be extraordinarily literal? through the whole thing... same thing I said in deposition 10:16:27 initial statement, first opportunity to talk to officer the first time... explained as best you could recall? correct 10:16:47 person on top in MMA style straddle position? correct. ground and pound? correct. what is that? takes place in that type of position 10:17:08 knew it enough to give terminology? first thing that came to my mind... ground and pounding person on bottom? that's what it looked like 10:17:29 what is that? person on top punching person on the bottom, but the bottom can come back.... dominant? top... usually a positive I would think.... (phone went off and distracted people) 10:18:04 ground and pound? top is dominant... person on bottom is able to get out or throw punches back, but I didn't see any of that 10:18:36 top is dominant because weight is on hips? correct. bottom can't get much movement or leverage? depends on the person on the bottom. and their training in MMA? not really trained but other things 10:19:07 top has arms free? correct. might have arms under his knees? Objection! at the scene or in general. SUSTAINED AND LAY BETTER FOUNDATION 10:19:32 ground and pound position, dominant position can get guys on the bottom under his knees to rain blows on him? I don't know 10:19:55 top has arms free? correct. that night you saw... martin was on top? correct. was raining blows down on the bottom? that's what it looked like 10:20:17 couldn't actually see fist hit face? no. blocked by what? not blocked, dark out 10:20:29 looking at martins back? incorrect. at sidewalk they're side to me... lateral to my house 10:20:44 by the time they were at sidewalk, you could see more...? his right arm (Zimmerman) 10:21:04 saw him striking down? arm movement going downward. how many times? I have no idea, I went back inside... getting serious 10:21:20 hear zimmerman screaming for help? incorrect... that was in the beginning when I saw someone on top 10:21:36 when was the first time you heard the person on the bottom scream for help? initially went outside and didn't see second person, then I could... coming from the bottom because usually on bottom is screaming or yelling 10:22:01 balancing trying to be literal and what you remember and common sense, bottom is screaming? rationally thinking I would think so 10:22:20 had it been martin screaming for help, since his back was to you the yell would go away from you? it would've sounded different. 10:22:42 person screaming from 15 ft. away almost directly at you? sounded like it was coming toward me, yes 10:22:59 now moved up in the ground and pound position, what you heard and did hear.... hear something like this? no. could that happen without you hearing it? Objection! SUSTAINED. paying attention to those sounds? no 10:23:36 skull being smacked against concrete? I can't remember. heard fist driving into head? I can't remember 10:23:54 while not the noises rionda suggested, could've occurred that martin was hitting zimmerman, but don't remember sound of that? Objection! SUSTAINED REPHRASE 10:24:21 not telling jury that you know martin was not striking zimmerman in the face? I can't confirm that was happening 10:24:41 don't want to say that martin was taking Zimmerman's head on the cement, didn't see that? yeah I didn't see that. because of darkness and positioning? yes 10:25:14 during deposition and other times regarding what you heard and the disparity of what you heard and the 911 call indicates? yes 10:25:36 doesn't seem like same screams to you? ones coming from audio and the other I heard in person. 10:25:50 not suggesting they're not the same screams from different perspectives? I couldn't say 10:26:02 lauer's call to 911 was timed perfectly with the screams she heard and the gun shot you heard, correct? what do you mean... 10:26:18 you heard gun shot? correct. and on her tape? correct. going back in time from gunshot and her tape there was 40 seconds of screaming on that call? Objection to Speculation TESTIFY IF HE KNOWS 10:26:46 listen to lauers call again... think through... 45 seconds into call you'll hear gunshot... then testify what you remember seeing in timeline to that shot? I wouldn't be able to tell you... well I'm going to play the tape and well go from there 10:28:19 (911 lauer call playing) 10:29:09 heard the gun shot? yes. 10:29:13 different perspectives, same gunshot you heard? didn't sound the same, sounded like a rock hitting my window.. knowing now it was the same? yes 10:29:34 sounded much different from across the pathway and into ms. lauers apartment? correct 10:29:47 didn't hear your voice on that tape, did you? no 10:29:54 you did say what you said to them? correct. not showing up on tape doesn't mean it didn't happen? I know what I said.... talking about someone who was in their house though 10:30:28 using that gun shot as reference point, take you back in time... before the call is when you turned around and went back inside? before the gun shot... 10:30:54 heard the gunshot dialing 911? correct I was inside 10:31:02 know the gun shot you heard here was the one you heard.... gunshot happens you were on the phone? waiting for someone to pick up 10:31:20 heard your 911 call that says just heard a gunshot? correct. happens after gun shot? correct 10:31:34 only a few seconds before gun shot that you were looking at the two individuals? correct 10:31:53 you are certain the person on bottom was yelling to you? not 100% certain... but it did sound like it was bottom 10:32:12 not 100%, knowing you want to be literal and cautious... but using common sense... listening to sound of yelling, where was it coming from? sounded like the person on the bottom... coming straight toward you unobstructed? I would say yes 10:32:46 relate any of those two helps.. how many did you hear? 1, 2. possibly 3 only a few 10:32:59 could you relate those to this tape? no 10:33:14 the yells you heard, however many were always the same voice? that I personally heard, yes... no second voice? not that I heard 10:33:32 when you ran outside that time you went out to porch, actually told them stop? what's going on, cut it out, stop something like hat 10:33:50 martin on top didn't stop? no one stopped. acknowledge you were there? nobody did... kept doing what he was doing even though you asked him to stop? I guess I asked him, yes 10:34:21 never saw gun? no. no gun in hands that you could see? not that I could see 10:34:33 period of time during straddling, seem like zimmerman was trying to get up? didn't watch long enough to see that... 10:35:01 one on top of other before straddle, that's when zimmerman was trying to get up? yes. how? person on top of him... I didn't think he wanted to stay on the ground... describe how he was trying to get up from that position? couldn't tell you 10:35:34 describe? what do you want me to describe if I can't tell you 10:35:44 when you said guy on bottom trying to get up? if persons on top, you're not trying to stay on the ground... rationally, person on bottom trying to get up. any movements by him to try and do that? couldn't see anyone when I first went out there... 10:36:30 first time you noticed Zimmerman's clothing? just as I just stated 10:36:45 right before... in that very initial 10:36:52 see he was wearing red? different color than the person on top was wearing, yes... red or white 10:37:17 going through your statements and who you spoke with and when... first had opportunity to speak to, first person? first statement... that would've been the police 10:37:39 filling out hand written statement? yes. inconsistencies today with that? clarify in any other statements since that first one 10:38:02 straddle position back then where person on top was straddling person on bottom in red... bottom was getting hit yelling help? didn't mean to say they were yelling help while getting hit 10:38:29 also talked to investigator sereno? correct. same day? later that night. gave him an oral statement? correct 10:38:48 in that statement the same day you described straddle as MMA? correct. ground and pound first talked about? correct 10:39:14 also talked to the media... they found you out? came to my house every day and harassed us for the next 6 months... 10:39:31 answered one door knock with reporter talking to you? next morning 10:39:44 similarly told them, guy on bottom in red was getting beat up? correct 10:40:01 also saying at that point he was yelling for help? correct 10:40:12 month later FDLE john bachelor spoke with you? sereno in between that 10:40:29 except for clarifying, no inconsistencies? just clarifying 10:40:39 john bachelors conversation? correct. more detail about what happened? from my point of view, yes 10:41:06 everything in there, still stand by? yes 10:41:24 tell me why you initially thought this just may have been a dog fight? a lot of dogs get walked back there, maybe a dog got loose... people partying it was Daytona 500 weekend 10:42:02 any problem with dogs in that area? nothing unusual... maybe a dog getting off its leash 10:42:31 approach the witness? YES YOU MAY 10:42:41 states exhibit 45, recognize who that is? now I do, not at the time... clothing you saw that night? can't say exactly... definitely a red or lighter color... that red on the bottom? possibly 10:43:22 moment, almost done 10:45:12 just show to him and not publish to the jury yet.... 10:45:43 defense e for identification 10:45:50 clothing here for the person on top? person on the right, yes. person in the center? correct 10:46:06 similar to the top? same colors, yes 10:46:30 enter that into evidence. ANY OBJECTIONS? no. DEFENSE EXHIBIT 18 10:47:43 during your interview, you prepared a sketch of what you saw that night, remember? yes 10:48:12 DEFENSE EXHIBIT 19 10:48:20 identify this as a blow up of a sketch you prepared? yes it's my horrible stick figures 10:48:37 explain to the jury what you intended to do with this sketch? door and house... where they first were and where they moved to 10:49:01 this is your patio area? yes. looking out at first? yes... looking at from here to here first? correct. 10:49:40 tell me the legend and explain what you were indicating? depicted them laying how I started earlier.. black on top, red on bottom... moves to sidewalk, laying this way black on top, red on bottom... in straddle? yes. with martin on top? yeah I could not draw that 10:50:20 this number three? when I went upstairs and looked down and the body was... not in the same position I left them in. 10:50:41 on sidewalk and body was closer to where I was... looked out from upstairs? upstairs... saw martins body between the pathway and your home? correct 10:51:02 stick figure... seen the photos taken as martin as he lay after the shot? no. did you see anyone move the body at all? I think I saw him flip him over and try to give him CPR. laying face down? correct 10:51:34 see the other person? on the side walk, standing up.. guy with flash lights came around the corner 10:51:49 gun shot, on the phone to the time you looked out to see martins body in position.. and zimmerman walking about, how long? if you sliced the phone call you could do it to the T 10:52:15 just heard the gun shot? correct. I see someone outside, that's about the timeline you would say was accurate? that's when I'm walking upstairs, yes 10:52:35 tell the jury... hear gun shot while dialing... tell me you're movement until you get to the area where you see martins body? walking, trying to spell out twin trees 3 times, and see the body 10:53:08 still on stair case while dialing? heading up 10:53:17 continued walking, go to back bedroom? master. balcony and window? window in bathroom and room. which one? bathroom window 10:53:38 could've been one of the two? I believe it was the bathroom window... remember that you said something acknowledging you had just seen the body when you saw it? repeat 10:54:01 if listen to 911 tape, you said there's somebody outside and I think he's dead, precise to when you saw the body? correct...from when I stated I just heard a shot, yes 10:54:41 moment? YES 10:55:06 clarify.... look out and see martins body and then you saw zimmerman walking about? standing, walking, yes but on the sidewalk 10:55:24 two guys with flashlights? I think two coming around corner 10:55:31 tell one was an officer? no.. just saw a flashlight. still dark out? correct 10:55:42 porch light was on? it was on. the whole night? yes. point down? light bulb inside of globe... in ceiling above? correct. not a flood light. illuminate porch area? a little bit. not to increase what you talked about near the pathway? no 10:56:28 voice screaming for help... it was just one person's voice? when I heard it outside, just one person's voice... now believe that was Zimmerman's voice? I never said that, I said it could've been, not 100% sure. not asking for 100%? that's just my opinion. Nothing further REDIRECT 10:57:21 first saw them.... saw like this? correct. one on top of other? correct. next time the other was straddling? correct. feet were to the right? feet, yes... heads were towards the T. of the sidewalk 10:58:35 asked about statements and interviews... talked to officer at the scene and a detective and then from FDLE... another with sereno on the phone 10:59:03 at some point talking to me and then I took a statement? another with FDLE and then you 10:59:15 certain questions not asked at beginning than later? new questions right 10:59:26 weren't asked to elaborate at the beginning? correct. nobody asked if you heard this? no. did not hear that? no 10:59:48 didn't hear that either? no. 10:59:52 in one of the interviews with sereno... omara asked you about ground and pound... could it be that investigator sereno used those words and not you? I believe it was me because it was in my initial statement as well... put ground and pound in initial statement? possibly 11:01:12 IT'S FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES... 11:01:22 marked as 2S... read it and see if you used words ground and pound 11:01:42 omara: improper impeachment! I DONT KNOW IF IMPEACHMENT OR RECOLLECTION 11:02:07 I say ground getting hit....ok 11:02:13 in that interview with first officer you did not use ground and pound? not interview, it was written statement, by the time I spoke with sereno I might've said that to give a better description 11:02:39 believe you used ground and pound with sereno? I believe that's better described, yes 11:02:52 elaborate more and more? clarify... felt important to clarify certain things? to give a better visual 11:03:12 moment? YES 11:03:31 porch light, not on the ceiling.. its outside? caddy corner of ceiling and wall.. illuminates out into the yard? that patio area 11:04:02 marked for identification.... interview with sereno and that was on February 26th... omara: identify the document... 11:04:39 omara: moment? YES YOU MAY 11:05:12 omara: ask that audio be used for impeachment.. OBJECTION I NEED TO HEAR THE OBJECTION, NOT SPEAKING ONES. improper foundation. HASN'T HAD IT IDENTIFIED, WAIT FOR THAT... omara: ask council for a second? YES 11:05:53 rionda: interview with sereno? correct. used word MMA? correct. you believe you used the word ground and pound? I believe so... could it be that sereno used ground and pound? it could've been 11:06:24 you as best you could in elaborating used language based on MMA on TV? to give a better description. the straddling over one on the other? yes. to depict there were blows like that on TV? yes. but didn't actually see those blows? downward arm movement 11:07:06 the times you heard help, believe it was person on bottom... not 100% but because on bottom would be yelling for help? correct and that's when I first saw the person on the bottom 11:07:34 person yelling for help would not have come toward you? yes 11:07:45 person on top was yelling help and it would be toward the ground and not you? Object! TESTIFY TO WHAT HE SAID 11:08:15 I didn't hear a muffled help, no 11:08:21 never saw the bottoms hands if he had a gun? no. couldn't say one way or other? no 11:08:39 you can't say whether person on bottom was trying to get up, may have been? person on bottom was trying to, but I couldn't confirm that... just from common sense? correct 11:09:11 several statements you gave... felt the need or weren't asked questions to specify? correct. felt the need to clarify? yes so words weren't put in my mouth, yes 11:09:39 lying originally with what you said? lying, no.... because you didn't clarify? no it was just the question was never asked of me 11:10:24 moment? YES 11:10:49 mention at the end of the cross, you went upstairs and looked out and saw what you now know as martin on ground... saw person zimmerman standing up, and then saw one or two guys with flashlights? correct 11:11:21 looked out and martin being like that? no, opposite view... but yes the body looked like that.... if I was standing over there looking that way... body was faced down? yes 11:12:37 states exhibit 77... vantage point different but body faced down? correct. 11:12:51 MMA trained at all? no in shape to do that 11:12:57 were zimmerman or martin MMA trained? I didn't know either people. nothing further 11:13:53 omara: copy of your statement given mostly to what was happening? yes. what words you used and first opportunity? not question, but given for statement. accurate? from what I said that night 11:14:22 move to evidence. rionda: same objection PLEASE APPROACH (sidebar) 11:19:23 statement you gave to sereno, correct as best you could remember the incident the way you viewed it? correct. 4 or 5 statements all together? probably.. all somewhat different? what do you mean... 11:19:56 clarify certain things? yes. add to what needed to be added? add but not changed. questions asked would prompt you to answer about new subjects? yes. this statement was only half a page? correct. another was a page and a half of transcription? yes. another longer with FDLE? correct. some facts added to one because the way questions were asked? I don't know about facts, but more clarification 11:21:01 deposition was about 50 pages? correct. rionda wanted to make sure jury understands that statement 1-4 aren't the same, you weren't lying? no. just answering questions? yes 11:21:34 even said that adrenaline was flowing? yes. event where you hyper focused on what was happening? for a few seconds 11:22:03 traumatic event to see that to call 911? yes. recounted story time and time again, things became more expanded? yes, but the groundwork stayed the same... two guys, one on top? clarified I couldn't see punches... 11:22:45 guy with red was always on bottom? correct. never changed? right 11:22:55 with sereno, ground and pound... completeness, put in context for you... ask you if this is what you said..... heard someone yelling, not sure if it I was a fight... see kind of a person out there, open my door black man on top with a white guy on bottom yelling out help, tried to tell them get out of here or stop or whatever, guy on top was pretty much just throwing down blows kind of MMA style... context in which that happened? yes. sereno said word ground, maybe ground and pound... and you said yeah like a ground and pound at this time, calling 911 now? Objection! Hearsay and improper Bolstering. omara: rule 108. OBJECTION TO HEARSAY IS OVERRULED, BOLSTERING IS NOT RIGHT EITHER. rionda: beyond scope. OVERRULED 11:25:03 that's what you said right? yeah. context in which ground and pound came from? for more clarification. ground and pound even still today? looked like it, but couldn't tell if faces were being hit... but did see MMA style? meaning arm movement going down.... RE-RE-DIRECT 11:26:02 clarify after that, you did not see fists...? both sides made me clarify. did not see blows on the guy on the bottom? correct 11:26:20 under subpoena, talk to him at lunch..... REMAIN OUTSIDE SO COUNCIL CAN SPEAK WITH YOU. 11:26:47 HESITATE TO TAKE YOU TO BREAK AND WAIT FOR LUNCH...... I DONT KNOW IF LUNCH WILL BE HERE UNTIL NOON. RECESS UNTIL 1.... 11:27:14 DO NOT DISCUSS CASE. DO NOT LISTEN OR READ ABOUT CASE. NO ELECTRONIC DEVICES. NO SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THE CASE. ASSURANCE? yes. FOLLOW OUTSIDE COURTROOM 11:28:21 PLEASE BE SEATED, ANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT NOW. COURT IN RECESS UNTIL 1 11:28:38 RECESS FOR LUNCH ============================== 12:57:42 (zimmerman walking in) 12:59:05 COURT BACK IN SESSION. STATE VS. ZIMMERMAN 12:59:56 (rionda walking in, O'Mara walking in) Approach (sidebar) 13:01:42 READY TO BRING IN JURY? yes. GO AHEAD AND BRING THEM IN 13:02:38 PLEASE BE SEATED.... LADIES AND GENTLEMAN WELCOME BACK. QUESTIONS: CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE? NO HANDS RAISED. CREATE OR READ SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH... RIONDA CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS.... joe manalo 13:03:54 (sworn in) 13:04:15 rionda: name? jonathan manalo. married? yes. how long? 7 years. kids? yes. daughter? yes. living? work for UPS. how long? 20 years 13:04:44 live in Seminole county? yes 13:04:48 how long? 32 years 13:04:56 living at 2861 retreat view circle in 2-26-12? yes. how long? 3 years 13:05:12 focus on Sunday the 26th, home around 7:05-7:15? yes. anyone home with you? yes. who? wife and daughter 13:05:31 doing what? wife on couch, my daughter and I assembling coffee table bought earlier in the day 13:05:50 outside, was it dark? yes. weather that evening? raining 13:06:02 around 7:10, hear something? yes. describe to the jury? like grunts... dogs barking at first 13:06:18 grunts loud or low? they were loud enough that I could hear it through the window, but still indistinct 13:06:38 did wife do something? yeah she looked through the window. did you tell her anything? yes I said stay away from the window... dont make it our problem. did she pay attention to you? yes. did you ever look out window? no. did your wife ever look at that evening? yes 13:07:14 she just said there were two people fighting, sat down and then heard yelling or gun shot when she peered through window. did you hear the gun shot? yes. 13:07:37 ever looked through window or sliding door? no. 13:07:43 heard the gun shot, take action? I went outside. 13:07:52 how did you go outside? I went through the garage. grab anything? a flashlight 13:08:07 after, where did you go and what route? went to the left, toward the sidewalk and then I walked toward the back to the T 13:08:24 see a man standing on side walk? yes. know that man prior to that night? no. know him now to be George zimmerman? yes. see him here today? yes. person who stood up? yes 13:08:50 first saw him... defendant standing up or laying down? walking toward my direction 13:09:03 walk toward you? walk directly towards me 13:09:09 have your flashlight on? yes. was it dark? yes 13:09:17 observed defendant, walk towards you? yes. anything in his hands? cell phone to his left ear 13:09:33 holding to ear... demonstrate? like this 13:09:47 notice blood? yes, down his nostrils streaming down both sides of his lips 13:10:02 damage to nose? no 13:10:08 did you also see blood on back of head? yes 13:10:16 did you end up taking photos with your cell phone? yes. back of his head? yes. photo of martin on ground? yes. photo of flash light on the ground? next to the body, yes. 13:10:43 use your cell phone to take those photos? yes. use the flash from cell phone or flash light? flash light 13:11:03 look at... states exhibit 1, google or aerial photo of twin lakes? yes. 13:11:34 residence here? yes. route you took.. this way toward walk way? yes. approximately when you came into contact, where you had contact with him? higher... at the T 13:12:09 states exhibit 3, see your residence there? no. 13:12:17 states exhibit 3, dark establish how dark it was? yes 13:12:29 states exhibit 5, part of your residence? yes. what part? back patio... pointing to it? yes 13:12:46 this light, was that on? that was off, turned on after 13:12:58 area where you came into contact? yes. near the T or the dog garbage? yes 13:13:16 states exhibit 6, your patio or pavement here? yes 13:13:32 states exhibit 10, what does that show? the back of my house... the T.... is this the area you walked out of? yes 13:13:50 states exhibit 11, recognize? yes. what does it show? the back of the house and where the crime scene finally ended 13:14:04 were all these markers out there when you came out? no. first one out there after the shot? yes. police officers out there when you got there? no. arrive after you? yes 13:14:29 states exhibit 34, recognize? front of the house. your residence? yes 13:14:41 states exhibit 35, close up? yes.. 13:14:48 states exhibit 37, show the area we talked about? yes. 13:15:09 states exhibit 40, what does that show? side walk toward the T... taken the path to that... left garage out this way? yes 13:15:29 states exhibit 76, take this photo? yes 13:15:36 raining that night? yes. 13:15:42 recall the position you took this photo, sitting down standing up? squatting. after officers came? this was before 13:16:03 states exhibit 77, what is that photo? I believe that's travyon martin 13:16:16 is this the way you found him? yes. move him at all? no. hands were underneath his body? yes. tamper his hands or anything? I never left the side walk, so no 13:16:39 this photo you took of trayvon, the light is from flashlight? yes 13:16:54 states exhibit 78, with cell phone? yes. showing what? object next to him... no other objects other than the little flashlight by the T. 13:17:15 point at it now? yes 13:17:21 the light shown is your flashlight? yes 13:17:46 back in February 2012, states exhibit 139... your residence here? yes. 13:18:09 area depict your route? yes 13:18:31 elaborate about your contact with defendant... flashlight you saw on ground, was that on? no. (malfunctioning computer) 13:22:26 computer came back 13:22:36 picked up his phone, put in pocket and called his wife through my phone 13:22:46 defendant asked you to call wife? yes. picked it up and put in whose pocket? Zimmerman's. which pocket? left side. why that one? closer to me 13:23:07 call his wife, did you do that? yes., know her number? no, know her before? no. how did you get the number/ he gave me her number 13:23:26 dial her number? yes. call her? yes. talk to her? yes. 13:23:39 I had connection with her right away... husband involved in shooting, and he'll be at Sanford PD, defendant cut me off and said just tell I shot someone... what did you say to his wife? okk.. he just shot someone 13:24:28 describe his demeanor? like I was taking too long to say what I had to say 13:24:38 mentioned you saw the body, see any movement in his body? no. 13:24:47 ever hear him say anything? no. 13:24:52 heard the shot and went outside... how long did it take you to come in contact with him? 10-20 seconds 13:25:13 observation was he was beaten? yes. remain outside while officers arrived? yes. present when they attempted to revive martin? yes 13:25:34 what you recall seeing about that? first officer arrived and turned him over... more were coming and asked for a bag to do compressions on his chest... I watched them perform CPR 13:25:58 get a bag? my wife handed me a bag 13:26:04 provide to officer in attempt to save martins life? yes 13:26:13 ever met zimmerman? no. ever met martin? no 13:26:20 ever involved in neighborhood watch program? no. why not? I have work and 6 yr. old to take care of 13:26:41 come into contact that evening, was he in shock? no. what it that based on? not acting like anything different, coherent responding to my questions, just like any other person 13:27:09 observe the defendant look back at the body? no. 13:27:18 appear calm? yes 13:27:25 nothing further. CROSS 13:27:53 west: afternoon. 13:28:12 in the living room with wife and daughter putting furniture together when you hear noises? yes 13:28:31 she said there's two guys fighting or guys fighting? yes. weren't able to see anything? no. never looked out, but did hear the noise continue? yes. moved from corner from right to left? yes 13:28:58 area of T on past your unit? yes. point where you heard a shot? yes. hear the shot yourself, or wife said to you? we both heard the shot 13:29:19 made the decision then to find out what that was about? yes. went from living room in the back, toward the garage? yes. in the garage grabbed a flashlight? yes. 13:29:43 front of your house, turn back around and run length of your unit and bring you in view of where this event occurred? yes, but I didn't run 13:30:09 walk briskly? carefully walking... walk upon the scene and see what's going on 13:30:23 flashlight and cell phone and best estimate is that it was somewhere between 10 and 20 seconds from hearing the shot and coming in contact? yes. didn't see martins body first? correct. caught your attention first was zimmerman? yes 13:31:03 saw him there he was breathing hard? yes. staggering? yes. look to you like he just got his but beat? yes. approached him? yes. weren't fearful of him? no. didn't call police? I asked him if I needed to call police 13:31:37 when you got closer to zimmerman you asked him do I need to call police? yes. told you no, I already called them or something to that affect? yes. didn't know yourself whether he was talking about the call he tried to make or if he called himself 2-3 minutes before? not a way of that 13:32:12 on the phone at that point that he had been talking to police? yes. would have to take place in those 10-20 seconds before you got there? yes. 13:32:37 wait for call to connect and have conversation before you asked him to call the police? I'm not aware of that, he wasn't talking on the phone, just had the phone to his ear 13:33:03 wanted you to tell his wife about the shooting? yes. asked you am I bleeding? yes. and you saw he was? yes. stooped over like this to collect himself? no just squatted down. as if to collect himself? not to collect himself..... didn't you say that in a statement... to try to collect himself, like he just got his butt beat? Objection! Compound question. ANSWER IF HE CAN..... yes 13:34:15 flash light and cell phone with you... opportunity to take picture of his back head? yes 13:34:39 took it upon yourself to take the picture, he didn't ask you to? yes. 13:34:53 asked him what happened? yes. he said, this guy was beating me up and I shot him? I was defending myself and I shot him. 13:35:15 it seemed completely true? yes. 13:35:35 not long until police arrived.... talking to zimmerman as he collected himself, officer time smith got there? I didn't know his name, but right 13:35:54 within a very short time, the first police officer arrived? right. he had a flash light? I dont remember. I know it was a police officer but I dont remember if he had a flashlight 13:36:20 officer smith or first officer arrived and he said who shot him? yes. and George said I did? yes. and officer smith said do you have a gun or something? yes. and zimmerman raised right arm and exposed firearm on his right side? yes. officer said I'm going to handcuff you for officer safety? yes. and zimmerman complied? yes. made available to be cuffed? yes 13:37:12 in the meantime while zimmerman was in the process of being cuffed, wanted you to call his wife? yes. in the process of being cuffed and call his wife he put the phone on the ground? yes. couldn't do anything more than that? right 13:37:40 purpose was to let his wife know that husband was involved in shooting, that's what you did? yes. conversation with who you believed to be his wife? yes. husbands been involved in a shooting? yes and is going to be taken in for questioning? yes. and beginning to explain when zimmerman says just tell her I shot someone? yes. to make it clear that he wasn't the one who had been shot? Objection! SUSTAINED 13:38:39 he may have been abrupt, get to the point? yes. that someone else had been shot? yes 13:39:13 thought that the way zimmerman said that wasn't animated enough, not hyper enough... not agitated enough for you to think he was in shock? I dont understand 13:39:40 do you think he shock, your mind someone who's hyper? or not responsive... one extreme or the other? right 13:40:00 zimmerman wasn't either of those? right. point in his response? yes. compliant with police officers, did understand what was being said? yes. 13:40:21 not animated, he was flat.... that's what you mean by not in shock? yes. not that you have training about in shock? right 13:40:45 something you've haven't been involved in very many times? right 13:41:00 while you were......... 13:41:10 attend HOA meetings? no. not involved in community? no. work and family, you dont attend meetings or programs? no 13:41:26 your view at that point was mind your business and go to work to support your family? right and if there's a problem just call 911 13:41:47 community, there's a sign that says neighborhood watch? correct. somebody coming in to steal or hurt people would see that and think there's somebody there that might be watching them? people in the neighborhood would work together if there was a problem, not a forewarning for would be criminals 13:42:24 not like having a security alarm sign in the front yard but not having a system? not really. just if they see a problem to call 911? right 13:42:42 involved more communication, contact among neighbors with guidance as to what they should do if its suspicious with non-emergency number? I dont understand.... you didn't know specifics of watch? right 13:43:16 I know you said it was dark, I know you had a flash light and took two pictures that show martin lying on the ground following the shot.... 77 and 78..... could we.... show those here in a second, the exact position shown in the photo is the same way you saw martins body with your eyes? yes. legs spread like this as if riding a bicycle? I dont remember 13:44:33 took this photo of martin... see the legs I've described as almost riding a bicycle with right knee bent? yes. first observed his body that way? yes 13:45:04 illumination of martins body is from your flash light? yes. not the flash on the phone? no. shined the flashlight and took the photo? yes 13:45:22 around that spot where its darker... overall lighting conditions that night? yes 13:45:53 this is the next picture you took... the other picture you took is states 78, see that martins body is in same position, harder to see? yes. see this flashlight? right. not on when you saw it? no 13:46:23 no idea if it was connected to case but you saw it and it caught your attention? yes. 13:46:37 picture... martins body was like I said before... everything else was quite dark? right 13:46:54 were you... where were you standing? on the side walk. where you encountered zimmerman? yes. basically the same spot? yes. 13:47:12 turned and took the pictures we've shown here? yes. near T intersection? yes 13:47:56 best recollection is you were at the T intersection...? a few feet away, but in that area... 13:48:12 t intersection and far enough down side walk to take this picture? yes. back patio light is from the light of the second unit in from the corner? I couldn't remember whether that's the second or third unit... not across from you? correct. to the left of your unit? yes 13:49:39 orientation in the photo... see the lit area in back, believe that's the back of someone's unit... second or third? yes. 13:49:59 lower left corner, dark edge? yes. is that the sidewalk? yes. edge of the sidewalk on the left, illuminated flashlight that's off and martins body? yes. back patio area of that residence? yes 13:50:30 martins hands or arms tucked under him, saw what's in the picture? right... nothing different? right. saw in the picture? yes 13:50:51 woman that testified earlier... jeanne manalo, your wife? yes 13:51:20 when you took this picture, you were at the spot where you had encountered zimmerman? yes 13:51:34 ANY REDIRECT? REDIRECT 13:51:54 rionda: came into contact with defendant he appeared calm to you? yes. Objection! Leading! Asked and Answered. REDIRECT AND TRYING TO ORIENT THE WITNESS. OVERRULED 13:52:20 recall he was calm? yes. Objection! Mischaracterization OVERRULED 13:52:39 how would you describe his demeanor? coherent, compliant, he was calm... just walking toward me. any trouble? staggering.. what do you mean? getting up off the ground 13:53:10 like this! Objection! leading OVERRULED.. erect sir? at one point, yes. 13:53:24 have any trouble understanding him when he spoke? no 13:53:37 in your conversations did you ask about caliber of gun? yes. what did he say? 9 millimeter 13:54:06 asked about statements made about shooting the individual, were you out there during this? after it happened. see the shooting where zimmerman shot martin in chest? no. inkling on how it happened, self-defense or not? no. rionda: I have nothing else 13:55:24 west: nothing further, thank you 13:55:28 CALL NEXT WITNESS.... 13:56:25 (sworn in) 13:56:42 guy: name? ricardo ayala. employed where? Sanford pd... how long? 11 years. position? police officer. how long in patrol unit? just over a year. before that? investigations 13:57:15 how long in that? 6 years. duties? general and major crimes 13:57:26 prior law enforcement before Sanford? yes corrections. how long and where? 6 years, 5 in Seminole, 1 in lake 13:57:42 Sunday Feb. 26th 2012, working? yes. respond to scene of shooting at twin lakes? yes. dispatched there? yes 13:57:56 nature at first? suspicious person in area. recall time? just after 7pm 13:58:09 what area of town were you in? north end of city. how long to get there? less than 5 minutes. receive updates to first dispatch en route? yes. stated shots were fired. first on scene? no. who was? Tim smith 13:58:48 states 1, aerial of twin lakes? yes. 13:59:03 where main entrance is? right there 13:59:09 off of Oregon ave? yes. where you went when you got in and where you parked? came this way through the entrance went around a ways I believe and parked in this area here... upper right hand corner? yes 13:59:45 took long way around? yes I wasn't familiar with the area. see officer smith? yes. where? that general area right there... in the T 14:00:07 lighting like back there? very dim almost dark 14:00:13 using flashlight to find way in between? yes. weather? misty... raining on and off. what was officer smith doing? white male at gun point. zimmerman? yes. see him here? yes. stood up? yes 14:00:52 any interaction with defendant? no. why not? focused on male on ground. 14:01:03 male on ground, later to be martin? yes. go over to martins location? I walked towards it yet. how was it positioned? faced down hands underneath his body. first to approach martin? yes 14:01:29 dead or alive? I did not. his involvement at that point? no. commands to martin? yes. asked to see his hands? where were they? underneath him. lying on stomach? yes. respond to commands? no. 14:02:02 did you see any movement from martins body? I did not. hear sounds? I did not 14:02:13 did other officers approach you and martin while giving commands? sergeant ramondo. try to get pulse? sergeant ramondo did. able to get a pulse? no 14:02:40 did you or sergeant move body? yes... stomach to back? correct. to your knowledge move or disturb evidence when you rolled him over? no 14:03:09 did martin respond when you rolled body over? no sir.... after rolling over, see a gunshot wound? after he's moved around, yes. where? underneath he had a pin or button, underneath his button 14:03:39 gunshot wound was near that? right under button 14:03:46 how did you find the wound? move the sweater, button lift up... lifted up sweater and shit... exposing bare chest? yes. see gunshot round? yes 14:04:09 perform CPR? yes. training? yes. 14:04:20 ask anybody for anything while performing CPR? sergeant ramondo asking for plastic bag. someone provide? yes. describe, plastic? correct. color? I do not. who provided? I didn't not 14:04:53 continue to perform CPR? correct. see signs of life from body? no 14:05:03 your role in CPR? chest compressions. ramondos role? mouth to mouth. rescue respond? yes. take over the treatment after they arrived? yes 14:05:26 was martin pronounced dead on scene? yes. any further contact with this defendant after CPR with martin? no sir 14:05:41 investigators and crime scene respond when you were present? yes. take over scene? yes. any further involvement with case? no. that's all CROSS 14:06:09 O'Mara: heard on your way that officer smith had just arrived to the scene? as I was getting there, yeah he was just responding to the scene... right behind Tim smith to get there? yes. 14:06:37 estimate how fast after him you got there? less than 2 minutes... 14:06:50 so quick that officer still had zimmerman at gun point? yes. in a shots fired situation, protocol to take out weapon and control situation? correct. not to suggest danger from zimmerman, just what you do when shots are fired? yes. appropriate he did that here? correct 14:07:26 come up to me, how would you tell me or what would you tell to me to do? I want to see your hands. say that? yes sir. 14:07:45 if I had a cell phone, appropriate to go like this? no. drop it where it's at... why? to make sure you have nothing in your hands 14:08:10 take out your weapon as well? yes. dont know what's going on? no. can't see much? no. flash light in one hand and gun on the other? no flashlight is on gun... 14:08:34 you were protecting officer smith? correct. focus on this initially? correct. 14:08:47 realize that officer smith had that part of situation under control...? weapon out until.... having eyes on Zimmerman and trayvon at the same time, didn't know what was going on... as soon as he secured zimmerman and focused on trayvon to notice the threat 14:09:25 another person there? probably, only focused on officer and the interested parties 14:09:51 from your awareness of it, concerns with securing zimmerman? he got him secured and took him to vehicle and secured him there, he was gone, he was good. compliant? yes. did what was asked? yes. disobey? no. 14:10:26 look at his face? I didn't focus... quick glance? yes. notice blood? I can't tell you I did... 14:10:43 shift over to martin who was off to the left? yes. quite dark? yes sir. not able to see martins body but for your flash light? yeah 14:11:07 attempted to do what you could as first responder to deal with martin? correct 14:11:20 did not see... see zimmerman again in back of patrol car? no.. I didn't make contact with him after he was secured. moment? YES 14:11:39 no further. ANY REDIRECT 14:11:44 guy: complied with commands, holding him at gun point? yes 14:11:58 YOU MAY BE EXCUSED... CALL NEXT WITNESS. stacey livingston. 14:12:40 (sworn in) 14:12:58 guy: name? stacey livingston.. employed? Sanford fire department. how long? a little over 25 years. current position? firefighter emt. emt? emergency medical technician. firefighter and emt? yes. duties? anything from fire calls to medical calls or anything citizens call for 14:13:49 description of training and education for duties? certification of Florida fire fighter and emt, continuing education at work 14:14:09 February 26, 2012... working? yes. respond to shot at twin lakes? yes 14:14:23 where were you when dispatched? fire station 38. dispatched with others? yes. recall the time? I do not 14:14:41 approximately 7:20 in evening? yes. how long it took to arrive? it would be a guess 14:15:17 look at this document, is that your incident report from this event? yes. on that report, a time of dispatch? yes. what time? 19:2... 7:21 pm? yes. arrival time? 19:27. about 6 minutes later? yes 14:15:58 officers on scene? yes. directed to location of shooting victim? yes. learn to be martin? yes 14:16:12 were Sanford police officers present when you arrived? yes. doing? CPR 14:16:23 how was martins positioned when you got there? on his back. other Sanford personnel take over CPR when you arrived? took over assessing him, not CPR 14:16:45 check for pulse? yes. how? on his neck. find? no pulse 14:16:56 while treating. move clothing? yes. what? lifted his shirts. notice anything in his sweatshirt when you moved it? I wasn't sure at the time, I know what it is now. where? in front. what was it? felt like a can. what did you do? took it out and move to the right. examine? no. why not? not a concern, trying to get to patient 14:17:50 feel anything else? yes. what was that? a small bag when I moved the shirt it made a crinkly noise. do anything with the bag? no. in his sweater? I dont know, just felt it when I moved it up 14:18:19 see any injuries? yes. gunshot wound? yes 14:18:28 where? in his chest 14:18:33 what steps did you and other personnel take to assess martin? cardiac monitor. why? to assess heart rhythm. what was detected? incompatible to life. pronounced dead at scene? yes. does report indicate time he was pronounced dead? 19:30 14:19:21 just a few minutes after you arrived? yes. hear martin make any sounds? no. did you or anyone transport martins body from the scene? no. why not? not part of our job. deceased left for medical examiner's office? yes 14:19:56 other than taking can out, move or collect other items? no 14:20:09 states exhibit 20, recognize? yes. fair and accurate on how he appeared after pronounced dead? we had shirt up, but yes. states 25, accurate? yes. and states 80? yes. and states 28, what's depicted? gunshot wound. (Fulton turning away from screen) when his sweatshirts were pulled up? yes 14:21:04 see zimmerman in court this afternoon? yes. standing to my left? yes 14:21:19 where was he when you made contact? sitting in police car 14:21:29 met with him, talk to him? yes. appear to have difficulty understand? no. difficulty understanding him? no. memory problems? no. Objection! SUSTAIN. DISREGARD QUESTION AND ANSWER 14:22:08 glascoe scoring system? to determine response of patient... three sections., series of numbers ... command to pain. 14:22:45 what's the highest score they can get, most alert? 15. what was defendants score? 15. indicate to you? for eye response it was spontaneous, obeyed commands 14:23:17 observe injuries? yes. what? swollen, bleeding nose, lacerations to back of head. nose bleeding when you arrived? I dont believe it was actively bleeding, still moist. treat his nose? tried to clean up injuries to see them better to determine... 14:23:54 describe lacerations on the back? I recall two... approximately an inch long... were either of those bleeding? not actively, but had been. how did you treat? clean up a little to view injury better 14:24:24 at any point while treating, did he stand up? yes. trouble with balance? I dont believe so 14:24:36 how long were you treating him? maybe 5 minutes 14:24:45 transport from scene? no. why not? determined if he needed further treatment Sanford PD would take him. leave him in custody with police? yes. any further involvement with him? no 14:25:18 fair and accurate as he appeared in back? yes. states 76, fair and accurate of back of his head? yes. CROSS 14:25:43 O'Mara: afternoon. how are you 14:25:52 speaking about when you came in contact with my client, in back of patrol car? yes. 14:26:03 front picture... didn't do evaluation, did you... two other paramedics? what do you mean evaluation. to identify injuries, wasn't mike in lead? myself and kevin treated zimmerman. wasn't mike there as well? on scene 14:26:41 when you did evaluation, noticed nose was swollen? yes very swollen. 14:26:52 explain, we saw the picture.... fairly and accurately depict face and nose? yes. may have even wiped it a bit... before that picture? I dont know 14:27:49 tell me what you see there as far as his injuries? the bridge of nose is swollen... off to his right or nose? both sides swollen... left side swollen as well? the entire area 14:28:21 what is that on the bridge of nose toward right eye, that little red spot? small laceration. note that as well? I did not. 14:28:40 how does someone get a laceration like that? I dont know 14:28:47 consistent with getting struck by a fist? it could 14:28:56 consistent with fist strike to nose? very possibly 14:29:11 injuries to left forehead, markings up there? abrasion 14:29:24 how that may have been? I cannot 14:29:31 agree separate injury than nose injury? yes 14:29:39 on the tip of his nose? blood... still moist in process of drying? yes. coming from where? nose. inside? yes. indicate to you? 14:30:11 as best you can, describe how a shot to the nose would cause bleeding like that? blood vessels would initiate bleeding. exist up in nose? yes 14:30:30 blood that breaks or escapes when laying on your back.... that injury laying on back, where would blow go? you would swallow it... 14:30:53 swallowing own blood? right 14:31:07 injuries on back of head... that night the same way? yes. cleaned them off? I did. lacerations an inch long each? approximately. not actively bleeding when you saw them? no 14:31:38 concerns with head injury... medical condition that may happen because of those injuries? asked if he lost consciousness... if he felt dizzy 14:32:15 concerned to concussive injuries? correct. concussion when head hit that way? correct. brain injury from that? possibly. something to be aware of? yes. only as treating him? yes 14:32:45 reasonable in your opinion for someone to be concerned about their safety? repeat 14:32:58 someone who got those injuries should be concerned with medical safety? possibly 14:33:26 did... what is the normal procedure for head injuries and getting them x rayed? transported to medical facility to be x rayed. take to hospital? if they choose to go. who makes that decision? if patient is awake they make it 14:34:05 left to non-medical personnel? we discussed and said happy to transport him, if he was going to receive medical care, police would take him. 14:34:31 had it not been for police involvement, suggest to that person to get x rays? happy to transport, but up to them 14:34:49 moment? YES 14:35:23 able to get up ... stood up without trouble, able to stand? sitting sideways in police car... door open and feet were out... said he had been dizzy, we asked him to stand up and he was able to stand up... with assistance of officer smith and paramedics? I dont recall if he was hand cuffed behind his back... recall Tim smith helping him out of the car when complaining about being dizzy? I do not... if mike helped him out? I do not 14:36:31 focus on injuries, clean and evaluate? yes REDIRECT 14:36:40 guy: observations, both physical and mental capabilities... concern about brain injury? I wouldn't make that determination. ever complain of anything other than dizziness? not to me 14:37:06 ever lose consciousness? not while we were with him. did someone else about that prior to arrival? I believe so. what did he say? I dint ask, I dont know 14:37:28 measure lacerations? no. approx. an inch is a guess? yes. defer to someone who actually measured them? to be exact, yes 14:37:50 MAY SHE BE EXCUSED? CALL NEXT WITNESS.... Tim smith 14:38:37 (sworn in) 14:38:57 guy: name? officer timothy smith. employed? Sanford pd. since? 2008. 14:39:12 how long in patrol? 7 years 14:39:20 February 26 2012, working? yes. standard patrol uniform? yes. traveling? in my marked Sanford police vehicle. alone? alone 14:39:38 respond to dispatch? yes I did. approximate time? shortly after 7 pm 14:39:49 nature of dispatch? suspicious persons. where before? approximately a 1 mile and a half away. respond? a few minutes 14:40:18 receive update on route? yes. shots fired 14:40:25 address to respond to? yes. what address? 1231 twin trees 14:40:39 where when you received the update? entering gates of community. how did you get through the gate code? dispatch 14:41:05 states exhibit 2, aerial photo? yes. show jury the complex.... 14:41:28 your location when you received dispatch? right here... the route you took/ down Rinehart to Oregon to the front entrance here 14:41:50 states exhibit 1.. aerial of complex itself? yes 14:42:01 where you went first when you entered the complex? through the front gates her, down through here... this is twin trees 14:42:21 went first to 1231, update to location? 1231 was what I was originally given.... where did you go? given update from address on retreat view, behind that location... recall address given? 2821 retreat view. where did you go? down twin tress, to retreat view, address in this area 14:43:18 as you were en route, stop anywhere and observe things or use flash light? I did... where? in between sets of town homes. what did you do? used spot light to shine down walk way... inside the car. what did you see? toward end of walk way at least one person standing outside 14:43:59 anything more? not from where I was 14:44:05 continue around to address? yes 14:44:12 where you parked and what you did? roughly in this area, went around to the left to go in between the town homes... lighting conditions? dark 14:44:33 flashlight with you? yes. use that? I did... weather? raining. got behind townhomes, see anyone? I did. how many? at least two standing and one on ground 14:45:02 where they were that were standing up? in this area here... person on ground? in grassy area to left of sidewalk 14:45:25 shine flashlight on person on ground? yes. how positioned? face down. see their hands? no I could not 14:45:43 learn that to be martin? yes. approach at that time? I did not. why not? in contact with gentleman on side walk 14:45:58 states 5, general idea of lighting conditions? yes. states 77, recognize that? I do. accurate depictions of body? yes 14:46:23 contact with who was standing up to be zimmerman? yes. see him here today? yes. standing to left? yes he is 14:46:46 did defendant have trouble standing? no he did not. appear to have trouble balancing? no sir 14:46:58 say anything to defendant? I did. what? asked him if he saw what happened. he said he did. asked if the subject on ground had been shot, he responded he did and he was still armed 14:47:26 have trouble understanding your questions? no. trouble understanding answers? no. 14:47:49 still armed, what did you do? I took my weapon and he complied 14:48:04 where was his gun? right hip 14:48:11 handcuff? I did. in front of in back? back. why? policy 14:48:20 remove gun from person? yes. in holster? yes. take gun or gun and holster? gun and holster. where did you put it? on me because I was not near my vehicle... tucked in between magazine and vest 14:48:53 inside pants or outside when he showed to you? I dont. see gun when you approached? no. see holster when you approached? no 14:49:14 what did you do with defendant after hand cuffs? in patrol car... trouble walking? no 14:49:33 Sanford PD respond in short order? yes. who first after you? officer ayala 14:49:46 what did he do when he arrived? went to attend to martin 14:49:55 recall any other officers going to martins body? yes. who? sergeant ramondo 14:50:13 wearing gloves when you removed gun and holster? I was not. 14:50:21 handle fire arm in special way? no sir. why not? not enough time 14:50:38 secure firearm? I did. how? removed magazine from firearm and locked slide to rear 14:50:52 remove magazine, semi-automatic pistol.. .locked to rear, round in chamber? yes. what happened? ejected. collect it? I did. keep all together with firearm? yes. put them? in my vehicle until I got a gun box 14:51:27 what's that? cardboard box to secure evidence. 14:51:36 what did you do with the ammunition and holster? also admitted into evidence... turn those over to wife Diana smith? correct. also called to scene? correct 14:52:10 states 154, examine that... recognize contents? yes. that would be hand gun, holster and magazine I removed 14:52:35 case information your hand writing, etc.? yes 14:52:41 for the jury's sake, hold up fire arm.... holster..... and the magazine and rounds 14:53:06 all of this you turned over to Diana smith? yes. crime scene technician assigned to case? yes sir 14:53:28 was fire rescue dispatched? yes. respond to scene? yes. examine and treat defendant? yes. what injuries did you observe? bloody noise, lacerations to head and contusions 14:53:56 did another Sanford police officer take picture? yes. who? officer mike Wagner 14:54:08 aware civilian took photo of back of head? not at that time. before you arrived? yes sir 14:54:33 states exhibit 6, is that another depiction of lighting? yes. states 34, recognize? yes. approximate area you parked patrol car? yes. states 132, photo of the entrance of the retreat? yes. states 133, recognize that to be closer shot of front entrance? yes. states 134, shot going into complex with clubhouse in the right? yes. states 135, what's that? front of club house. states 136, recognize? mail box kiosk 14:55:42 states 137, close up of mail box? yes sir 14:55:50 states 138, depiction of rear gate? yes it is 14:56:00 states 79, recognize? yes. the photo Wagner took of defendant? yes 14:56:11 states 76, depict defendants head or close to it? yes. 14:56:30 recall what defendant was wearing? red and black jacket and blue jeans 14:56:41 first made contact, jacket pushed up in any way? I dont believe so. tears in his jacket? no. what did you notice? the back of it was wetter than the front of it... covered in grass 14:57:14 condition of his pants? vaguely. blue jeans? yes sir. anything else? the back was wetter than the front 14:57:29 after rescue clean defendant, what did you do? transported to station. why? to be interviewed by criminal division. how long did trip take? roughly 15 minutes 14:57:56 while you were making transport did defendant say anything about injuries? felt he was light headed. what did you do? forward opportunity to go to hospital. asked him if he wanted to go... he said he wasn't sure what he should do... decided he didn't want to go to hospital 14:58:41 en route with defendant did he faint? no. arriving at the station, any injuries? no. park where? sally port 14:59:11 remove defendant from car, any trouble bouncing or walking? yes. still handcuffed? yes sir 14:59:26 walk with you inside station? yes sir. still handcuffed? yes sir. trouble walking throughout the station? no sir 14:59:39 are portions of interior surveyed by video cameras? yes. defendant arriving at station video? yes. fairly and accurately depict? yes. after he got out of car.. any blood in car? no sir 15:00:18 where did you take defendant after station? interview room 15:00:37 stats 192... composite. ANY OBJECTION? O'Mara: moment with council. 15:00:59 GOOD MINUTE FOR RECESS?... 15 MINUTE RECESS =================== 15:16:38 PLEASE BE SEATED 15:17:10 (zimmerman walking back in) READY TO BRING JURY BACK IN? yes. yes. 15:18:56 PLEASE BE SEATED. YOU MAY CONTINUE 15:19:04 guy: publish states 192 (playing the police surveillance video)... inside the sally port area? yes. that your patrol car pulling in? yes it is... is that you that just got out? yes sir 15:21:18 accurate depiction as he got out? yes. 15:21:39 (playing police video of the halls) you and defendant walking through? yes. 15:22:02 (playing another clip) again you and defendant walking through another portion? yes 15:22:25 take into interview room? yes. anyone in there? no. uncuff defendant? yes. offer a drink? yes. stay in with him? no. where did you go? rooms monitor by one way glass. see defendant? yes. watch until someone arrived to speak with him? yes. how long? 30-40 minutes 15:23:06 watching defendant did he lose consciousness? no. fall out of chair? no 15:23:20 anything that caused concern with health? no. who was it that arrived? investigator 15:23:37 where were you when they were speaking? one way glass.. hear it? not enough to make it out 15:23:51 that's all I have CROSS 15:24:01 O'Mara: afternoon 15:24:07 how long an officer? since 2005. training? attended law enforcement academy. how long? 700 hours 15:24:23 taken any other courses community college? attended Seminole state college 15:24:35 what type of courses? general education. focus on criminal justice? not at Seminole state, no sir 15:24:50 how long did you want to be a cop? since I was little. life goal? yes. why? enjoy helping and educating 15:25:07 protect and serve, goal of yours? yes sir. noble goal? yes. enjoy it? yes sir 15:25:23 can't enjoy when you get a shots fired called, concerning? yes sir. 15:25:32 radio and get call of disturbance? suspicious person. shots fired? yes. what do you do then? you wait for a little more information, officer safety issue 15:26:06 came in did the circle and were able to shine a light down that alley way toward the event? yes. noticed one person to the end? yes. tell who it was? no 15:26:30 pull up car, get out and take out... how do you equip yourself? due to lighting I grabbed a flash light 15:26:48 another officer had flashlight on gun? yes... but I used an actual standard flash light 15:27:03 heading over toward the scene, know that was the scene it occurred? no sir I did not... came up on scene, did you take out revolver? not at that point 15:27:23 see what? zimmerman on sidewalk, somebody with him, and trayvon lying in grass 15:27:35 walkway that you were on..? sidewalk makes a t 15:27:45 where near the T or how far down from the T? came around side of building top of T, 30 ft. from intersection 15:28:02 close by to martins body? yes. within feet? yes. what was zimmerman doing? standing on side walk. look toward you coming at him? yes. anyone else present? may have been, not sure 15:28:31 flash light on zimmerman? yes. could you tell his clothes? yes 15:28:40 see injuries to his nose? yes 15:28:49 similar as to the picture we saw? yes. more at that point? correct. eyes were watered? yes 15:29:04 both eyes? correct 15:29:08 what did you say to him? asked if he seen what happened. he said yes. appropriate, anything wrong with response? no. he saw that he shot and he was still armed 15:29:36 response at that point? at that point is when I unholstered my service weapon. take it out? yes. protocol? yes 15:29:59 pointed at him? yes. appropriate? yes. not pointed because of immediate threat he proposed to you? no. he was completely cooperative? yes 15:30:22 on him to take care of situation? yes sir. 15:30:28 what did you next ask him? telling he was armed.... 15:30:44 gun on his right hip, so this jacket is longer but if we flipped it up? hands going up and leaning over.... gun was exposed? correct. jacket didn't cover gun by more than a few inches? I dont think so 15:31:20 small movement exposed gun? correct. 15:31:35 if he had a cell phone in hand or not? I dont recall... 15:31:45 kept hands in air? yes. what do you do at that point? I asked zimmerman to put hands on top his hand and interlock his fingers, holster again and secure his hands. protocol? choice 15:32:15 resist? no. turn him around or go behind him? I was behind him... take one get it back and then the other one? correct. 15:32:37 what percentage offer resistance? Object! Relevance of anyone else SUSTAINED 15:32:53 have you had others resist? Object! Same! Rephrase it 15:33:04 did zimmerman offer any response to you cuffing him? resistance? no 15:33:20 complied with that command immediately? yes. and completely? yes 15:33:33 secured... able to secure fire arm? yes. at that point your focus even more saw than others involved is to secure fire arm? correct. just grabbed the gun, in perfect world would have gloves... necessary for circumstances? yes 15:34:13 at that point, is your first contact to zimmerman, seem angry? no. seem frustrated? no. see spiteful of anything going on? no. ill will or hatred at all? no 15:34:40 any concern about him at all except his injuries? no sir 15:34:48 even though he had obvious injury to nose, any to back of head? while securing him, yes... see blood dripping down back of head? correct. with those, seem agitated? no 15:35:12 testimony that he was seemingly calm? yes. having just gone through what he went through and shot somebody, did his behavior seem strange? no. usual? I wouldn't say usual 15:35:44 was it particularly unusual? no. even for circumstances? no sir 15:35:54 didn't think he was... come across as being cavalier? no. uncaring? no. fairly appropriate for what he had gone through? correct 15:36:13 secure gun and then? had zimmerman have seat in rear of patrol car 15:36:24 walk over... another officer? yes ayala 15:36:47 ayala took over other person? yes. 15:36:53 as you were going, anything else you recall zimmerman saying? not before... 15:37:05 walking toward car, utter to you something? he was yelling for help and that nobody would come help him. 15:37:28 a few minutes... as long as it took what we just talked about? correct 15:37:37 secured gun, walked toward car? yes. during that walk, almost immediately that he uttered to you? not very long. said to you twice? correct. after you got to car? correct 15:38:02 how he said that? almost a confusion.... confused look on his face 15:38:20 like he didn't know why nobody would come help him? Object! SUSTAINED 15:38:32 he was confused? correct 15:38:44 testified about condition.... also said back of jacket was wet... raining on and off that evening.. was back more wet than rest of body? yes. as if lying on grass? that's right 15:39:16 piece of grass on back? yes 15:39:23 blue jeans, back were wet as well? a little bit darker.... he had been laying on his back... and jeans were wet as well 15:39:57 stayed with him the entire time? yes. there when medical treated? I was 15:40:11 did he say anything about facts of the case to medical personnel? no sir 15:40:22 first arrested him, retain him... ask for lawyer? no. ever ask for one? no sir 15:40:37 car medical personnel deal with him, waiting for them to finish so you could transport him? correct. mainly reason for waiting around? wait to see if they decide to transport or not 15:41:03 how is that accomplished? through paramedics. crowd of paramedics 15:41:21 in the back of your car, legs out and paramedics attending? correct. which paramedic made decision to transport or not? I dont 15:41:41 impact on that? no 15:41:48 left in their hands? yes sir 15:41:52 released to you? correct. put him in back seat of car.... help him get up out of the car.... still cuffed.... he's acknowledged having shot somebody not going to release just yet? correct 15:42:34 medical personnel wanted him lifted up, help lift up? no. if another helped? I dont recall. maybe two paramedics lifted him up. do you remember that happening? I remember him standing up... dont know who helped him 15:43:07 conversation about feeling light headed? light headed and had headache... consistent with injuries? yes. call over to Sanford PD to figure out what to do with him? I called a supervisor who was on scene... who? sergeant McCoy. conversation? explained his comment and she said if he wanted to go to hospital take him there. 15:43:54 discussion with zimmerman, expenses of hospital would be on his shoulders... I dont recall that 15:44:06 doesn't cover expense if he goes? I dont think so 15:44:14 seen pictures.... after cleaned up? correct. pictures taken after midnight? I dont know what time, but after 15:44:31 after initial interview? correct 15:44:39 who cleaned him up? at the station given water and tissues. to clean himself? correct 15:44:54 first with blood to the one where blood was gone? fire department on scene and at the station 15:45:14 ever a time at Sanford PD where there was any other videotaping of him? not that I'm aware of, no sir 15:45:29 ever a time where he needed physical assistance, leaning against wall? no sir 15:45:49 watched him for 30-40 minutes before they talked to him? correct. watched that interrogation or interview? yes. was he cooperative? appeared to be. lawyer there? I dont know. had he asked for one interview would've stopped? correct. moment? YES REDIRECT 15:46:54 asked if when you came into contact he seemed to be angry or frustrated and he was not? correct. 15:47:07 do you know what was going on in his head when he shot martin? Object! Speculation SUSTAINED 15:47:23 what was going on in his head? Object SUSTAINED 15:47:38 fire arm visible like this? yes. fire arm visible near martins location in that lighting? I dont know 15:47:54 offered defendant tissue? yes. did anyone else clean at the station? not that I saw 15:48:08 publish one more photograph 15:48:27 states 46, is that fair and accurate of defendant at police after cleaned up? yes sir... evening on 26th? yes sir RECROSS 15:48:55 suggested maneuvering, lifted up left arm, you testified the gun was on right side? correct. 15:49:12 no question in your mind the gun was located on right hip? no I dont 15:49:21 left arm was just a mistake? correct 15:49:28 MAY OFFICER SMITH BE EXCUSED?...CALL NEXT WITNESS..... lindzee folgate 15:50:44 (sworn in) 15:51:34 rionda: name? lindzee folgate. occupation? physician. employed? Altamonte family practice 15:51:59 education? physician assistant. I underwent 4 years in undergrad, 2 yrs. at UF for masters. when? June 2006 to June 2008 15:52:33 was in physician assistant studies? correct. certified in Florida? yes 15:52:44 explain what you do? physician assistant, master's degree different than nurse... medical model, purpose is to have direct patient contact. different than doctor? physician is 4 years and then a residency... 2 year program didactic school.. and then clinical 15:53:36 able to do everything a doctor does except? cannot sign off on controlled substances 15:53:52 own patients? I do. how long at Altamonte family practice? April 2011 15:54:11 come into our office... paperwork... insurance verified... chart taken back... medical assistant gets chart and gets basic note of why they were being seen 15:54:48 involved with patient? yes 15:54:52 patient of zimmerman? he was. see him here today? I do. person who stood up? yes 15:55:13 first contact was on august 19, 2011? correct 15:55:22 dealing with him first time history obtained? yes. review information to make sure you document everything? yes 15:55:51 introduce at this time, states exhibit 195... august 19th 2011....O'Mara: approach on that? (sidebar) 15:58:46 MATTER OUTSIDE YOUR PRESENCE, NOTEPADS FACE DOWN.. FOLLOW TO JURY ROOM 16:00:16 (witness leaving court room) 16:00:31 DISCUSSING STATES EXHIBIT 195.. OBJECTION IS TO RELEVANCE OF CERTAIN PORTIONS 16:00:45 O'Mara: testify what she remembers, medical records to recollect... shouldn't be admitted though.... if in fact they are allowed, redacted more severely... only ones not redacted are the injuries and exercising... short of that I dont think any other words, comments, or history would be relevant or admissible 16:01:48 rionda: august 19th treatment of this defendant, establish.... ok with testify but doesn't want it to come in... O'Mara: one sentence....... relevancy tot his case... two sentences they.... 16:02:46 COME UP TO BENCH AND WE CAN GO OVER THESE PAGE BY PAGE.... (sidebar) 16:26:53 GET MS. FOLGATE BACK IN THE COURT ROOM... 16:31:24 BRING THE JURY IN.... 16:32:31 PLEASE BE SEATED... CONTINUE RIONDA 16:32:39 you having zimmerman as prior patient, august 19th 2011? correct. 16:32:57 part of your contact, history? correct. 16:33:05 obtain history spoke to him? yes, come with history so we know what it may be. 16:33:23 states 195... recognize that exhibit? yes. 16:33:37 highlighted certain parts I want to ask about.... 16:33:46 that record indicates patient of yours... George m zimmerman, race white? yes 16:33:59 date august 19th 2011? yes 16:34:10 first highlighted part? seen in office to establish care, refer from insurance provider. difficulty with falling and maintaining sleep, started MMA and that didn't help 16:34:55 highlighted in yellow? patient here to establish care... list of insurance providers 16:35:22 September 23rd 2011... states exhibit 196? yes 16:35:43 treatment... contact again that day? correct. 16:35:57 on that day also... gathered George m zimmerman, male, white, sept 2011? yes. social history, exercise? Mixed Martial Arts 3 days per week 16:36:46 states exhibit 194... seen him on February 27th 2012? correct. 16:37:25 exhibit in front of you? correct. reference on pg. 2 stuff that's scratched out... dont read that 16:37:43 dealt with him on that day at what time? 11:02 am 16:37:52 recall specifically meeting with him? I do remember that day yes. see him in terms of treating him? correct 16:38:18 moment? YES 16:38:28 on that date when you treated him, did you... history obtained for what he was there for? yes. same? noted on the notes and then discuss him concerns 16:38:47 history taken by medical assistant? exactly 16:38:58 the way you would've dealt with him.... print out of combined records... start at beginning... first contact what did you deal with? on this visit? yes... February 27th 2012 11:02 am 16:39:31 the patient brought back to room, vitals and history... review that, enter room we discuss his complaints he was there for 16:39:51 vital signs first? yes. then patient is here for...? correct 16:40:04 page 2 of those records... here for what? a return note for work... in fight 2-26... punched in nose, two lacerations, 911 was called and EMT said patients nose was broken. telling medical assistant? correct. fight on Feb. 26th 2012, punched in nose, two lacerations in back of head.. EMT said nose was broken? correct 16:41:04 reviewed that and had contact with him? correct. history of present illness? that's where I would begin 16:41:20 talked to him and he tells you ailment and you treat it? correct 16:41:28 what he tells you? talking during that time .... involved in altercations, assaulted, head hit in pavement... weapon and fired at attacker killing him... evaluated by EMS at scene, lacerations clean... denies being taken to hospital.. returns to work and they said he needed a note to return 16:42:17 statements as to what happened and why he's there? correct. nasal pain? correct. 16:42:34 tells you history and you diagnose? ask questions which we clarify.. review of systems, confirm or deny symptoms... then determine 16:43:04 review of symptoms? asked if he had headaches, slurred speech, vision, vomiting, abdominal pain.... review any other symptoms that may have been involved 16:43:40 denied HA? headache. change in VA? visual acuity. denied slurred speech? talking any more abnormal than normally. denied dizziness? off balance. gate abnormality? walking fine... walking as if you were drunk or staggering 16:44:33 admits to occasional nausea when reflecting on that night, no abdominal pain.... not from abdominal, more psychological 16:45:08 the SI joint... tenderness on left side since altercation 16:45:21 denies numbness? follow up question on anyone with SI joint tenderness... 16:45:39 drop down on computer,... denies fever and chills? correct. 16:45:57 ears, nose, mouth throat? nose pain, but no hearing loss or ringing in ears. 16:46:11 significance? trauma he sustained would there be any significant complaints 16:46:39 cardiovascular? denies abnormal irregular heartbeats... denies shortness of breath 16:47:10 admits skin lacerations... admits to head trauma based on story, but denies other head occurrences... admits to stress, but not suicide.... 16:47:45 significance? more concerning or lead me to down another line of questioning 16:48:00 no concerns in terms of not losing consciousness, no problem concentration or weakness or headaches? correct 16:48:18 complained of those, what steps? based on physical exam and take those into considerations 16:48:37 at this point, no concern regarding that? less concern based on what he's telling me 16:48:51 next to physical exam 16:48:54 cover that? first part is general appearance... no acute distress.... physical shortness of breath... obese, height and weight. 16:49:23 height and weight? 5'7.5" 204 lbs. 16:49:42 obese... based on? body mass index... 16:49:55 next sentence there? alert and oriented, appears stated age... take that into account given head trauma 16:50:15 head... symmetric... two scalp lacerations 16:50:34 significance of measurement? the significant means two cut to back part of head.. measured to have documented 16:51:04 two centimeters and .5 centimeters? yes. 2 cm is this big and 0.5 is much smaller 16:51:27 review of those lacerations, anything additional needed to be done? based on how well skin is approximated and how deep... based off of approximation, no sutures necessary 16:51:57 laceration vs. cut? laceration is basically a proper term for cut 16:52:08 not deep enough for stitches? correct 16:52:18 skin edges were approximated well? correct 16:52:27 eyes? pupils are equal round and reactive to light... normal movement in each direction 16:52:49 the white parts of eyes... no injection, but noted he had bilateral black eyes... skin discoloration to bottom portion of eyes 16:53:12 any other trauma to head? I did not at the time, I did not recall 16:53:24 ears nose mouth and throat? folds between nose and mouth... swelling and bruising... no evidence of sepal deviation, no bleeding in nose, no blood behind ear drums, no evidence of tonsils 16:54:10 septal deviation? alignment of nose... straight? correct. damaged? not on visual inspection, no 16:54:32 everything else seemed normal? correct 16:54:37 tender left SI? correct. about that? space located in the center of your butt 16:54:56 gave him medicine for complaint he had? yes. Lowdean, anti emphlamatory 16:55:16 bandages? one covering them. remove to see them? correct 16:55:28 he said EMT told him it was broken? what I was told... nose broken on your examination? likely, hard to say definitely no x rays though.... broken nose could be made clinically as well and that's the black eyes we saw 16:56:02 it is or isn't or you dont know? can't say definitively, but clinically appearing yes 16:56:47 plan decision making process? yes... 16:56:57 scalp lacerations, no sutures needed? nope. no stitches 16:57:08 broke nose, likely but not appear to have septal deviation? correct 16:57:22 your there, recommend something about broken nose? he see an ENT specialist. told me at the time he was not going to go to ENT 16:57:54 regarding SI joint pen, suggestions? lowdean, heat, ice and massage 16:58:18 seen him 3 times and other times... prior occasion of back pain, recall? yes. treat him? related to constipation 16:58:39 moment? YES YOU MAY 16:58:49 laceration to head, two of them... how do those bleed in distinguishing a cut from somewhere else... head bleeds more? scalp is very vascular.. scalp laceration can bleed more than other parts of body 16:59:23 if they dont have hair? less noticeable because there would be hair blocking that area 16:59:39 cushion or not notice? possibly both... mixed up with hair CROSS 17:01:13 O'Mara: good afternoon 17:01:21 patient for a while before event? correct 17:01:27 start with last question, did not have back pain caused by back injury before event? no. internal back pain? yes 17:02:02 focus then on that night... 17:02:20 is this close to how presented to you that day? from what I recall similar 17:02:38 this was taken night before, maybe 12 hours before you saw him... pretty similar? fairly similar 17:03:04 seen this before? I have not. 17:03:09 if this person presented himself to you... looking like this, what would you have done? we would've cleaned the wounds to better evaluate process 17:03:33 look at this photo instead of other one, focus attention to nose area? Objection! Relevancy and Speculation. LET ME HEAR THE REST OF THE QUESTION 17:03:58 swelling gone down since this picture? decreased slightly 17:04:09 four hours difference between this picture and that picture... normal receding of swelling? depends on what he's using to keep swelling down 17:04:29 injury of this significance to look like that 5 hours later? yes it could 17:04:43 in this picture the nose is in fact more swollen that that one? appears to be... body naturally tries to take care of itself... 17:05:08 body recovering... depends on what your using.. 17:05:17 may look as though it's a bone protrusion, not actually a bone protruding out there? unlikely.... 17:05:34 swells up at point of injury? it does, it can... because of trauma of hit? it can 17:05:48 body swells up in area of trauma? reacting to something that happened, blood rush, more fluid under skin... 17:06:10 lymph fluid and white blood cells? they can... 17:06:20 bleeding happening indicates broken blood vessels? it can.. likely bleeding in the nares if you see it coming down the nose 17:06:48 gravity will pull it down... on back? swallow down throat 17:07:01 as it goes back down the sinuses, goes into back of throat? it can... swallowing your own blood? you can 17:07:22 swelling that we spoke about is initial reaction to trauma... last only a few hours? depends on level of trauma and patient 17:07:38 diminish that the body was traumatized? no... 17:07:48 natural reaction to begin healing immediately? correct 17:07:58 cleaned up after blood was removed 17:08:13 larger laceration here? appears to be, but blood surrounding area... clean it up its better 17:08:29 seen this before? I have not. 17:08:36 would the scalp bleed in fashion like this? it can... scalp is vascular... bleed down back like that? gravity 17:09:02 other picture of zimmerman that night... 17:09:15 see that photo? I can. note additional areas or swelling that you didn't notice on physical evaluation? anything in this area of swelling? swelling there that I can see 17:09:46 resolve itself between the 12 hours you saw him? could have yes 17:09:56 misshapen area? yes... scalp hematomas... how does that occur? trauma to head, collection of blood or fluid there 17:10:26 smash my head here, cause blood of lymph system? yes. similar to nose, go there do its job and recede? correct... that's what caused it here/ it could 17:10:58 what is the potential outcome from head trauma like that? depends on physical exam of patient... any sort of head trauma can result in internal injury, bleeding into brain 17:11:28 that may be not have external notice correct? an epidural or subdural would be below the skull... hematoma is outside the skull between the skin 17:12:13 can have injuries like this cause that? not those lacerations, but trauma 17:12:36 skull smashed on concrete sufficient enough to get that injury... cause subdural epidural? could depending on impact 17:13:02 below the skull where the brain is? correct 17:13:08 reason you do what you do to make sure he can focus eyes and speak... may be brain injury? correct 17:13:23 charge is to rule out possibility, but agree it exists with injury like this? it can, yes 17:13:38 see the swelling again? correct 17:13:59 see that injury or occurrence up there? abrasion of scalp 17:14:11 call that punk tate bruising? can be, depends on surface... abrasion is thick layer coming off... punk tate injuries are blood vessels small capillary injuries... way to occur is flat concrete? it could... if hit on concrete the rough surface could've caused that... consistent with concrete? can be, with other surfaces as well 17:15:17 come to you and say he had that injury because of concrete? Objection! Speculation SHES ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THAT 17:15:40 injury there? I dont recall. what is that? scratch or abrasion of skin 17:16:00 look up here at that injury there? swelling there... another bruise? hard to tell if its discolored, does appear to be swelling. bump on head? correct. come from hitting head on any surface or being struck by something 17:16:39 punk tate? I can see that. 17:17:05 do you see this area right there of swelling? hard to tell from side view. see this here? Objection! Leading! SUSTAINED 17:17:34 see anything in this area that I'm circling? abrasion there 17:17:46 consistent with head being hit on concrete? it can be consistent with that 17:18:02 abrasion you identified earlier? appears to be.... going back, area of swelling? does appear to be swelling, take into account of physical exam 17:18:31 may well have resolved itself in 12 hours before? it could potentially have 17:18:44 this area above his left eye? slightly shaded, possibly another abrasion... lacerations here? I can see those yes 17:19:05 area with misshapen skull? appears to be yes 17:19:17 look at this side, right side of skull... here? swelling with abrasions noted before... here? additional abrasions. come from own strike upon something? hard to determine. one up here? difficult to determine... better view of misshapen area from this perspective? better of skull itself 17:20:17 testified to these areas and bruising up here? correct 17:20:39 close up of area of lacerations... describe what you see here, additional areas around lacerations... consistent with trauma 17:21:01 caused laceration and compression injury? could cause the swelling 17:21:15 consistent with concrete? could be.. yes 17:21:20 head hit on concrete, consistent with injuries? I would 17:21:41 report itself, rionda went over... high points on it... his vital signs, 130/80? correct. concern for 28 yr. old? slightly high, never had a problem before... not a good high blood pressure? 180/20 or less, but not a concern at 130... pulse high 17:22:32 evidencing what? stress, trauma, heart... cardiac condition 17:22:48 not in top shape? not where we like it to be. BMI? 31.48... clinically obese? correct... not healthy? correct. not athletic? not at ideal range of standards 17:23:24 gone through injuries, SI injury... consistent with falling on back or butt? it can't be... SI is? sychro iliad. at base of spine? where each side of buttox are... one on each side. SI through trauma or fall, improper stretching technique or athletic performance 17:24:24 hit in nose by attacker? correct. consistent with these injuries? that would be 17:24:36 SI injury consistent with being thrown on ground to back? it would be. 17:24:50 only way to really identify if nose is broke is with x ray? definitive way 17:25:03 easier to be conclusive if you saw septal deviation? clinically, could possibly be more definitive answer 17:25:21 break? correct... need to have x ray for accomplish? correct. refer to ENT? correct. to document what you couldn't? correct 17:25:48 wasn't going because of high deductible on insurance policy? I dont remember a conversation about cost 17:26:01 conversation about cost? I dont recall... may have had in conversation, but I dont recall 17:26:17 needed to see ENT for nose injury, better than cleaned up picture? correct 17:26:44 also suggested that he should get psycho consult? correct. why? already seeing one and if you go through ordeal he told me I would recommend anybody see a psychologist 17:27:13 make certain you would document injuries with being attacked? I dont recall.. reporting as they exist? yes. not looking for medical reason for injury? did not appear that way. document by your evaluation and the injuries existed? they did 17:27:49 psychological concern existed as well? yes, for anybody who was concern with that 17:28:03 supported by injuries he showed to you? supported by that 17:28:17 didn't note in the cleaned up picture any black eyes? I didn't notice them from picture 17:28:32 as the body begins to heal, rushes to area of trauma and recedes... timeline on eyes to go black? more apparent on later date... swelling and then swelling recedes and then black eyes 17:29:01 residual blood that escaped capillaries in the soft pockets? correct. no black eye a moment or two after punch in nose? not that quickly 17:29:22 consistent that when you saw him at 11 am his eyes would be blacken? could be... consistent with what I saw in my exam 17:29:52 was he trying to make up or document significant injuries and you said he wasn't? not from my impression. minimize injuries and get it behind him? I dont recall that per say that certain effect 17:30:47 bandage, appropriate for that injury? fine given that scalp lacerations weren't that deep 17:31:07 didn't look at that and wonder why would someone put bandage on injury? no... appropriate to keep them covered 17:31:30 make sense as nursing student to cover an open wound? Objection Speculation! SUSTAINED 17:31:47 saw those wounds, would you clean and put bandages? if the patient wanted a bandage, no problem to keep debris out of area 17:32:07 talked about what happens when you fall down... I may not get as injured because I have hair opposed to someone who does? depends on thickness on hair, not any less injured with having or not having hair 17:32:41 injuries are what they are? yes. inflicted those injuries knew how much hair was on body? Objection! SUSTAINED 17:33:01 asked zimmerman if he cut his hair in past 14 hours? no. 17:33:12 moment? YES REDIRECT 17:33:42 O'Mara: shape of the head, we all think head is perfectly shaped? not always true 17:33:59 everybody's head shaped is different, dont notice because they have hair on their head 17:34:13 bump may be preexisting? correct 17:34:31 those were all stuff that occurred the night before? hard to determine based on photo... would take physical exam as well 17:34:50 my point is, you saw him as a live person... looked at head? yes. you didn't glance, actually looked? yes. only saw two lacerations? that's all I noted... didn't notice this trauma? didn't document, but I dont recall any swelling. 17:35:30 note any swelling? those were the only two I noted 17:35:39 all trauma caused... cleaned up by the time he saw you? swelling was minimized... took an aspirin or two or natural? depends... natural or things you are using 17:36:07 not severe trauma? two scalp lacerations and I'm basing that on his complaints when he came in 17:36:28 only noticed those two lacerations? things I was looking for most because that's what we discussed personally 17:36:44 dizziness and consciousness, ruled out? based on what he tells me and my exam. ruled out? he was neurological in tact 17:37:11 brain injuries? doesn't mean he didn't, but doesn't mean he did 17:37:33 wasn't complaining of trauma? just the lacerations and his head being struck against the ground... looking at based on physical exam everything was intact... didn't order additional testing 17:38:02 also mentioned the signs to look for, didn't acquire additional testing 17:38:18 minor cleaning? cleaning to the area and then again dont know definitive answer to nasal area... recommended to go to ENT and he wasn't going? correct 17:38:42 didn't have insurance, dont recall that? I dont recall that discussion 17:38:55 notated... records Feb. 27th he came in for note for work? correct 17:39:10 didn't come in with head injuries, can't walk or function? concern was needed to return to work 17:39:29 psychological, already seeing one? yes 17:39:57 going back to august 19th 2011, first contact with him? correct. exercise routine? correct. MMA? correct. Objection! Outside scope SUSTAINED NOT BROUGHT UP IN CROSS. rionda: approach the bench? YES YOU MAY 17:42:08 rionda: zimmerman talked about MMA 3 days a week and 3 hours a day? correct 17:42:37 what kind of symptoms would you expect from gunshot? Object! SUSTAINED. nothing further RECROSS 17:43:06 O'Mara: he said aerobics? that's written on sheet, but I talked to him in the office... when I asked which aerobics he said mixed martial arts 17:43:36 agree that whatever he did to stop the attack, allowed him to survive it? could have potentially 17:43:52 stopping allowed him to survive? it could have RE-RE-DIRECT 17:43:59 rionda: speculation on your part? I wasn't there, I dont know exact trauma 17:44:13 YOU ARE EXCUSED. RECESS FOR EVENING AND WEEKEND.... ADVISE YOU NOT TO DISCUSS WITH OTHERS. NOT TO READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS. NOT TO USE ANY TYPE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE. NOT TO READ OR CREATE TEXT MESSAGES SOCIAL MEDIA. ASSURANCE? yes. HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND 17:45:32 PLEASE BE SEATED. ANYTHING WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT BEFORE RECESS... O'Mara: your honor we...... (attorneys speaking with each other) 17:46:36 I NEED TO MAKE SURE 194, 195, 196 WILL BE HANDED TO COURT. 17:47:11 ANYTHING ELSE? O'Mara: might need court intervention for a couple minutes, give alternatives and come back at 9... COME BACK AT 8:30 MONDAY MORNING AND THEN AN EXTRA HALF HOUR TO SET UP... yes. yes. BACK AT 8:30 ON MONDAY. COURT IN RECESS THANK YOU George Zimmerman's defense attorney insisted during several testy exchanges with a key prosecution witness Thursday that Trayvon Martin injected race into his confrontation with the neighborhood watch volunteer and insinuated the young woman was not believable because of inconsistencies in her story. However, 19-year-old Rachel Jeantel stood firm in her testimony that Martin was the victim of an attack by Zimmerman. Another witness, Selma Mora, testified through a translator that she saw a person in red on top during the scuffle at one point. Zimmerman was wearing a red jacket that night. Mora says she asked person on the bottom, "what's going on?," but got no response. Zimmerman's defense has said that Martin was on top of him, punching him and smashing his head on the concrete.

INT BROLL GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRAYVON MARTIN TRIAL / SWITCHED POOL FEED KATIE HUBER LOG **NOTE: JUDGE'S COMMENTS IN CAPS **NAMES OF WITNESSES IN RED **VISUAL DESCRIPTIONS IN (PARENTHESES) **GOOD STATEMENTS/VIDEO BOLD 8:56:29 (zimmerman walking in.... blue jacket, khaki pants, white shirt, yellow tie) 9:01:18 PLEASE BE SEATED. GOOD MORNING.. ON RECORD. STATE VS ZIMMERMAN. READY TO BRING JURY IN? rionda: may we approach? YES (sidebar) 9:03:09 (martin family) 9:05:36 TELL THEM TO WAIT ONE SECOND WE WANT TO WAIT ON THE AVAILABILITY OF A WITNESS...... OK WE CAN BRING THEM IN 9:06:15 GOOD MORNING LADIES AND GENTLEMAN. PLEASE BE SEATED. WELCOME BACK. QUESTIONS: CONVERSATIONS WITH EACHOTHER ABOUT THE CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE FOR RESEARCH? NO HANDS RAISED. CREATE SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. MR MANTEI CALL WITNESS....... greg mckinney 9:07:40 (sworn in) 9:08:00 mantei: name? greg mckinney... work for united security alliance... video surveillance, IT department. how long? over a yr and a half 9:08:31 do what? cameras out there to monitor and card system to get in. based where? Tampa, fl. monitor video outside of Tampa? yes. retreat at twin lakes? yes 9:09:13 states exhibit 185... review and download video surveillance? yes. remotely? yes. connect over internet to the DVRs on site and view them and download them. 9:09:43 an incident on 2-26-12? yes. 9:09:54 states exhibit 1, the clubhouse layout? yes. how many cameras does your company monitor? 9. located at the front gate? yes. what did we learn about them? not functioning, a mower hit the cables 9:10:39 as far as the videos from clubhouse, able to download all known video surveillance from the period of time that day? yes. depicted in 185? yes. 9:11:03 what is the second disc? one is label copy and the other is video clips from original data 9:11:21 move into evidence if no objection. omara: approach for a moment? YES (sidebar) 9:13:08 omara: moment to review? YES YOU MAY 9:16:43 ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE EXHIBIT? no. COME IN AS STATES 185 9:17:13 mantei: cameras you located, what did you learn about the time on the footage? the video footage is 18 minutes off approximately. slow? yes. add 18 minutes for the accurate time? correct. the way system was recording? yes 9:17:47 camera locations, you mentioned 9... 2 particular... interior and exterior to clubhouse? yes. kitchen camera? yes. that camera right about this area? yes. faces? the front. street, retreat view circle? yes. 9:19:03 exterior, one in the east pool hall? yes. and west pool hall? yes. is the east pool hall located outside in this vicinity? yes. its direction of view is this way? correct 9:19:31 this here, what's that? mailboxes... camera faces mailboxes? yes. this is twin trees lane? correct 9:19:50 clips you referenced, first show you what we talked about as the kitchen video... is what we're talking about? yes. looking out from kitchen camera? correct. time on it is 18:50:33, but add 18 minutes, 19:08:33? yes 9:20:54 (kitchen camera playing) was that something we saw go by that window? Object! Improper Foundation for this witness SUSTAINED 9:21:25 next view is east pool hall camera? this the view? yes 9:21:38 mail box out here? yes 9:21:44 (playing east pool hall video) 9:22:19 back up and play this one more time from beginning.... 9:22:40 (playing east pool hall video) 9:23:20 time beginning for this tape is depicted in lower right hand corner? yes. add 18 minutes to that one as well? yes CROSS 9:23:55 omara: good morning. working for company back in Feb. 2012? yes. 9:24:07 when did you do this work that you're talking about? the day afterwards and 3-21 was asked to get the record again 9:24:21 previous to this event...ever been to this area? no. looks like a pool because of...? well I went there last night. to familiarize with yourself with area before today? yes 9:24:48 where those cameras were? yes 9:24:54 are they identified at your remote location by a number, so you know where to look? by name, east pool. west pool 9:25:14 when did you notice the timing? Feb. 28 2012 9:25:25 any explanation how system is 18 minutes off? nature of computers and clocks like that... they drift. don't know exactly? no. could be 19 seconds? within 18 seconds.... 15 or so either way... total span of 30 seconds? yeah I'm just guessing. don't guess? then I don't know 9:26:09 somewhere around 18 minutes? correct. could be 19 or 17? possibly, that'd be a guess though. could be 17 could be 19? I don't know 9:26:30 know if this was a concern that kept going... lose a second an hour and might be more...? I don't know how long it lasted or the drifts 9:26:49 could be several minutes more if there was a malfunction if it happened, two days later 18 minutes but could've been 25? that'd be speculation, I don't know. 9:27:13 nothing to support? right just know that it was 18 minutes when I checked it. CALL NEXT WITNESS. john good. 9:28:09 (sworn in) 9:28:29 rionda: name? Jonathan Good. 9:28:38 married? yes. how long? a little over a year. kids? no 9:28:50 what do you do for a living? finance. how long? 6 years 9:28:58 education background? FSU graduate 9:29:05 currently living in Seminole? yes 9:29:15 Feb. 2012, retreat twin lakes... 1221 twin tree lane? yes. upstairs bedrooms and living downstairs? correct. how long at that time? 3-4 years 9:29:41 enter into residence? come in right passed the bathroom and the downstairs living quarters. where are the stairs? on the right 9:30:07 toward the back exterior of the house.... living quarters? yes. sliding glass door that goes out to backyard? yes 9:30:23 back porch? I guess it would be considered a back porch... just a slab of concrete with two pillars. no screened in? correct 9:30:49 backyard have walk way? yes. 9:31:02 sliding glass door, any blinds? yes. tell us about it? always closed. what type of blinds? junky white tall blinds. vertical or horizontal (computer malfunctioned--- asked him about the sounds he heard.) 9:37:34 what did you see at that time? a tussle... a dog attack, a lot of dogs walk in back area... only see an object 9:37:49 what did you observe? a tussle... vertical to me... just like the blinds... I yelled out what's going on and stop it I believe 9:38:10 football, instant replay? yes. try to do that with you.... 9:38:20 stepped outside... one foot out... seconds, minutes? seconds 9:38:32 estimating and wife was not timing you at all... how long was it? a few seconds 9:38:56 mentioned when you put your foot out and saw something out there... mentioned vertical? looking at someone in the backyard, they're faced directly to the ground.... they would be making a t with the sidewalk 9:39:29 how close to the sidewalk was.... one or two? I couldn't tell. how close was object to sidewalk? they weren't on sidewalk, but they were vertical, hard to see 9:39:55 did object end up moving? yes. 9:40:01 where it was when you first observed it and the second time, how far from the original place? not far, just up onto the concrete 9:40:23 one individual there or two? two when they were still vertical 9:40:33 describing who was on top? only colors of clothing? on top? dark.... on bottom? light red or white color 9:40:55 not making notes when you're doing this? no. 9:41:05 positions changed, how long did it take for them to change... ongoing process? quick, only seen a few seconds of what happened... 10 seconds max. 9:41:26 as little as 2 or 3 seconds? it could be 9:41:32 change in position, they were horizontal... still two individuals? yes. 9:41:42 able to describe their faces or just clothing? going back to vertical... on bottom was lighter skin color. saw them horizontal, who was on top or bottom? same position still 9:42:07 person on top to the bottom? a straddling position 9:42:15 what do you mean? legs over the lower part of the body 9:42:23 person on bottom... face up or down? face up 9:42:32 see whether bottom was face up or down? when they were vertical? when you first saw them? no I couldn't see anybody 9:42:52 observed the second time... saw the person on bottom was face up? correct. person on top was straddling? correct 9:43:09 what was going on? I thought it was serious. why? looked like strikes or punches.... could've also been holding down... arm movement going downward... from person on top? correct. dark colored attire? correct 9:43:42 person on top... arm movement? shoulder down... see their hands? too dark to see that 9:43:58 person on top was striking and going like this? I could not hear that... hear this? no. (loud noises) 9:44:20 holding the person on the bottom? Object! That's leading OVERRULED 9:44:31 person on top holding down the bottom? possible, arm motion downward not just once 9:44:51 mention you said something, did you yell or say please.... recreate in your tone you used? pretty hard going back to that day 9:45:11 loud? enough for them to hear me. 9:45:16 what did you say? what's going on... no one answered and then at that point... the person on bottom I could hear a help... I said cut it out and I'm going 911 when I thought it was getting really serious 9:45:40 pretty quickly or pausing? pausing... equate to the time I said too... yelling it? yes 9:45:57 first stepped out... hear any yelling? not initially when I stepped out 9:46:09 when you did step out... any individuals say something at that point? no 9:46:20 mentioned they said something, after you said something? yes. who was saying something? 100%, no 9:46:40 person on bottom would've been saying something? correct. if it was the top there would've been an echo and not direct at me 9:47:03 person who said help, person who said help was it help help help continuous? one or maybe two. what happened? moved onto sidewalk. what happened? in the straddle position, thought it was getting serious and call 911 9:47:34 go in and call? yes. close door? didn't care about door 9:47:44 turning around and going back inside... hearing any screams or yells from outside? adrenaline was going, I can't remember 9:48:01 first heard something and stepped outside, was volume still going? it was muted 9:48:27 light outside, remain on? remained on 9:48:33 stepped out and mentioned two individuals, anyone else? not at first. at the very end 9:48:47 did you notice other neighbors peeking out from any windows? my focus wasn't on that 9:49:13 point seeing the individuals, straddling position... see their hands? side view, so I don't think so 9:49:29 tell whether person on bottom had gun out already? I can't tell, no 9:49:53 I'm going to play the 911 recording... ANY OBJECTIONS? no your honor 9:50:18 states exhibit 162 9:50:24 (911 audio playing---- heard a shot... yelling for help... pretty sure the guys dead out here, holy shit.... anything else you heard, no guy yelling help... guy with flashlight in backyard now... I think there's flashlights and a guy... don't know if it's a cop... there's two guys in the backyard with flashlights... a black guy down, looks like he's shot and dead... laying and multiple people calling right now I'm thinking.) 9:52:35 recognize that being your voice? unfortunately 9:52:44 somebody with a flashlight? yeah people came around the corner at some point 9:52:55 straddling position, because of the posture of the person on top? both, yeah 9:53:08 descriptive words as MMA style? yes. what? as a straddle position like that.. common position you would see in mixed martial arts 9:53:35 position of person on top over bottom? in the actions of the arms, looked like something I'd seen on TV. like wrestling? I don't understand 9:53:59 ever see the person on top slam them into concrete? no. see them slam head into concrete over and over? no. see the bottom slam head into concrete? no 9:54:40 back when you were living in your residence... ms lauer also lived there, neighbor? correct 9:54:53 you actually heard the recording that 911 call she made with the cries for help? yes. heard that before in depo? no. at that depo did that sound the same? it did not sound the same as I heard that night 9:55:30 states exhibit 1, recognize this? yes... the sidewalk, here? yes. 9:56:08 area you're talking about here? yes. 9:56:28 states exhibit 6, make out your back yard on that exhibit? I guess 9:56:41 would this have been lauers and yours is here? yes 9:56:51 conditions of the weather that night... 2-26-12 around 7:05-7:15, dark? yes. weather... raining snowing? defitenily wasn't snowing, but I was very nasty outside 9:57:21 nasty meaning? raining off and on all night 9:57:28 exhibit 7... what we're looking at? yes 9:57:37 dog garbage... going toward your residence here? yes. 9:57:58 exhibit 33 this is your residence here and ms goods here? incorrect... we don't live in separate homes... ms lauers? correct 9:58:34 street address is right there in the front? that's the number address... yes 9:58:49 twin tree lane? yes 9:59:10 states exhibit 39, recognize that? yes. 9:59:19 your backyard here? yes. see the sliding door? the one of the left actually 9:59:45 this was ms lauers back porch? correct 10:00:05 exhibit, the big diagrams... courts assistance? YES YOU MAY 10:00:55 approach witness? YES 10:01:00 back to February of last year... states 139... live at 1221? yes. 10:01:22 this exhibit... 1221, depiction of person... this area you saw? beginning or end.... 10:01:43 observed and went back inside? yes 10:01:50 concrete is this sidewalk were talking about? yes 10:02:03 went back inside and called 911... hear a gun shot? yes. recall if that was before you called 911 or during or after? while it was dialing 10:02:24 how long it took to dial? it was probably right inside, usually keep phone next to me 10:02:45 shot was while dialing or on the line? on the line waiting to get picked up 10:03:00 moment? YES 10:03:29 heard a gunshot any more yells? I wasn't focused on that... focused on calling 911? yes 10:03:49 in terms of the 3 cries for help... when you went outside? I said 1 or 2, possibly 3... I don't know 10:04:04 all one voice or more than one? sounded to be the same voice 10:04:16 not able to identify that voice? not 100%, no 10:04:30 what you heard when you looked out there... only heard one help help or anything else? that's all I heard 10:05:01 no further questions CROSS 10:05:10 I need a few minutes for exhibits....SURE 10:05:54 omara: very reluctant to be involve in case? correct. anonymity be continued because of concerns? correct. accomplish until today, but couldn't because of process? correct 10:06:28 recall what you said that night and told other people? yes 10:06:39 that night.... I want to define the terms you used... watching TV? yes. heard noise outside that gets attention? yes. 10:07:01 noise or yells? I didn't say yells... just a noise in the distance 10:07:16 lived there? yes. noise came from which way when you first heard? couldn't tell where it came from... it was faint and getting closer 10:07:38 could've been from this area? I thought we weren't speculating... I'm just asking you where you think. Objection! Speculation SUSTAINED 10:07:59 next thing that caught attention? heard it again... it was getting louder.. where? just closer to where I was 10:08:12 what did you do? muted the TV again and I preceded to sliding door 10:08:21 time in between where you turned TV down and back on? yes. how long? no. 10:08:34 maybe a couple of minutes? you were wanting a time frame, so yes 10:08:44 sound about right still? I guess, we weren't keep track of time. 10:08:55 caught attention, muted it and then what? muted it and I went to sliding door 10:09:05 looked outside and say again what you saw..... first looked out after second noise, what did you see? couldn't tell what was out there. 10:09:26 your view and what it was? couldn't tell what was out there, opened sliding door and screen... took step out to see better view 10:09:43 what you saw? possibly a dog tussle... could only see one person out there 10:09:52 vertical, horizontal and want to clarify? horizontal as laying flat on ground, ok? that's your perception 10:10:18 horizontal would mean they're laying on the ground flat...? they were laying on the ground 10:10:32 vertical would be standing up vertical, agree? correct 10:10:47 with that in mind, describe the scene you saw and your perspective.. how far away? closer to sidewalk, but not on side walk. 15-20 ft.? I guess 10:11:08 sidewalk about 20 ft. away, would that be close to accurate? I guess 10:11:24 use for now... how far then, about 20 ft. almost to the pathway? yeah close to the sidewalk 10:11:38 using the terms how were they? they were laying on ground, if you fell back vertically that was how I was looking at them 10:11:59 back was toward me, but facing downward 10:12:06 saw his back? yes. like this? at beginning no.... go to the ground, like that? no. more like flat or flat... horizontal on top of the other? correct... when did that change? closer to the side walk 10:12:44 position of the two? more of a straddle position when on side walk 10:12:53 explain that in more detail? more just person on tops legs were over the person laying on the ground 10:13:15 person on top like this? that's accurate 10:13:21 and person on bottom was flat? correct. on his back or not? back 10:13:32 person on top was wearing what? same person on the top when they were t shaped. did not change positions? no... guy on top wearing black was now straddling him? correct 10:14:04 now closer to the cement pathway? on the cement at that point 10:14:13 what movement were you... walk us through that... at point tell me your focus on what they're doing? on the entire time... only 8-10 seconds, so quick 10:14:37 saying.... on concrete, arm movement going downward 10:14:49 step out to watch them was 8-10 seconds? very quick... not a long time 10:15:01 rionda asked you if you said as little as 2? I didn't state the entire thing was 2 10:15:12 the entire time you watched? 8-10 seconds... what turned out to be martin and zimmerman? correct 10:15:27 8-10 watching them do whatever was happening? I would say, yes 10:15:40 movement or struggle? at the beginning or the end or the whole thing.... beginning? walked out and looked like one person, then could see the second... looked like a tussle... got more serious on sidewalk with straddle and arm movement going downward 10:16:13 trying to be extraordinarily literal? through the whole thing... same thing I said in deposition 10:16:27 initial statement, first opportunity to talk to officer the first time... explained as best you could recall? correct 10:16:47 person on top in MMA style straddle position? correct. ground and pound? correct. what is that? takes place in that type of position 10:17:08 knew it enough to give terminology? first thing that came to my mind... ground and pounding person on bottom? that's what it looked like 10:17:29 what is that? person on top punching person on the bottom, but the bottom can come back.... dominant? top... usually a positive I would think.... (phone went off and distracted people) 10:18:04 ground and pound? top is dominant... person on bottom is able to get out or throw punches back, but I didn't see any of that 10:18:36 top is dominant because weight is on hips? correct. bottom can't get much movement or leverage? depends on the person on the bottom. and their training in MMA? not really trained but other things 10:19:07 top has arms free? correct. might have arms under his knees? Objection! at the scene or in general. SUSTAINED AND LAY BETTER FOUNDATION 10:19:32 ground and pound position, dominant position can get guys on the bottom under his knees to rain blows on him? I don't know 10:19:55 top has arms free? correct. that night you saw... martin was on top? correct. was raining blows down on the bottom? that's what it looked like 10:20:17 couldn't actually see fist hit face? no. blocked by what? not blocked, dark out 10:20:29 looking at martins back? incorrect. at sidewalk they're side to me... lateral to my house 10:20:44 by the time they were at sidewalk, you could see more...? his right arm (Zimmerman) 10:21:04 saw him striking down? arm movement going downward. how many times? I have no idea, I went back inside... getting serious 10:21:20 hear zimmerman screaming for help? incorrect... that was in the beginning when I saw someone on top 10:21:36 when was the first time you heard the person on the bottom scream for help? initially went outside and didn't see second person, then I could... coming from the bottom because usually on bottom is screaming or yelling 10:22:01 balancing trying to be literal and what you remember and common sense, bottom is screaming? rationally thinking I would think so 10:22:20 had it been martin screaming for help, since his back was to you the yell would go away from you? it would've sounded different. 10:22:42 person screaming from 15 ft. away almost directly at you? sounded like it was coming toward me, yes 10:22:59 now moved up in the ground and pound position, what you heard and did hear.... hear something like this? no. could that happen without you hearing it? Objection! SUSTAINED. paying attention to those sounds? no 10:23:36 skull being smacked against concrete? I can't remember. heard fist driving into head? I can't remember 10:23:54 while not the noises rionda suggested, could've occurred that martin was hitting zimmerman, but don't remember sound of that? Objection! SUSTAINED REPHRASE 10:24:21 not telling jury that you know martin was not striking zimmerman in the face? I can't confirm that was happening 10:24:41 don't want to say that martin was taking Zimmerman's head on the cement, didn't see that? yeah I didn't see that. because of darkness and positioning? yes 10:25:14 during deposition and other times regarding what you heard and the disparity of what you heard and the 911 call indicates? yes 10:25:36 doesn't seem like same screams to you? ones coming from audio and the other I heard in person. 10:25:50 not suggesting they're not the same screams from different perspectives? I couldn't say 10:26:02 lauer's call to 911 was timed perfectly with the screams she heard and the gun shot you heard, correct? what do you mean... 10:26:18 you heard gun shot? correct. and on her tape? correct. going back in time from gunshot and her tape there was 40 seconds of screaming on that call? Objection to Speculation TESTIFY IF HE KNOWS 10:26:46 listen to lauers call again... think through... 45 seconds into call you'll hear gunshot... then testify what you remember seeing in timeline to that shot? I wouldn't be able to tell you... well I'm going to play the tape and well go from there 10:28:19 (911 lauer call playing) 10:29:09 heard the gun shot? yes. 10:29:13 different perspectives, same gunshot you heard? didn't sound the same, sounded like a rock hitting my window.. knowing now it was the same? yes 10:29:34 sounded much different from across the pathway and into ms. lauers apartment? correct 10:29:47 didn't hear your voice on that tape, did you? no 10:29:54 you did say what you said to them? correct. not showing up on tape doesn't mean it didn't happen? I know what I said.... talking about someone who was in their house though 10:30:28 using that gun shot as reference point, take you back in time... before the call is when you turned around and went back inside? before the gun shot... 10:30:54 heard the gunshot dialing 911? correct I was inside 10:31:02 know the gun shot you heard here was the one you heard.... gunshot happens you were on the phone? waiting for someone to pick up 10:31:20 heard your 911 call that says just heard a gunshot? correct. happens after gun shot? correct 10:31:34 only a few seconds before gun shot that you were looking at the two individuals? correct 10:31:53 you are certain the person on bottom was yelling to you? not 100% certain... but it did sound like it was bottom 10:32:12 not 100%, knowing you want to be literal and cautious... but using common sense... listening to sound of yelling, where was it coming from? sounded like the person on the bottom... coming straight toward you unobstructed? I would say yes 10:32:46 relate any of those two helps.. how many did you hear? 1, 2. possibly 3 only a few 10:32:59 could you relate those to this tape? no 10:33:14 the yells you heard, however many were always the same voice? that I personally heard, yes... no second voice? not that I heard 10:33:32 when you ran outside that time you went out to porch, actually told them stop? what's going on, cut it out, stop something like hat 10:33:50 martin on top didn't stop? no one stopped. acknowledge you were there? nobody did... kept doing what he was doing even though you asked him to stop? I guess I asked him, yes 10:34:21 never saw gun? no. no gun in hands that you could see? not that I could see 10:34:33 period of time during straddling, seem like zimmerman was trying to get up? didn't watch long enough to see that... 10:35:01 one on top of other before straddle, that's when zimmerman was trying to get up? yes. how? person on top of him... I didn't think he wanted to stay on the ground... describe how he was trying to get up from that position? couldn't tell you 10:35:34 describe? what do you want me to describe if I can't tell you 10:35:44 when you said guy on bottom trying to get up? if persons on top, you're not trying to stay on the ground... rationally, person on bottom trying to get up. any movements by him to try and do that? couldn't see anyone when I first went out there... 10:36:30 first time you noticed Zimmerman's clothing? just as I just stated 10:36:45 right before... in that very initial 10:36:52 see he was wearing red? different color than the person on top was wearing, yes... red or white 10:37:17 going through your statements and who you spoke with and when... first had opportunity to speak to, first person? first statement... that would've been the police 10:37:39 filling out hand written statement? yes. inconsistencies today with that? clarify in any other statements since that first one 10:38:02 straddle position back then where person on top was straddling person on bottom in red... bottom was getting hit yelling help? didn't mean to say they were yelling help while getting hit 10:38:29 also talked to investigator sereno? correct. same day? later that night. gave him an oral statement? correct 10:38:48 in that statement the same day you described straddle as MMA? correct. ground and pound first talked about? correct 10:39:14 also talked to the media... they found you out? came to my house every day and harassed us for the next 6 months... 10:39:31 answered one door knock with reporter talking to you? next morning 10:39:44 similarly told them, guy on bottom in red was getting beat up? correct 10:40:01 also saying at that point he was yelling for help? correct 10:40:12 month later FDLE john bachelor spoke with you? sereno in between that 10:40:29 except for clarifying, no inconsistencies? just clarifying 10:40:39 john bachelors conversation? correct. more detail about what happened? from my point of view, yes 10:41:06 everything in there, still stand by? yes 10:41:24 tell me why you initially thought this just may have been a dog fight? a lot of dogs get walked back there, maybe a dog got loose... people partying it was Daytona 500 weekend 10:42:02 any problem with dogs in that area? nothing unusual... maybe a dog getting off its leash 10:42:31 approach the witness? YES YOU MAY 10:42:41 states exhibit 45, recognize who that is? now I do, not at the time... clothing you saw that night? can't say exactly... definitely a red or lighter color... that red on the bottom? possibly 10:43:22 moment, almost done 10:45:12 just show to him and not publish to the jury yet.... 10:45:43 defense e for identification 10:45:50 clothing here for the person on top? person on the right, yes. person in the center? correct 10:46:06 similar to the top? same colors, yes 10:46:30 enter that into evidence. ANY OBJECTIONS? no. DEFENSE EXHIBIT 18 10:47:43 during your interview, you prepared a sketch of what you saw that night, remember? yes 10:48:12 DEFENSE EXHIBIT 19 10:48:20 identify this as a blow up of a sketch you prepared? yes it's my horrible stick figures 10:48:37 explain to the jury what you intended to do with this sketch? door and house... where they first were and where they moved to 10:49:01 this is your patio area? yes. looking out at first? yes... looking at from here to here first? correct. 10:49:40 tell me the legend and explain what you were indicating? depicted them laying how I started earlier.. black on top, red on bottom... moves to sidewalk, laying this way black on top, red on bottom... in straddle? yes. with martin on top? yeah I could not draw that 10:50:20 this number three? when I went upstairs and looked down and the body was... not in the same position I left them in. 10:50:41 on sidewalk and body was closer to where I was... looked out from upstairs? upstairs... saw martins body between the pathway and your home? correct 10:51:02 stick figure... seen the photos taken as martin as he lay after the shot? no. did you see anyone move the body at all? I think I saw him flip him over and try to give him CPR. laying face down? correct 10:51:34 see the other person? on the side walk, standing up.. guy with flash lights came around the corner 10:51:49 gun shot, on the phone to the time you looked out to see martins body in position.. and zimmerman walking about, how long? if you sliced the phone call you could do it to the T 10:52:15 just heard the gun shot? correct. I see someone outside, that's about the timeline you would say was accurate? that's when I'm walking upstairs, yes 10:52:35 tell the jury... hear gun shot while dialing... tell me you're movement until you get to the area where you see martins body? walking, trying to spell out twin trees 3 times, and see the body 10:53:08 still on stair case while dialing? heading up 10:53:17 continued walking, go to back bedroom? master. balcony and window? window in bathroom and room. which one? bathroom window 10:53:38 could've been one of the two? I believe it was the bathroom window... remember that you said something acknowledging you had just seen the body when you saw it? repeat 10:54:01 if listen to 911 tape, you said there's somebody outside and I think he's dead, precise to when you saw the body? correct...from when I stated I just heard a shot, yes 10:54:41 moment? YES 10:55:06 clarify.... look out and see martins body and then you saw zimmerman walking about? standing, walking, yes but on the sidewalk 10:55:24 two guys with flashlights? I think two coming around corner 10:55:31 tell one was an officer? no.. just saw a flashlight. still dark out? correct 10:55:42 porch light was on? it was on. the whole night? yes. point down? light bulb inside of globe... in ceiling above? correct. not a flood light. illuminate porch area? a little bit. not to increase what you talked about near the pathway? no 10:56:28 voice screaming for help... it was just one person's voice? when I heard it outside, just one person's voice... now believe that was Zimmerman's voice? I never said that, I said it could've been, not 100% sure. not asking for 100%? that's just my opinion. Nothing further REDIRECT 10:57:21 first saw them.... saw like this? correct. one on top of other? correct. next time the other was straddling? correct. feet were to the right? feet, yes... heads were towards the T. of the sidewalk 10:58:35 asked about statements and interviews... talked to officer at the scene and a detective and then from FDLE... another with sereno on the phone 10:59:03 at some point talking to me and then I took a statement? another with FDLE and then you 10:59:15 certain questions not asked at beginning than later? new questions right 10:59:26 weren't asked to elaborate at the beginning? correct. nobody asked if you heard this? no. did not hear that? no 10:59:48 didn't hear that either? no. 10:59:52 in one of the interviews with sereno... omara asked you about ground and pound... could it be that investigator sereno used those words and not you? I believe it was me because it was in my initial statement as well... put ground and pound in initial statement? possibly 11:01:12 IT'S FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES... 11:01:22 marked as 2S... read it and see if you used words ground and pound 11:01:42 omara: improper impeachment! I DONT KNOW IF IMPEACHMENT OR RECOLLECTION 11:02:07 I say ground getting hit....ok 11:02:13 in that interview with first officer you did not use ground and pound? not interview, it was written statement, by the time I spoke with sereno I might've said that to give a better description 11:02:39 believe you used ground and pound with sereno? I believe that's better described, yes 11:02:52 elaborate more and more? clarify... felt important to clarify certain things? to give a better visual 11:03:12 moment? YES 11:03:31 porch light, not on the ceiling.. its outside? caddy corner of ceiling and wall.. illuminates out into the yard? that patio area 11:04:02 marked for identification.... interview with sereno and that was on February 26th... omara: identify the document... 11:04:39 omara: moment? YES YOU MAY 11:05:12 omara: ask that audio be used for impeachment.. OBJECTION I NEED TO HEAR THE OBJECTION, NOT SPEAKING ONES. improper foundation. HASN'T HAD IT IDENTIFIED, WAIT FOR THAT... omara: ask council for a second? YES 11:05:53 rionda: interview with sereno? correct. used word MMA? correct. you believe you used the word ground and pound? I believe so... could it be that sereno used ground and pound? it could've been 11:06:24 you as best you could in elaborating used language based on MMA on TV? to give a better description. the straddling over one on the other? yes. to depict there were blows like that on TV? yes. but didn't actually see those blows? downward arm movement 11:07:06 the times you heard help, believe it was person on bottom... not 100% but because on bottom would be yelling for help? correct and that's when I first saw the person on the bottom 11:07:34 person yelling for help would not have come toward you? yes 11:07:45 person on top was yelling help and it would be toward the ground and not you? Object! TESTIFY TO WHAT HE SAID 11:08:15 I didn't hear a muffled help, no 11:08:21 never saw the bottoms hands if he had a gun? no. couldn't say one way or other? no 11:08:39 you can't say whether person on bottom was trying to get up, may have been? person on bottom was trying to, but I couldn't confirm that... just from common sense? correct 11:09:11 several statements you gave... felt the need or weren't asked questions to specify? correct. felt the need to clarify? yes so words weren't put in my mouth, yes 11:09:39 lying originally with what you said? lying, no.... because you didn't clarify? no it was just the question was never asked of me 11:10:24 moment? YES 11:10:49 mention at the end of the cross, you went upstairs and looked out and saw what you now know as martin on ground... saw person zimmerman standing up, and then saw one or two guys with flashlights? correct 11:11:21 looked out and martin being like that? no, opposite view... but yes the body looked like that.... if I was standing over there looking that way... body was faced down? yes 11:12:37 states exhibit 77... vantage point different but body faced down? correct. 11:12:51 MMA trained at all? no in shape to do that 11:12:57 were zimmerman or martin MMA trained? I didn't know either people. nothing further 11:13:53 omara: copy of your statement given mostly to what was happening? yes. what words you used and first opportunity? not question, but given for statement. accurate? from what I said that night 11:14:22 move to evidence. rionda: same objection PLEASE APPROACH (sidebar) 11:19:23 statement you gave to sereno, correct as best you could remember the incident the way you viewed it? correct. 4 or 5 statements all together? probably.. all somewhat different? what do you mean... 11:19:56 clarify certain things? yes. add to what needed to be added? add but not changed. questions asked would prompt you to answer about new subjects? yes. this statement was only half a page? correct. another was a page and a half of transcription? yes. another longer with FDLE? correct. some facts added to one because the way questions were asked? I don't know about facts, but more clarification 11:21:01 deposition was about 50 pages? correct. rionda wanted to make sure jury understands that statement 1-4 aren't the same, you weren't lying? no. just answering questions? yes 11:21:34 even said that adrenaline was flowing? yes. event where you hyper focused on what was happening? for a few seconds 11:22:03 traumatic event to see that to call 911? yes. recounted story time and time again, things became more expanded? yes, but the groundwork stayed the same... two guys, one on top? clarified I couldn't see punches... 11:22:45 guy with red was always on bottom? correct. never changed? right 11:22:55 with sereno, ground and pound... completeness, put in context for you... ask you if this is what you said..... heard someone yelling, not sure if it I was a fight... see kind of a person out there, open my door black man on top with a white guy on bottom yelling out help, tried to tell them get out of here or stop or whatever, guy on top was pretty much just throwing down blows kind of MMA style... context in which that happened? yes. sereno said word ground, maybe ground and pound... and you said yeah like a ground and pound at this time, calling 911 now? Objection! Hearsay and improper Bolstering. omara: rule 108. OBJECTION TO HEARSAY IS OVERRULED, BOLSTERING IS NOT RIGHT EITHER. rionda: beyond scope. OVERRULED 11:25:03 that's what you said right? yeah. context in which ground and pound came from? for more clarification. ground and pound even still today? looked like it, but couldn't tell if faces were being hit... but did see MMA style? meaning arm movement going down.... RE-RE-DIRECT 11:26:02 clarify after that, you did not see fists...? both sides made me clarify. did not see blows on the guy on the bottom? correct 11:26:20 under subpoena, talk to him at lunch..... REMAIN OUTSIDE SO COUNCIL CAN SPEAK WITH YOU. 11:26:47 HESITATE TO TAKE YOU TO BREAK AND WAIT FOR LUNCH...... I DONT KNOW IF LUNCH WILL BE HERE UNTIL NOON. RECESS UNTIL 1.... 11:27:14 DO NOT DISCUSS CASE. DO NOT LISTEN OR READ ABOUT CASE. NO ELECTRONIC DEVICES. NO SOCIAL MEDIA ABOUT THE CASE. ASSURANCE? yes. FOLLOW OUTSIDE COURTROOM 11:28:21 PLEASE BE SEATED, ANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT NOW. COURT IN RECESS UNTIL 1 11:28:38 RECESS FOR LUNCH ============================== 12:57:42 (zimmerman walking in) 12:59:05 COURT BACK IN SESSION. STATE VS. ZIMMERMAN 12:59:56 (rionda walking in, O'Mara walking in) Approach (sidebar) 13:01:42 READY TO BRING IN JURY? yes. GO AHEAD AND BRING THEM IN 13:02:38 PLEASE BE SEATED.... LADIES AND GENTLEMAN WELCOME BACK. QUESTIONS: CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE CASE? NO HANDS RAISED. READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS? NO HANDS RAISED. USE ELECTRONIC DEVICE? NO HANDS RAISED. CREATE OR READ SOCIAL MEDIA? NO HANDS RAISED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH... RIONDA CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS.... joe manalo 13:03:54 (sworn in) 13:04:15 rionda: name? jonathan manalo. married? yes. how long? 7 years. kids? yes. daughter? yes. living? work for UPS. how long? 20 years 13:04:44 live in Seminole county? yes 13:04:48 how long? 32 years 13:04:56 living at 2861 retreat view circle in 2-26-12? yes. how long? 3 years 13:05:12 focus on Sunday the 26th, home around 7:05-7:15? yes. anyone home with you? yes. who? wife and daughter 13:05:31 doing what? wife on couch, my daughter and I assembling coffee table bought earlier in the day 13:05:50 outside, was it dark? yes. weather that evening? raining 13:06:02 around 7:10, hear something? yes. describe to the jury? like grunts... dogs barking at first 13:06:18 grunts loud or low? they were loud enough that I could hear it through the window, but still indistinct 13:06:38 did wife do something? yeah she looked through the window. did you tell her anything? yes I said stay away from the window... dont make it our problem. did she pay attention to you? yes. did you ever look out window? no. did your wife ever look at that evening? yes 13:07:14 she just said there were two people fighting, sat down and then heard yelling or gun shot when she peered through window. did you hear the gun shot? yes. 13:07:37 ever looked through window or sliding door? no. 13:07:43 heard the gun shot, take action? I went outside. 13:07:52 how did you go outside? I went through the garage. grab anything? a flashlight 13:08:07 after, where did you go and what route? went to the left, toward the sidewalk and then I walked toward the back to the T 13:08:24 see a man standing on side walk? yes. know that man prior to that night? no. know him now to be George zimmerman? yes. see him here today? yes. person who stood up? yes 13:08:50 first saw him... defendant standing up or laying down? walking toward my direction 13:09:03 walk toward you? walk directly towards me 13:09:09 have your flashlight on? yes. was it dark? yes 13:09:17 observed defendant, walk towards you? yes. anything in his hands? cell phone to his left ear 13:09:33 holding to ear... demonstrate? like this 13:09:47 notice blood? yes, down his nostrils streaming down both sides of his lips 13:10:02 damage to nose? no 13:10:08 did you also see blood on back of head? yes 13:10:16 did you end up taking photos with your cell phone? yes. back of his head? yes. photo of martin on ground? yes. photo of flash light on the ground? next to the body, yes. 13:10:43 use your cell phone to take those photos? yes. use the flash from cell phone or flash light? flash light 13:11:03 look at... states exhibit 1, google or aerial photo of twin lakes? yes. 13:11:34 residence here? yes. route you took.. this way toward walk way? yes. approximately when you came into contact, where you had contact with him? higher... at the T 13:12:09 states exhibit 3, see your residence there? no. 13:12:17 states exhibit 3, dark establish how dark it was? yes 13:12:29 states exhibit 5, part of your residence? yes. what part? back patio... pointing to it? yes 13:12:46 this light, was that on? that was off, turned on after 13:12:58 area where you came into contact? yes. near the T or the dog garbage? yes 13:13:16 states exhibit 6, your patio or pavement here? yes 13:13:32 states exhibit 10, what does that show? the back of my house... the T.... is this the area you walked out of? yes 13:13:50 states exhibit 11, recognize? yes. what does it show? the back of the house and where the crime scene finally ended 13:14:04 were all these markers out there when you came out? no. first one out there after the shot? yes. police officers out there when you got there? no. arrive after you? yes 13:14:29 states exhibit 34, recognize? front of the house. your residence? yes 13:14:41 states exhibit 35, close up? yes.. 13:14:48 states exhibit 37, show the area we talked about? yes. 13:15:09 states exhibit 40, what does that show? side walk toward the T... taken the path to that... left garage out this way? yes 13:15:29 states exhibit 76, take this photo? yes 13:15:36 raining that night? yes. 13:15:42 recall the position you took this photo, sitting down standing up? squatting. after officers came? this was before 13:16:03 states exhibit 77, what is that photo? I believe that's travyon martin 13:16:16 is this the way you found him? yes. move him at all? no. hands were underneath his body? yes. tamper his hands or anything? I never left the side walk, so no 13:16:39 this photo you took of trayvon, the light is from flashlight? yes 13:16:54 states exhibit 78, with cell phone? yes. showing what? object next to him... no other objects other than the little flashlight by the T. 13:17:15 point at it now? yes 13:17:21 the light shown is your flashlight? yes 13:17:46 back in February 2012, states exhibit 139... your residence here? yes. 13:18:09 area depict your route? yes 13:18:31 elaborate about your contact with defendant... flashlight you saw on ground, was that on? no. (malfunctioning computer) 13:22:26 computer came back 13:22:36 picked up his phone, put in pocket and called his wife through my phone 13:22:46 defendant asked you to call wife? yes. picked it up and put in whose pocket? Zimmerman's. which pocket? left side. why that one? closer to me 13:23:07 call his wife, did you do that? yes., know her number? no, know her before? no. how did you get the number/ he gave me her number 13:23:26 dial her number? yes. call her? yes. talk to her? yes. 13:23:39 I had connection with her right away... husband involved in shooting, and he'll be at Sanford PD, defendant cut me off and said just tell I shot someone... what did you say to his wife? okk.. he just shot someone 13:24:28 describe his demeanor? like I was taking too long to say what I had to say 13:24:38 mentioned you saw the body, see any movement in his body? no. 13:24:47 ever hear him say anything? no. 13:24:52 heard the shot and went outside... how long did it take you to come in contact with him? 10-20 seconds 13:25:13 observation was he was beaten? yes. remain outside while officers arrived? yes. present when they attempted to revive martin? yes 13:25:34 what you recall seeing about that? first officer arrived and turned him over... more were coming and asked for a bag to do compressions on his chest... I watched them perform CPR 13:25:58 get a bag? my wife handed me a bag 13:26:04 provide to officer in attempt to save martins life? yes 13:26:13 ever met zimmerman? no. ever met martin? no 13:26:20 ever involved in neighborhood watch program? no. why not? I have work and 6 yr. old to take care of 13:26:41 come into contact that evening, was he in shock? no. what it that based on? not acting like anything different, coherent responding to my questions, just like any other person 13:27:09 observe the defendant look back at the body? no. 13:27:18 appear calm? yes 13:27:25 nothing further. CROSS 13:27:53 west: afternoon. 13:28:12 in the living room with wife and daughter putting furniture together when you hear noises? yes 13:28:31 she said there's two guys fighting or guys fighting? yes. weren't able to see anything? no. never looked out, but did hear the noise continue? yes. moved from corner from right to left? yes 13:28:58 area of T on past your unit? yes. point where you heard a shot? yes. hear the shot yourself, or wife said to you? we both heard the shot 13:29:19 made the decision then to find out what that was about? yes. went from living room in the back, toward the garage? yes. in the garage grabbed a flashlight? yes. 13:29:43 front of your house, turn back around and run length of your unit and bring you in view of where this event occurred? yes, but I didn't run 13:30:09 walk briskly? carefully walking... walk upon the scene and see what's going on 13:30:23 flashlight and cell phone and best estimate is that it was somewhere between 10 and 20 seconds from hearing the shot and coming in contact? yes. didn't see martins body first? correct. caught your attention first was zimmerman? yes 13:31:03 saw him there he was breathing hard? yes. staggering? yes. look to you like he just got his but beat? yes. approached him? yes. weren't fearful of him? no. didn't call police? I asked him if I needed to call police 13:31:37 when you got closer to zimmerman you asked him do I need to call police? yes. told you no, I already called them or something to that affect? yes. didn't know yourself whether he was talking about the call he tried to make or if he called himself 2-3 minutes before? not a way of that 13:32:12 on the phone at that point that he had been talking to police? yes. would have to take place in those 10-20 seconds before you got there? yes. 13:32:37 wait for call to connect and have conversation before you asked him to call the police? I'm not aware of that, he wasn't talking on the phone, just had the phone to his ear 13:33:03 wanted you to tell his wife about the shooting? yes. asked you am I bleeding? yes. and you saw he was? yes. stooped over like this to collect himself? no just squatted down. as if to collect himself? not to collect himself..... didn't you say that in a statement... to try to collect himself, like he just got his butt beat? Objection! Compound question. ANSWER IF HE CAN..... yes 13:34:15 flash light and cell phone with you... opportunity to take picture of his back head? yes 13:34:39 took it upon yourself to take the picture, he didn't ask you to? yes. 13:34:53 asked him what happened? yes. he said, this guy was beating me up and I shot him? I was defending myself and I shot him. 13:35:15 it seemed completely true? yes. 13:35:35 not long until police arrived.... talking to zimmerman as he collected himself, officer time smith got there? I didn't know his name, but right 13:35:54 within a very short time, the first police officer arrived? right. he had a flash light? I dont remember. I know it was a police officer but I dont remember if he had a flashlight 13:36:20 officer smith or first officer arrived and he said who shot him? yes. and George said I did? yes. and officer smith said do you have a gun or something? yes. and zimmerman raised right arm and exposed firearm on his right side? yes. officer said I'm going to handcuff you for officer safety? yes. and zimmerman complied? yes. made available to be cuffed? yes 13:37:12 in the meantime while zimmerman was in the process of being cuffed, wanted you to call his wife? yes. in the process of being cuffed and call his wife he put the phone on the ground? yes. couldn't do anything more than that? right 13:37:40 purpose was to let his wife know that husband was involved in shooting, that's what you did? yes. conversation with who you believed to be his wife? yes. husbands been involved in a shooting? yes and is going to be taken in for questioning? yes. and beginning to explain when zimmerman says just tell her I shot someone? yes. to make it clear that he wasn't the one who had been shot? Objection! SUSTAINED 13:38:39 he may have been abrupt, get to the point? yes. that someone else had been shot? yes 13:39:13 thought that the way zimmerman said that wasn't animated enough, not hyper enough... not agitated enough for you to think he was in shock? I dont understand 13:39:40 do you think he shock, your mind someone who's hyper? or not responsive... one extreme or the other? right 13:40:00 zimmerman wasn't either of those? right. point in his response? yes. compliant with police officers, did understand what was being said? yes. 13:40:21 not animated, he was flat.... that's what you mean by not in shock? yes. not that you have training about in shock? right 13:40:45 something you've haven't been involved in very many times? right 13:41:00 while you were......... 13:41:10 attend HOA meetings? no. not involved in community? no. work and family, you dont attend meetings or programs? no 13:41:26 your view at that point was mind your business and go to work to support your family? right and if there's a problem just call 911 13:41:47 community, there's a sign that says neighborhood watch? correct. somebody coming in to steal or hurt people would see that and think there's somebody there that might be watching them? people in the neighborhood would work together if there was a problem, not a forewarning for would be criminals 13:42:24 not like having a security alarm sign in the front yard but not having a system? not really. just if they see a problem to call 911? right 13:42:42 involved more communication, contact among neighbors with guidance as to what they should do if its suspicious with non-emergency number? I dont understand.... you didn't know specifics of watch? right 13:43:16 I know you said it was dark, I know you had a flash light and took two pictures that show martin lying on the ground following the shot.... 77 and 78..... could we.... show those here in a second, the exact position shown in the photo is the same way you saw martins body with your eyes? yes. legs spread like this as if riding a bicycle? I dont remember 13:44:33 took this photo of martin... see the legs I've described as almost riding a bicycle with right knee bent? yes. first observed his body that way? yes 13:45:04 illumination of martins body is from your flash light? yes. not the flash on the phone? no. shined the flashlight and took the photo? yes 13:45:22 around that spot where its darker... overall lighting conditions that night? yes 13:45:53 this is the next picture you took... the other picture you took is states 78, see that martins body is in same position, harder to see? yes. see this flashlight? right. not on when you saw it? no 13:46:23 no idea if it was connected to case but you saw it and it caught your attention? yes. 13:46:37 picture... martins body was like I said before... everything else was quite dark? right 13:46:54 were you... where were you standing? on the side walk. where you encountered zimmerman? yes. basically the same spot? yes. 13:47:12 turned and took the pictures we've shown here? yes. near T intersection? yes 13:47:56 best recollection is you were at the T intersection...? a few feet away, but in that area... 13:48:12 t intersection and far enough down side walk to take this picture? yes. back patio light is from the light of the second unit in from the corner? I couldn't remember whether that's the second or third unit... not across from you? correct. to the left of your unit? yes 13:49:39 orientation in the photo... see the lit area in back, believe that's the back of someone's unit... second or third? yes. 13:49:59 lower left corner, dark edge? yes. is that the sidewalk? yes. edge of the sidewalk on the left, illuminated flashlight that's off and martins body? yes. back patio area of that residence? yes 13:50:30 martins hands or arms tucked under him, saw what's in the picture? right... nothing different? right. saw in the picture? yes 13:50:51 woman that testified earlier... jeanne manalo, your wife? yes 13:51:20 when you took this picture, you were at the spot where you had encountered zimmerman? yes 13:51:34 ANY REDIRECT? REDIRECT 13:51:54 rionda: came into contact with defendant he appeared calm to you? yes. Objection! Leading! Asked and Answered. REDIRECT AND TRYING TO ORIENT THE WITNESS. OVERRULED 13:52:20 recall he was calm? yes. Objection! Mischaracterization OVERRULED 13:52:39 how would you describe his demeanor? coherent, compliant, he was calm... just walking toward me. any trouble? staggering.. what do you mean? getting up off the ground 13:53:10 like this! Objection! leading OVERRULED.. erect sir? at one point, yes. 13:53:24 have any trouble understanding him when he spoke? no 13:53:37 in your conversations did you ask about caliber of gun? yes. what did he say? 9 millimeter 13:54:06 asked about statements made about shooting the individual, were you out there during this? after it happened. see the shooting where zimmerman shot martin in chest? no. inkling on how it happened, self-defense or not? no. rionda: I have nothing else 13:55:24 west: nothing further, thank you 13:55:28 CALL NEXT WITNESS.... 13:56:25 (sworn in) 13:56:42 guy: name? ricardo ayala. employed where? Sanford pd... how long? 11 years. position? police officer. how long in patrol unit? just over a year. before that? investigations 13:57:15 how long in that? 6 years. duties? general and major crimes 13:57:26 prior law enforcement before Sanford? yes corrections. how long and where? 6 years, 5 in Seminole, 1 in lake 13:57:42 Sunday Feb. 26th 2012, working? yes. respond to scene of shooting at twin lakes? yes. dispatched there? yes 13:57:56 nature at first? suspicious person in area. recall time? just after 7pm 13:58:09 what area of town were you in? north end of city. how long to get there? less than 5 minutes. receive updates to first dispatch en route? yes. stated shots were fired. first on scene? no. who was? Tim smith 13:58:48 states 1, aerial of twin lakes? yes. 13:59:03 where main entrance is? right there 13:59:09 off of Oregon ave? yes. where you went when you got in and where you parked? came this way through the entrance went around a ways I believe and parked in this area here... upper right hand corner? yes 13:59:45 took long way around? yes I wasn't familiar with the area. see officer smith? yes. where? that general area right there... in the T 14:00:07 lighting like back there? very dim almost dark 14:00:13 using flashlight to find way in between? yes. weather? misty... raining on and off. what was officer smith doing? white male at gun point. zimmerman? yes. see him here? yes. stood up? yes 14:00:52 any interaction with defendant? no. why not? focused on male on ground. 14:01:03 male on ground, later to be martin? yes. go over to martins location? I walked towards it yet. how was it positioned? faced down hands underneath his body. first to approach martin? yes 14:01:29 dead or alive? I did not. his involvement at that point? no. commands to martin? yes. asked to see his hands? where were they? underneath him. lying on stomach? yes. respond to commands? no. 14:02:02 did you see any movement from martins body? I did not. hear sounds? I did not 14:02:13 did other officers approach you and martin while giving commands? sergeant ramondo. try to get pulse? sergeant ramondo did. able to get a pulse? no 14:02:40 did you or sergeant move body? yes... stomach to back? correct. to your knowledge move or disturb evidence when you rolled him over? no 14:03:09 did martin respond when you rolled body over? no sir.... after rolling over, see a gunshot wound? after he's moved around, yes. where? underneath he had a pin or button, underneath his button 14:03:39 gunshot wound was near that? right under button 14:03:46 how did you find the wound? move the sweater, button lift up... lifted up sweater and shit... exposing bare chest? yes. see gunshot round? yes 14:04:09 perform CPR? yes. training? yes. 14:04:20 ask anybody for anything while performing CPR? sergeant ramondo asking for plastic bag. someone provide? yes. describe, plastic? correct. color? I do not. who provided? I didn't not 14:04:53 continue to perform CPR? correct. see signs of life from body? no 14:05:03 your role in CPR? chest compressions. ramondos role? mouth to mouth. rescue respond? yes. take over the treatment after they arrived? yes 14:05:26 was martin pronounced dead on scene? yes. any further contact with this defendant after CPR with martin? no sir 14:05:41 investigators and crime scene respond when you were present? yes. take over scene? yes. any further involvement with case? no. that's all CROSS 14:06:09 O'Mara: heard on your way that officer smith had just arrived to the scene? as I was getting there, yeah he was just responding to the scene... right behind Tim smith to get there? yes. 14:06:37 estimate how fast after him you got there? less than 2 minutes... 14:06:50 so quick that officer still had zimmerman at gun point? yes. in a shots fired situation, protocol to take out weapon and control situation? correct. not to suggest danger from zimmerman, just what you do when shots are fired? yes. appropriate he did that here? correct 14:07:26 come up to me, how would you tell me or what would you tell to me to do? I want to see your hands. say that? yes sir. 14:07:45 if I had a cell phone, appropriate to go like this? no. drop it where it's at... why? to make sure you have nothing in your hands 14:08:10 take out your weapon as well? yes. dont know what's going on? no. can't see much? no. flash light in one hand and gun on the other? no flashlight is on gun... 14:08:34 you were protecting officer smith? correct. focus on this initially? correct. 14:08:47 realize that officer smith had that part of situation under control...? weapon out until.... having eyes on Zimmerman and trayvon at the same time, didn't know what was going on... as soon as he secured zimmerman and focused on trayvon to notice the threat 14:09:25 another person there? probably, only focused on officer and the interested parties 14:09:51 from your awareness of it, concerns with securing zimmerman? he got him secured and took him to vehicle and secured him there, he was gone, he was good. compliant? yes. did what was asked? yes. disobey? no. 14:10:26 look at his face? I didn't focus... quick glance? yes. notice blood? I can't tell you I did... 14:10:43 shift over to martin who was off to the left? yes. quite dark? yes sir. not able to see martins body but for your flash light? yeah 14:11:07 attempted to do what you could as first responder to deal with martin? correct 14:11:20 did not see... see zimmerman again in back of patrol car? no.. I didn't make contact with him after he was secured. moment? YES 14:11:39 no further. ANY REDIRECT 14:11:44 guy: complied with commands, holding him at gun point? yes 14:11:58 YOU MAY BE EXCUSED... CALL NEXT WITNESS. stacey livingston. 14:12:40 (sworn in) 14:12:58 guy: name? stacey livingston.. employed? Sanford fire department. how long? a little over 25 years. current position? firefighter emt. emt? emergency medical technician. firefighter and emt? yes. duties? anything from fire calls to medical calls or anything citizens call for 14:13:49 description of training and education for duties? certification of Florida fire fighter and emt, continuing education at work 14:14:09 February 26, 2012... working? yes. respond to shot at twin lakes? yes 14:14:23 where were you when dispatched? fire station 38. dispatched with others? yes. recall the time? I do not 14:14:41 approximately 7:20 in evening? yes. how long it took to arrive? it would be a guess 14:15:17 look at this document, is that your incident report from this event? yes. on that report, a time of dispatch? yes. what time? 19:2... 7:21 pm? yes. arrival time? 19:27. about 6 minutes later? yes 14:15:58 officers on scene? yes. directed to location of shooting victim? yes. learn to be martin? yes 14:16:12 were Sanford police officers present when you arrived? yes. doing? CPR 14:16:23 how was martins positioned when you got there? on his back. other Sanford personnel take over CPR when you arrived? took over assessing him, not CPR 14:16:45 check for pulse? yes. how? on his neck. find? no pulse 14:16:56 while treating. move clothing? yes. what? lifted his shirts. notice anything in his sweatshirt when you moved it? I wasn't sure at the time, I know what it is now. where? in front. what was it? felt like a can. what did you do? took it out and move to the right. examine? no. why not? not a concern, trying to get to patient 14:17:50 feel anything else? yes. what was that? a small bag when I moved the shirt it made a crinkly noise. do anything with the bag? no. in his sweater? I dont know, just felt it when I moved it up 14:18:19 see any injuries? yes. gunshot wound? yes 14:18:28 where? in his chest 14:18:33 what steps did you and other personnel take to assess martin? cardiac monitor. why? to assess heart rhythm. what was detected? incompatible to life. pronounced dead at scene? yes. does report indicate time he was pronounced dead? 19:30 14:19:21 just a few minutes after you arrived? yes. hear martin make any sounds? no. did you or anyone transport martins body from the scene? no. why not? not part of our job. deceased left for medical examiner's office? yes 14:19:56 other than taking can out, move or collect other items? no 14:20:09 states exhibit 20, recognize? yes. fair and accurate on how he appeared after pronounced dead? we had shirt up, but yes. states 25, accurate? yes. and states 80? yes. and states 28, what's depicted? gunshot wound. (Fulton turning away from screen) when his sweatshirts were pulled up? yes 14:21:04 see zimmerman in court this afternoon? yes. standing to my left? yes 14:21:19 where was he when you made contact? sitting in police car 14:21:29 met with him, talk to him? yes. appear to have difficulty understand? no. difficulty understanding him? no. memory problems? no. Objection! SUSTAIN. DISREGARD QUESTION AND ANSWER 14:22:08 glascoe scoring system? to determine response of patient... three sections., series of numbers ... command to pain. 14:22:45 what's the highest score they can get, most alert? 15. what was defendants score? 15. indicate to you? for eye response it was spontaneous, obeyed commands 14:23:17 observe injuries? yes. what? swollen, bleeding nose, lacerations to back of head. nose bleeding when you arrived? I dont believe it was actively bleeding, still moist. treat his nose? tried to clean up injuries to see them better to determine... 14:23:54 describe lacerations on the back? I recall two... approximately an inch long... were either of those bleeding? not actively, but had been. how did you treat? clean up a little to view injury better 14:24:24 at any point while treating, did he stand up? yes. trouble with balance? I dont believe so 14:24:36 how long were you treating him? maybe 5 minutes 14:24:45 transport from scene? no. why not? determined if he needed further treatment Sanford PD would take him. leave him in custody with police? yes. any further involvement with him? no 14:25:18 fair and accurate as he appeared in back? yes. states 76, fair and accurate of back of his head? yes. CROSS 14:25:43 O'Mara: afternoon. how are you 14:25:52 speaking about when you came in contact with my client, in back of patrol car? yes. 14:26:03 front picture... didn't do evaluation, did you... two other paramedics? what do you mean evaluation. to identify injuries, wasn't mike in lead? myself and kevin treated zimmerman. wasn't mike there as well? on scene 14:26:41 when you did evaluation, noticed nose was swollen? yes very swollen. 14:26:52 explain, we saw the picture.... fairly and accurately depict face and nose? yes. may have even wiped it a bit... before that picture? I dont know 14:27:49 tell me what you see there as far as his injuries? the bridge of nose is swollen... off to his right or nose? both sides swollen... left side swollen as well? the entire area 14:28:21 what is that on the bridge of nose toward right eye, that little red spot? small laceration. note that as well? I did not. 14:28:40 how does someone get a laceration like that? I dont know 14:28:47 consistent with getting struck by a fist? it could 14:28:56 consistent with fist strike to nose? very possibly 14:29:11 injuries to left forehead, markings up there? abrasion 14:29:24 how that may have been? I cannot 14:29:31 agree separate injury than nose injury? yes 14:29:39 on the tip of his nose? blood... still moist in process of drying? yes. coming from where? nose. inside? yes. indicate to you? 14:30:11 as best you can, describe how a shot to the nose would cause bleeding like that? blood vessels would initiate bleeding. exist up in nose? yes 14:30:30 blood that breaks or escapes when laying on your back.... that injury laying on back, where would blow go? you would swallow it... 14:30:53 swallowing own blood? right 14:31:07 injuries on back of head... that night the same way? yes. cleaned them off? I did. lacerations an inch long each? approximately. not actively bleeding when you saw them? no 14:31:38 concerns with head injury... medical condition that may happen because of those injuries? asked if he lost consciousness... if he felt dizzy 14:32:15 concerned to concussive injuries? correct. concussion when head hit that way? correct. brain injury from that? possibly. something to be aware of? yes. only as treating him? yes 14:32:45 reasonable in your opinion for someone to be concerned about their safety? repeat 14:32:58 someone who got those injuries should be concerned with medical safety? possibly 14:33:26 did... what is the normal procedure for head injuries and getting them x rayed? transported to medical facility to be x rayed. take to hospital? if they choose to go. who makes that decision? if patient is awake they make it 14:34:05 left to non-medical personnel? we discussed and said happy to transport him, if he was going to receive medical care, police would take him. 14:34:31 had it not been for police involvement, suggest to that person to get x rays? happy to transport, but up to them 14:34:49 moment? YES 14:35:23 able to get up ... stood up without trouble, able to stand? sitting sideways in police car... door open and feet were out... said he had been dizzy, we asked him to stand up and he was able to stand up... with assistance of officer smith and paramedics? I dont recall if he was hand cuffed behind his back... recall Tim smith helping him out of the car when complaining about being dizzy? I do not... if mike helped him out? I do not 14:36:31 focus on injuries, clean and evaluate? yes REDIRECT 14:36:40 guy: observations, both physical and mental capabilities... concern about brain injury? I wouldn't make that determination. ever complain of anything other than dizziness? not to me 14:37:06 ever lose consciousness? not while we were with him. did someone else about that prior to arrival? I believe so. what did he say? I dint ask, I dont know 14:37:28 measure lacerations? no. approx. an inch is a guess? yes. defer to someone who actually measured them? to be exact, yes 14:37:50 MAY SHE BE EXCUSED? CALL NEXT WITNESS.... Tim smith 14:38:37 (sworn in) 14:38:57 guy: name? officer timothy smith. employed? Sanford pd. since? 2008. 14:39:12 how long in patrol? 7 years 14:39:20 February 26 2012, working? yes. standard patrol uniform? yes. traveling? in my marked Sanford police vehicle. alone? alone 14:39:38 respond to dispatch? yes I did. approximate time? shortly after 7 pm 14:39:49 nature of dispatch? suspicious persons. where before? approximately a 1 mile and a half away. respond? a few minutes 14:40:18 receive update on route? yes. shots fired 14:40:25 address to respond to? yes. what address? 1231 twin trees 14:40:39 where when you received the update? entering gates of community. how did you get through the gate code? dispatch 14:41:05 states exhibit 2, aerial photo? yes. show jury the complex.... 14:41:28 your location when you received dispatch? right here... the route you took/ down Rinehart to Oregon to the front entrance here 14:41:50 states exhibit 1.. aerial of complex itself? yes 14:42:01 where you went first when you entered the complex? through the front gates her, down through here... this is twin trees 14:42:21 went first to 1231, update to location? 1231 was what I was originally given.... where did you go? given update from address on retreat view, behind that location... recall address given? 2821 retreat view. where did you go? down twin tress, to retreat view, address in this area 14:43:18 as you were en route, stop anywhere and observe things or use flash light? I did... where? in between sets of town homes. what did you do? used spot light to shine down walk way... inside the car. what did you see? toward end of walk way at least one person standing outside 14:43:59 anything more? not from where I was 14:44:05 continue around to address? yes 14:44:12 where you parked and what you did? roughly in this area, went around to the left to go in between the town homes... lighting conditions? dark 14:44:33 flashlight with you? yes. use that? I did... weather? raining. got behind townhomes, see anyone? I did. how many? at least two standing and one on ground 14:45:02 where they were that were standing up? in this area here... person on ground? in grassy area to left of sidewalk 14:45:25 shine flashlight on person on ground? yes. how positioned? face down. see their hands? no I could not 14:45:43 learn that to be martin? yes. approach at that time? I did not. why not? in contact with gentleman on side walk 14:45:58 states 5, general idea of lighting conditions? yes. states 77, recognize that? I do. accurate depictions of body? yes 14:46:23 contact with who was standing up to be zimmerman? yes. see him here today? yes. standing to left? yes he is 14:46:46 did defendant have trouble standing? no he did not. appear to have trouble balancing? no sir 14:46:58 say anything to defendant? I did. what? asked him if he saw what happened. he said he did. asked if the subject on ground had been shot, he responded he did and he was still armed 14:47:26 have trouble understanding your questions? no. trouble understanding answers? no. 14:47:49 still armed, what did you do? I took my weapon and he complied 14:48:04 where was his gun? right hip 14:48:11 handcuff? I did. in front of in back? back. why? policy 14:48:20 remove gun from person? yes. in holster? yes. take gun or gun and holster? gun and holster. where did you put it? on me because I was not near my vehicle... tucked in between magazine and vest 14:48:53 inside pants or outside when he showed to you? I dont. see gun when you approached? no. see holster when you approached? no 14:49:14 what did you do with defendant after hand cuffs? in patrol car... trouble walking? no 14:49:33 Sanford PD respond in short order? yes. who first after you? officer ayala 14:49:46 what did he do when he arrived? went to attend to martin 14:49:55 recall any other officers going to martins body? yes. who? sergeant ramondo 14:50:13 wearing gloves when you removed gun and holster? I was not. 14:50:21 handle fire arm in special way? no sir. why not? not enough time 14:50:38 secure firearm? I did. how? removed magazine from firearm and locked slide to rear 14:50:52 remove magazine, semi-automatic pistol.. .locked to rear, round in chamber? yes. what happened? ejected. collect it? I did. keep all together with firearm? yes. put them? in my vehicle until I got a gun box 14:51:27 what's that? cardboard box to secure evidence. 14:51:36 what did you do with the ammunition and holster? also admitted into evidence... turn those over to wife Diana smith? correct. also called to scene? correct 14:52:10 states 154, examine that... recognize contents? yes. that would be hand gun, holster and magazine I removed 14:52:35 case information your hand writing, etc.? yes 14:52:41 for the jury's sake, hold up fire arm.... holster..... and the magazine and rounds 14:53:06 all of this you turned over to Diana smith? yes. crime scene technician assigned to case? yes sir 14:53:28 was fire rescue dispatched? yes. respond to scene? yes. examine and treat defendant? yes. what injuries did you observe? bloody noise, lacerations to head and contusions 14:53:56 did another Sanford police officer take picture? yes. who? officer mike Wagner 14:54:08 aware civilian took photo of back of head? not at that time. before you arrived? yes sir 14:54:33 states exhibit 6, is that another depiction of lighting? yes. states 34, recognize? yes. approximate area you parked patrol car? yes. states 132, photo of the entrance of the retreat? yes. states 133, recognize that to be closer shot of front entrance? yes. states 134, shot going into complex with clubhouse in the right? yes. states 135, what's that? front of club house. states 136, recognize? mail box kiosk 14:55:42 states 137, close up of mail box? yes sir 14:55:50 states 138, depiction of rear gate? yes it is 14:56:00 states 79, recognize? yes. the photo Wagner took of defendant? yes 14:56:11 states 76, depict defendants head or close to it? yes. 14:56:30 recall what defendant was wearing? red and black jacket and blue jeans 14:56:41 first made contact, jacket pushed up in any way? I dont believe so. tears in his jacket? no. what did you notice? the back of it was wetter than the front of it... covered in grass 14:57:14 condition of his pants? vaguely. blue jeans? yes sir. anything else? the back was wetter than the front 14:57:29 after rescue clean defendant, what did you do? transported to station. why? to be interviewed by criminal division. how long did trip take? roughly 15 minutes 14:57:56 while you were making transport did defendant say anything about injuries? felt he was light headed. what did you do? forward opportunity to go to hospital. asked him if he wanted to go... he said he wasn't sure what he should do... decided he didn't want to go to hospital 14:58:41 en route with defendant did he faint? no. arriving at the station, any injuries? no. park where? sally port 14:59:11 remove defendant from car, any trouble bouncing or walking? yes. still handcuffed? yes sir 14:59:26 walk with you inside station? yes sir. still handcuffed? yes sir. trouble walking throughout the station? no sir 14:59:39 are portions of interior surveyed by video cameras? yes. defendant arriving at station video? yes. fairly and accurately depict? yes. after he got out of car.. any blood in car? no sir 15:00:18 where did you take defendant after station? interview room 15:00:37 stats 192... composite. ANY OBJECTION? O'Mara: moment with council. 15:00:59 GOOD MINUTE FOR RECESS?... 15 MINUTE RECESS =================== 15:16:38 PLEASE BE SEATED 15:17:10 (zimmerman walking back in) READY TO BRING JURY BACK IN? yes. yes. 15:18:56 PLEASE BE SEATED. YOU MAY CONTINUE 15:19:04 guy: publish states 192 (playing the police surveillance video)... inside the sally port area? yes. that your patrol car pulling in? yes it is... is that you that just got out? yes sir 15:21:18 accurate depiction as he got out? yes. 15:21:39 (playing police video of the halls) you and defendant walking through? yes. 15:22:02 (playing another clip) again you and defendant walking through another portion? yes 15:22:25 take into interview room? yes. anyone in there? no. uncuff defendant? yes. offer a drink? yes. stay in with him? no. where did you go? rooms monitor by one way glass. see defendant? yes. watch until someone arrived to speak with him? yes. how long? 30-40 minutes 15:23:06 watching defendant did he lose consciousness? no. fall out of chair? no 15:23:20 anything that caused concern with health? no. who was it that arrived? investigator 15:23:37 where were you when they were speaking? one way glass.. hear it? not enough to make it out 15:23:51 that's all I have CROSS 15:24:01 O'Mara: afternoon 15:24:07 how long an officer? since 2005. training? attended law enforcement academy. how long? 700 hours 15:24:23 taken any other courses community college? attended Seminole state college 15:24:35 what type of courses? general education. focus on criminal justice? not at Seminole state, no sir 15:24:50 how long did you want to be a cop? since I was little. life goal? yes. why? enjoy helping and educating 15:25:07 protect and serve, goal of yours? yes sir. noble goal? yes. enjoy it? yes sir 15:25:23 can't enjoy when you get a shots fired called, concerning? yes sir. 15:25:32 radio and get call of disturbance? suspicious person. shots fired? yes. what do you do then? you wait for a little more information, officer safety issue 15:26:06 came in did the circle and were able to shine a light down that alley way toward the event? yes. noticed one person to the end? yes. tell who it was? no 15:26:30 pull up car, get out and take out... how do you equip yourself? due to lighting I grabbed a flash light 15:26:48 another officer had flashlight on gun? yes... but I used an actual standard flash light 15:27:03 heading over toward the scene, know that was the scene it occurred? no sir I did not... came up on scene, did you take out revolver? not at that point 15:27:23 see what? zimmerman on sidewalk, somebody with him, and trayvon lying in grass 15:27:35 walkway that you were on..? sidewalk makes a t 15:27:45 where near the T or how far down from the T? came around side of building top of T, 30 ft. from intersection 15:28:02 close by to martins body? yes. within feet? yes. what was zimmerman doing? standing on side walk. look toward you coming at him? yes. anyone else present? may have been, not sure 15:28:31 flash light on zimmerman? yes. could you tell his clothes? yes 15:28:40 see injuries to his nose? yes 15:28:49 similar as to the picture we saw? yes. more at that point? correct. eyes were watered? yes 15:29:04 both eyes? correct 15:29:08 what did you say to him? asked if he seen what happened. he said yes. appropriate, anything wrong with response? no. he saw that he shot and he was still armed 15:29:36 response at that point? at that point is when I unholstered my service weapon. take it out? yes. protocol? yes 15:29:59 pointed at him? yes. appropriate? yes. not pointed because of immediate threat he proposed to you? no. he was completely cooperative? yes 15:30:22 on him to take care of situation? yes sir. 15:30:28 what did you next ask him? telling he was armed.... 15:30:44 gun on his right hip, so this jacket is longer but if we flipped it up? hands going up and leaning over.... gun was exposed? correct. jacket didn't cover gun by more than a few inches? I dont think so 15:31:20 small movement exposed gun? correct. 15:31:35 if he had a cell phone in hand or not? I dont recall... 15:31:45 kept hands in air? yes. what do you do at that point? I asked zimmerman to put hands on top his hand and interlock his fingers, holster again and secure his hands. protocol? choice 15:32:15 resist? no. turn him around or go behind him? I was behind him... take one get it back and then the other one? correct. 15:32:37 what percentage offer resistance? Object! Relevance of anyone else SUSTAINED 15:32:53 have you had others resist? Object! Same! Rephrase it 15:33:04 did zimmerman offer any response to you cuffing him? resistance? no 15:33:20 complied with that command immediately? yes. and completely? yes 15:33:33 secured... able to secure fire arm? yes. at that point your focus even more saw than others involved is to secure fire arm? correct. just grabbed the gun, in perfect world would have gloves... necessary for circumstances? yes 15:34:13 at that point, is your first contact to zimmerman, seem angry? no. seem frustrated? no. see spiteful of anything going on? no. ill will or hatred at all? no 15:34:40 any concern about him at all except his injuries? no sir 15:34:48 even though he had obvious injury to nose, any to back of head? while securing him, yes... see blood dripping down back of head? correct. with those, seem agitated? no 15:35:12 testimony that he was seemingly calm? yes. having just gone through what he went through and shot somebody, did his behavior seem strange? no. usual? I wouldn't say usual 15:35:44 was it particularly unusual? no. even for circumstances? no sir 15:35:54 didn't think he was... come across as being cavalier? no. uncaring? no. fairly appropriate for what he had gone through? correct 15:36:13 secure gun and then? had zimmerman have seat in rear of patrol car 15:36:24 walk over... another officer? yes ayala 15:36:47 ayala took over other person? yes. 15:36:53 as you were going, anything else you recall zimmerman saying? not before... 15:37:05 walking toward car, utter to you something? he was yelling for help and that nobody would come help him. 15:37:28 a few minutes... as long as it took what we just talked about? correct 15:37:37 secured gun, walked toward car? yes. during that walk, almost immediately that he uttered to you? not very long. said to you twice? correct. after you got to car? correct 15:38:02 how he said that? almost a confusion.... confused look on his face 15:38:20 like he didn't know why nobody would come help him? Object! SUSTAINED 15:38:32 he was confused? correct 15:38:44 testified about condition.... also said back of jacket was wet... raining on and off that evening.. was back more wet than rest of body? yes. as if lying on grass? that's right 15:39:16 piece of grass on back? yes 15:39:23 blue jeans, back were wet as well? a little bit darker.... he had been laying on his back... and jeans were wet as well 15:39:57 stayed with him the entire time? yes. there when medical treated? I was 15:40:11 did he say anything about facts of the case to medical personnel? no sir 15:40:22 first arrested him, retain him... ask for lawyer? no. ever ask for one? no sir 15:40:37 car medical personnel deal with him, waiting for them to finish so you could transport him? correct. mainly reason for waiting around? wait to see if they decide to transport or not 15:41:03 how is that accomplished? through paramedics. crowd of paramedics 15:41:21 in the back of your car, legs out and paramedics attending? correct. which paramedic made decision to transport or not? I dont 15:41:41 impact on that? no 15:41:48 left in their hands? yes sir 15:41:52 released to you? correct. put him in back seat of car.... help him get up out of the car.... still cuffed.... he's acknowledged having shot somebody not going to release just yet? correct 15:42:34 medical personnel wanted him lifted up, help lift up? no. if another helped? I dont recall. maybe two paramedics lifted him up. do you remember that happening? I remember him standing up... dont know who helped him 15:43:07 conversation about feeling light headed? light headed and had headache... consistent with injuries? yes. call over to Sanford PD to figure out what to do with him? I called a supervisor who was on scene... who? sergeant McCoy. conversation? explained his comment and she said if he wanted to go to hospital take him there. 15:43:54 discussion with zimmerman, expenses of hospital would be on his shoulders... I dont recall that 15:44:06 doesn't cover expense if he goes? I dont think so 15:44:14 seen pictures.... after cleaned up? correct. pictures taken after midnight? I dont know what time, but after 15:44:31 after initial interview? correct 15:44:39 who cleaned him up? at the station given water and tissues. to clean himself? correct 15:44:54 first with blood to the one where blood was gone? fire department on scene and at the station 15:45:14 ever a time at Sanford PD where there was any other videotaping of him? not that I'm aware of, no sir 15:45:29 ever a time where he needed physical assistance, leaning against wall? no sir 15:45:49 watched him for 30-40 minutes before they talked to him? correct. watched that interrogation or interview? yes. was he cooperative? appeared to be. lawyer there? I dont know. had he asked for one interview would've stopped? correct. moment? YES REDIRECT 15:46:54 asked if when you came into contact he seemed to be angry or frustrated and he was not? correct. 15:47:07 do you know what was going on in his head when he shot martin? Object! Speculation SUSTAINED 15:47:23 what was going on in his head? Object SUSTAINED 15:47:38 fire arm visible like this? yes. fire arm visible near martins location in that lighting? I dont know 15:47:54 offered defendant tissue? yes. did anyone else clean at the station? not that I saw 15:48:08 publish one more photograph 15:48:27 states 46, is that fair and accurate of defendant at police after cleaned up? yes sir... evening on 26th? yes sir RECROSS 15:48:55 suggested maneuvering, lifted up left arm, you testified the gun was on right side? correct. 15:49:12 no question in your mind the gun was located on right hip? no I dont 15:49:21 left arm was just a mistake? correct 15:49:28 MAY OFFICER SMITH BE EXCUSED?...CALL NEXT WITNESS..... lindzee folgate 15:50:44 (sworn in) 15:51:34 rionda: name? lindzee folgate. occupation? physician. employed? Altamonte family practice 15:51:59 education? physician assistant. I underwent 4 years in undergrad, 2 yrs. at UF for masters. when? June 2006 to June 2008 15:52:33 was in physician assistant studies? correct. certified in Florida? yes 15:52:44 explain what you do? physician assistant, master's degree different than nurse... medical model, purpose is to have direct patient contact. different than doctor? physician is 4 years and then a residency... 2 year program didactic school.. and then clinical 15:53:36 able to do everything a doctor does except? cannot sign off on controlled substances 15:53:52 own patients? I do. how long at Altamonte family practice? April 2011 15:54:11 come into our office... paperwork... insurance verified... chart taken back... medical assistant gets chart and gets basic note of why they were being seen 15:54:48 involved with patient? yes 15:54:52 patient of zimmerman? he was. see him here today? I do. person who stood up? yes 15:55:13 first contact was on august 19, 2011? correct 15:55:22 dealing with him first time history obtained? yes. review information to make sure you document everything? yes 15:55:51 introduce at this time, states exhibit 195... august 19th 2011....O'Mara: approach on that? (sidebar) 15:58:46 MATTER OUTSIDE YOUR PRESENCE, NOTEPADS FACE DOWN.. FOLLOW TO JURY ROOM 16:00:16 (witness leaving court room) 16:00:31 DISCUSSING STATES EXHIBIT 195.. OBJECTION IS TO RELEVANCE OF CERTAIN PORTIONS 16:00:45 O'Mara: testify what she remembers, medical records to recollect... shouldn't be admitted though.... if in fact they are allowed, redacted more severely... only ones not redacted are the injuries and exercising... short of that I dont think any other words, comments, or history would be relevant or admissible 16:01:48 rionda: august 19th treatment of this defendant, establish.... ok with testify but doesn't want it to come in... O'Mara: one sentence....... relevancy tot his case... two sentences they.... 16:02:46 COME UP TO BENCH AND WE CAN GO OVER THESE PAGE BY PAGE.... (sidebar) 16:26:53 GET MS. FOLGATE BACK IN THE COURT ROOM... 16:31:24 BRING THE JURY IN.... 16:32:31 PLEASE BE SEATED... CONTINUE RIONDA 16:32:39 you having zimmerman as prior patient, august 19th 2011? correct. 16:32:57 part of your contact, history? correct. 16:33:05 obtain history spoke to him? yes, come with history so we know what it may be. 16:33:23 states 195... recognize that exhibit? yes. 16:33:37 highlighted certain parts I want to ask about.... 16:33:46 that record indicates patient of yours... George m zimmerman, race white? yes 16:33:59 date august 19th 2011? yes 16:34:10 first highlighted part? seen in office to establish care, refer from insurance provider. difficulty with falling and maintaining sleep, started MMA and that didn't help 16:34:55 highlighted in yellow? patient here to establish care... list of insurance providers 16:35:22 September 23rd 2011... states exhibit 196? yes 16:35:43 treatment... contact again that day? correct. 16:35:57 on that day also... gathered George m zimmerman, male, white, sept 2011? yes. social history, exercise? Mixed Martial Arts 3 days per week 16:36:46 states exhibit 194... seen him on February 27th 2012? correct. 16:37:25 exhibit in front of you? correct. reference on pg. 2 stuff that's scratched out... dont read that 16:37:43 dealt with him on that day at what time? 11:02 am 16:37:52 recall specifically meeting with him? I do remember that day yes. see him in terms of treating him? correct 16:38:18 moment? YES 16:38:28 on that date when you treated him, did you... history obtained for what he was there for? yes. same? noted on the notes and then discuss him concerns 16:38:47 history taken by medical assistant? exactly 16:38:58 the way you would've dealt with him.... print out of combined records... start at beginning... first contact what did you deal with? on this visit? yes... February 27th 2012 11:02 am 16:39:31 the patient brought back to room, vitals and history... review that, enter room we discuss his complaints he was there for 16:39:51 vital signs first? yes. then patient is here for...? correct 16:40:04 page 2 of those records... here for what? a return note for work... in fight 2-26... punched in nose, two lacerations, 911 was called and EMT said patients nose was broken. telling medical assistant? correct. fight on Feb. 26th 2012, punched in nose, two lacerations in back of head.. EMT said nose was broken? correct 16:41:04 reviewed that and had contact with him? correct. history of present illness? that's where I would begin 16:41:20 talked to him and he tells you ailment and you treat it? correct 16:41:28 what he tells you? talking during that time .... involved in altercations, assaulted, head hit in pavement... weapon and fired at attacker killing him... evaluated by EMS at scene, lacerations clean... denies being taken to hospital.. returns to work and they said he needed a note to return 16:42:17 statements as to what happened and why he's there? correct. nasal pain? correct. 16:42:34 tells you history and you diagnose? ask questions which we clarify.. review of systems, confirm or deny symptoms... then determine 16:43:04 review of symptoms? asked if he had headaches, slurred speech, vision, vomiting, abdominal pain.... review any other symptoms that may have been involved 16:43:40 denied HA? headache. change in VA? visual acuity. denied slurred speech? talking any more abnormal than normally. denied dizziness? off balance. gate abnormality? walking fine... walking as if you were drunk or staggering 16:44:33 admits to occasional nausea when reflecting on that night, no abdominal pain.... not from abdominal, more psychological 16:45:08 the SI joint... tenderness on left side since altercation 16:45:21 denies numbness? follow up question on anyone with SI joint tenderness... 16:45:39 drop down on computer,... denies fever and chills? correct. 16:45:57 ears, nose, mouth throat? nose pain, but no hearing loss or ringing in ears. 16:46:11 significance? trauma he sustained would there be any significant complaints 16:46:39 cardiovascular? denies abnormal irregular heartbeats... denies shortness of breath 16:47:10 admits skin lacerations... admits to head trauma based on story, but denies other head occurrences... admits to stress, but not suicide.... 16:47:45 significance? more concerning or lead me to down another line of questioning 16:48:00 no concerns in terms of not losing consciousness, no problem concentration or weakness or headaches? correct 16:48:18 complained of those, what steps? based on physical exam and take those into considerations 16:48:37 at this point, no concern regarding that? less concern based on what he's telling me 16:48:51 next to physical exam 16:48:54 cover that? first part is general appearance... no acute distress.... physical shortness of breath... obese, height and weight. 16:49:23 height and weight? 5'7.5" 204 lbs. 16:49:42 obese... based on? body mass index... 16:49:55 next sentence there? alert and oriented, appears stated age... take that into account given head trauma 16:50:15 head... symmetric... two scalp lacerations 16:50:34 significance of measurement? the significant means two cut to back part of head.. measured to have documented 16:51:04 two centimeters and .5 centimeters? yes. 2 cm is this big and 0.5 is much smaller 16:51:27 review of those lacerations, anything additional needed to be done? based on how well skin is approximated and how deep... based off of approximation, no sutures necessary 16:51:57 laceration vs. cut? laceration is basically a proper term for cut 16:52:08 not deep enough for stitches? correct 16:52:18 skin edges were approximated well? correct 16:52:27 eyes? pupils are equal round and reactive to light... normal movement in each direction 16:52:49 the white parts of eyes... no injection, but noted he had bilateral black eyes... skin discoloration to bottom portion of eyes 16:53:12 any other trauma to head? I did not at the time, I did not recall 16:53:24 ears nose mouth and throat? folds between nose and mouth... swelling and bruising... no evidence of sepal deviation, no bleeding in nose, no blood behind ear drums, no evidence of tonsils 16:54:10 septal deviation? alignment of nose... straight? correct. damaged? not on visual inspection, no 16:54:32 everything else seemed normal? correct 16:54:37 tender left SI? correct. about that? space located in the center of your butt 16:54:56 gave him medicine for complaint he had? yes. Lowdean, anti emphlamatory 16:55:16 bandages? one covering them. remove to see them? correct 16:55:28 he said EMT told him it was broken? what I was told... nose broken on your examination? likely, hard to say definitely no x rays though.... broken nose could be made clinically as well and that's the black eyes we saw 16:56:02 it is or isn't or you dont know? can't say definitively, but clinically appearing yes 16:56:47 plan decision making process? yes... 16:56:57 scalp lacerations, no sutures needed? nope. no stitches 16:57:08 broke nose, likely but not appear to have septal deviation? correct 16:57:22 your there, recommend something about broken nose? he see an ENT specialist. told me at the time he was not going to go to ENT 16:57:54 regarding SI joint pen, suggestions? lowdean, heat, ice and massage 16:58:18 seen him 3 times and other times... prior occasion of back pain, recall? yes. treat him? related to constipation 16:58:39 moment? YES YOU MAY 16:58:49 laceration to head, two of them... how do those bleed in distinguishing a cut from somewhere else... head bleeds more? scalp is very vascular.. scalp laceration can bleed more than other parts of body 16:59:23 if they dont have hair? less noticeable because there would be hair blocking that area 16:59:39 cushion or not notice? possibly both... mixed up with hair CROSS 17:01:13 O'Mara: good afternoon 17:01:21 patient for a while before event? correct 17:01:27 start with last question, did not have back pain caused by back injury before event? no. internal back pain? yes 17:02:02 focus then on that night... 17:02:20 is this close to how presented to you that day? from what I recall similar 17:02:38 this was taken night before, maybe 12 hours before you saw him... pretty similar? fairly similar 17:03:04 seen this before? I have not. 17:03:09 if this person presented himself to you... looking like this, what would you have done? we would've cleaned the wounds to better evaluate process 17:03:33 look at this photo instead of other one, focus attention to nose area? Objection! Relevancy and Speculation. LET ME HEAR THE REST OF THE QUESTION 17:03:58 swelling gone down since this picture? decreased slightly 17:04:09 four hours difference between this picture and that picture... normal receding of swelling? depends on what he's using to keep swelling down 17:04:29 injury of this significance to look like that 5 hours later? yes it could 17:04:43 in this picture the nose is in fact more swollen that that one? appears to be... body naturally tries to take care of itself... 17:05:08 body recovering... depends on what your using.. 17:05:17 may look as though it's a bone protrusion, not actually a bone protruding out there? unlikely.... 17:05:34 swells up at point of injury? it does, it can... because of trauma of hit? it can 17:05:48 body swells up in area of trauma? reacting to something that happened, blood rush, more fluid under skin... 17:06:10 lymph fluid and white blood cells? they can... 17:06:20 bleeding happening indicates broken blood vessels? it can.. likely bleeding in the nares if you see it coming down the nose 17:06:48 gravity will pull it down... on back? swallow down throat 17:07:01 as it goes back down the sinuses, goes into back of throat? it can... swallowing your own blood? you can 17:07:22 swelling that we spoke about is initial reaction to trauma... last only a few hours? depends on level of trauma and patient 17:07:38 diminish that the body was traumatized? no... 17:07:48 natural reaction to begin healing immediately? correct 17:07:58 cleaned up after blood was removed 17:08:13 larger laceration here? appears to be, but blood surrounding area... clean it up its better 17:08:29 seen this before? I have not. 17:08:36 would the scalp bleed in fashion like this? it can... scalp is vascular... bleed down back like that? gravity 17:09:02 other picture of zimmerman that night... 17:09:15 see that photo? I can. note additional areas or swelling that you didn't notice on physical evaluation? anything in this area of swelling? swelling there that I can see 17:09:46 resolve itself between the 12 hours you saw him? could have yes 17:09:56 misshapen area? yes... scalp hematomas... how does that occur? trauma to head, collection of blood or fluid there 17:10:26 smash my head here, cause blood of lymph system? yes. similar to nose, go there do its job and recede? correct... that's what caused it here/ it could 17:10:58 what is the potential outcome from head trauma like that? depends on physical exam of patient... any sort of head trauma can result in internal injury, bleeding into brain 17:11:28 that may be not have external notice correct? an epidural or subdural would be below the skull... hematoma is outside the skull between the skin 17:12:13 can have injuries like this cause that? not those lacerations, but trauma 17:12:36 skull smashed on concrete sufficient enough to get that injury... cause subdural epidural? could depending on impact 17:13:02 below the skull where the brain is? correct 17:13:08 reason you do what you do to make sure he can focus eyes and speak... may be brain injury? correct 17:13:23 charge is to rule out possibility, but agree it exists with injury like this? it can, yes 17:13:38 see the swelling again? correct 17:13:59 see that injury or occurrence up there? abrasion of scalp 17:14:11 call that punk tate bruising? can be, depends on surface... abrasion is thick layer coming off... punk tate injuries are blood vessels small capillary injuries... way to occur is flat concrete? it could... if hit on concrete the rough surface could've caused that... consistent with concrete? can be, with other surfaces as well 17:15:17 come to you and say he had that injury because of concrete? Objection! Speculation SHES ALREADY TESTIFIED TO THAT 17:15:40 injury there? I dont recall. what is that? scratch or abrasion of skin 17:16:00 look up here at that injury there? swelling there... another bruise? hard to tell if its discolored, does appear to be swelling. bump on head? correct. come from hitting head on any surface or being struck by something 17:16:39 punk tate? I can see that. 17:17:05 do you see this area right there of swelling? hard to tell from side view. see this here? Objection! Leading! SUSTAINED 17:17:34 see anything in this area that I'm circling? abrasion there 17:17:46 consistent with head being hit on concrete? it can be consistent with that 17:18:02 abrasion you identified earlier? appears to be.... going back, area of swelling? does appear to be swelling, take into account of physical exam 17:18:31 may well have resolved itself in 12 hours before? it could potentially have 17:18:44 this area above his left eye? slightly shaded, possibly another abrasion... lacerations here? I can see those yes 17:19:05 area with misshapen skull? appears to be yes 17:19:17 look at this side, right side of skull... here? swelling with abrasions noted before... here? additional abrasions. come from own strike upon something? hard to determine. one up here? difficult to determine... better view of misshapen area from this perspective? better of skull itself 17:20:17 testified to these areas and bruising up here? correct 17:20:39 close up of area of lacerations... describe what you see here, additional areas around lacerations... consistent with trauma 17:21:01 caused laceration and compression injury? could cause the swelling 17:21:15 consistent with concrete? could be.. yes 17:21:20 head hit on concrete, consistent with injuries? I would 17:21:41 report itself, rionda went over... high points on it... his vital signs, 130/80? correct. concern for 28 yr. old? slightly high, never had a problem before... not a good high blood pressure? 180/20 or less, but not a concern at 130... pulse high 17:22:32 evidencing what? stress, trauma, heart... cardiac condition 17:22:48 not in top shape? not where we like it to be. BMI? 31.48... clinically obese? correct... not healthy? correct. not athletic? not at ideal range of standards 17:23:24 gone through injuries, SI injury... consistent with falling on back or butt? it can't be... SI is? sychro iliad. at base of spine? where each side of buttox are... one on each side. SI through trauma or fall, improper stretching technique or athletic performance 17:24:24 hit in nose by attacker? correct. consistent with these injuries? that would be 17:24:36 SI injury consistent with being thrown on ground to back? it would be. 17:24:50 only way to really identify if nose is broke is with x ray? definitive way 17:25:03 easier to be conclusive if you saw septal deviation? clinically, could possibly be more definitive answer 17:25:21 break? correct... need to have x ray for accomplish? correct. refer to ENT? correct. to document what you couldn't? correct 17:25:48 wasn't going because of high deductible on insurance policy? I dont remember a conversation about cost 17:26:01 conversation about cost? I dont recall... may have had in conversation, but I dont recall 17:26:17 needed to see ENT for nose injury, better than cleaned up picture? correct 17:26:44 also suggested that he should get psycho consult? correct. why? already seeing one and if you go through ordeal he told me I would recommend anybody see a psychologist 17:27:13 make certain you would document injuries with being attacked? I dont recall.. reporting as they exist? yes. not looking for medical reason for injury? did not appear that way. document by your evaluation and the injuries existed? they did 17:27:49 psychological concern existed as well? yes, for anybody who was concern with that 17:28:03 supported by injuries he showed to you? supported by that 17:28:17 didn't note in the cleaned up picture any black eyes? I didn't notice them from picture 17:28:32 as the body begins to heal, rushes to area of trauma and recedes... timeline on eyes to go black? more apparent on later date... swelling and then swelling recedes and then black eyes 17:29:01 residual blood that escaped capillaries in the soft pockets? correct. no black eye a moment or two after punch in nose? not that quickly 17:29:22 consistent that when you saw him at 11 am his eyes would be blacken? could be... consistent with what I saw in my exam 17:29:52 was he trying to make up or document significant injuries and you said he wasn't? not from my impression. minimize injuries and get it behind him? I dont recall that per say that certain effect 17:30:47 bandage, appropriate for that injury? fine given that scalp lacerations weren't that deep 17:31:07 didn't look at that and wonder why would someone put bandage on injury? no... appropriate to keep them covered 17:31:30 make sense as nursing student to cover an open wound? Objection Speculation! SUSTAINED 17:31:47 saw those wounds, would you clean and put bandages? if the patient wanted a bandage, no problem to keep debris out of area 17:32:07 talked about what happens when you fall down... I may not get as injured because I have hair opposed to someone who does? depends on thickness on hair, not any less injured with having or not having hair 17:32:41 injuries are what they are? yes. inflicted those injuries knew how much hair was on body? Objection! SUSTAINED 17:33:01 asked zimmerman if he cut his hair in past 14 hours? no. 17:33:12 moment? YES REDIRECT 17:33:42 O'Mara: shape of the head, we all think head is perfectly shaped? not always true 17:33:59 everybody's head shaped is different, dont notice because they have hair on their head 17:34:13 bump may be preexisting? correct 17:34:31 those were all stuff that occurred the night before? hard to determine based on photo... would take physical exam as well 17:34:50 my point is, you saw him as a live person... looked at head? yes. you didn't glance, actually looked? yes. only saw two lacerations? that's all I noted... didn't notice this trauma? didn't document, but I dont recall any swelling. 17:35:30 note any swelling? those were the only two I noted 17:35:39 all trauma caused... cleaned up by the time he saw you? swelling was minimized... took an aspirin or two or natural? depends... natural or things you are using 17:36:07 not severe trauma? two scalp lacerations and I'm basing that on his complaints when he came in 17:36:28 only noticed those two lacerations? things I was looking for most because that's what we discussed personally 17:36:44 dizziness and consciousness, ruled out? based on what he tells me and my exam. ruled out? he was neurological in tact 17:37:11 brain injuries? doesn't mean he didn't, but doesn't mean he did 17:37:33 wasn't complaining of trauma? just the lacerations and his head being struck against the ground... looking at based on physical exam everything was intact... didn't order additional testing 17:38:02 also mentioned the signs to look for, didn't acquire additional testing 17:38:18 minor cleaning? cleaning to the area and then again dont know definitive answer to nasal area... recommended to go to ENT and he wasn't going? correct 17:38:42 didn't have insurance, dont recall that? I dont recall that discussion 17:38:55 notated... records Feb. 27th he came in for note for work? correct 17:39:10 didn't come in with head injuries, can't walk or function? concern was needed to return to work 17:39:29 psychological, already seeing one? yes 17:39:57 going back to august 19th 2011, first contact with him? correct. exercise routine? correct. MMA? correct. Objection! Outside scope SUSTAINED NOT BROUGHT UP IN CROSS. rionda: approach the bench? YES YOU MAY 17:42:08 rionda: zimmerman talked about MMA 3 days a week and 3 hours a day? correct 17:42:37 what kind of symptoms would you expect from gunshot? Object! SUSTAINED. nothing further RECROSS 17:43:06 O'Mara: he said aerobics? that's written on sheet, but I talked to him in the office... when I asked which aerobics he said mixed martial arts 17:43:36 agree that whatever he did to stop the attack, allowed him to survive it? could have potentially 17:43:52 stopping allowed him to survive? it could have RE-RE-DIRECT 17:43:59 rionda: speculation on your part? I wasn't there, I dont know exact trauma 17:44:13 YOU ARE EXCUSED. RECESS FOR EVENING AND WEEKEND.... ADVISE YOU NOT TO DISCUSS WITH OTHERS. NOT TO READ OR LISTEN TO REPORTS. NOT TO USE ANY TYPE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE. NOT TO READ OR CREATE TEXT MESSAGES SOCIAL MEDIA. ASSURANCE? yes. HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND 17:45:32 PLEASE BE SEATED. ANYTHING WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT BEFORE RECESS... O'Mara: your honor we...... (attorneys speaking with each other) 17:46:36 I NEED TO MAKE SURE 194, 195, 196 WILL BE HANDED TO COURT. 17:47:11 ANYTHING ELSE? O'Mara: might need court intervention for a couple minutes, give alternatives and come back at 9... COME BACK AT 8:30 MONDAY MORNING AND THEN AN EXTRA HALF HOUR TO SET UP... yes. yes. BACK AT 8:30 ON MONDAY. COURT IN RECESS THANK YOU George Zimmerman's defense attorney insisted during several testy exchanges with a key prosecution witness Thursday that Trayvon Martin injected race into his confrontation with the neighborhood watch volunteer and insinuated the young woman was not believable because of inconsistencies in her story. However, 19-year-old Rachel Jeantel stood firm in her testimony that Martin was the victim of an attack by Zimmerman. Another witness, Selma Mora, testified through a translator that she saw a person in red on top during the scuffle at one point. Zimmerman was wearing a red jacket that night. Mora says she asked person on the bottom, "what's going on?," but got no response. Zimmerman's defense has said that Martin was on top of him, punching him and smashing his head on the concrete.

AP-APTN-0830: Iran Morning Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:Iran Morning- REPLAY Residents react after deadline extended for elex review; vox pops, headlines LENGTH: 01:17 FIRST RUN: 0630 RESTRICTIONS: NO ACCESS BBC PERSIAN TV SERVICE/VOA PERSIAN TV TYPE: Farsi/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610625 DATELINE: Tehran, 24 June 2009 LENGTH: 01:17 ++NO ACCESS BBC PERSIAN TV SERVICE/ VOA PERSIAN TV++ ++AP Television is adhering to Iranian law that stipulates all media are banned from providing BBC Persian or VOA Persian any coverage from Iran, and under this law if any media violate this ban the Iranian authorities can immediately shut down that organisation in Tehran.++ SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of traffic on street 2. People waiting at bus stop 3. Man and woman running to catch bus 4. Close-up of newspaper headline reading (English) "GC rules out votes cancellation" 5. Pan from people looking at headlines to newspapers laid out for sale 6. SOUNDBITE: (Farsi) Vox pop, Salehi (no first name given), local resident: "When it (Guardians Council) wants its deadline to be extended it means there ought to be a specific reason for this. It has certainly found something and wants to follow it up and find a conclusion." 7. Close-up of newspaper headline reading (Farsi) "Guardian Council deadline to study electoral complains extended for five days" 8. Wide of people in front of news stand 9. SOUNDBITE: (Farsi) Vox pop, no name given, local resident: "If it (Guardians Council) declares a neutral stance it can put an end to this crisis. It should just be neutral. We are hopeful that they find a solution within the extended deadline so that we will not observe any more killing of our brothers in our country." 10. Wide of news stand STORYLINE: Overwhelmed by police and left with limited alternatives, Iranian demonstrators have resorted to more subtle ways of challenging the outcome of the presidential election: holding up posters, shouting from rooftops and turning on car headlights. But the restrained expressions of discontent appeared to be scattered as Iran's ruling clerics dealt the opposition new setbacks, making it clear they have no intention of holding a new vote and setting up a special court to deal with hundreds of protesters arrested in more than a week of unrest. The latest moves, and a fresh deployment of riot police and militia to break up any street gatherings, signalled the regime's determination to squelch dissent and mute the voices of those whose protests have been the largest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Amid the crackdown, there was one small concession on Tuesday from supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is law in the Islamic Republic. State TV said he agreed to extend by five days a deadline for registering complaints about the election. Yet the regime made it clear that it stood by the results and there would be no rerun of the disputed vote. State-run Press TV earlier quoted Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, the spokesman for Iran's top electoral body, the Guardians Council, as saying it found "no major fraud or breach in the election". However, some residents in Tehran were optimistic on Wednesday, saying there might be a reason for the extension of the deadline. "It (Guardians Council) has certainly found something and wants to follow it up and find a conclusion," one resident said. No rallies were reported on Tuesday. Many in Tehran seemed hesitant to confront the feared Revolutionary Guard and members of the Basij militia, suggesting the harsh response wrought by hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Khamenei to large and boisterous demonstrations may have weakened the opposition's resolve. Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi says he's the true winner of the election. Iran's electoral commission declared Ahmadinejad the winner by a landslide, ignoring Mousavi's claims of widespread and systematic vote fraud. Mousavi has been out of sight in recent days, but a short message posted on his Web site asserted that "all the reports of violations in the elections will be published soon". State TV reported that Ahmadinejad would be sworn in sometime between July 26 and August 19. Another opposition figure, reformist presidential candidate Mahdi Karroubi, called for a day of mourning for at least 17 people killed in protests since the election. Some social networking sites suggested that the mourning would take place on Thursday. On Monday, the council had acknowledged in a rare step that it found voting irregularities in 50 of 170 districts, including ballot counts that exceeded the number of eligible voters. Still, it said the discrepancies, involving some three (m) million votes, were not widespread enough to affect the outcome. Iran also expelled two diplomats from Britain - a country it bitterly accuses of meddling and spying - while Britain in turn sent two Iranian envoys home. A number of journalists have been detained since the protests began, although there have been conflicting accounts. The Paris-based Reporters Without Borders put the figure of reporters detained at 34. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said 13 were in custody. Severe restrictions on reporters have made it almost impossible to independently verify reports on demonstrations, clashes and casualties. Iran has ordered journalists for international news agencies to stay in their offices, barring them from reporting on the streets. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0431EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0830: US Russia Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:US Russia- REPLAY US expresses confidence that missile spat with Russia will be worked out LENGTH: 01:22 FIRST RUN: 0230 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: DoS TV STORY NUMBER: 610615 DATELINE: Washington DC, 23 June 2009 LENGTH: 01:22 SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of briefing room, US State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly walking in 2. Cutaway of reporter asking question 3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Ian Kelly, US State Department Spokesman: "Both presidents have set before themselves the goal of significant reductions in strategic arms, and that's what each country is working towards. I think that we have made progress in the talks that we have had so far. The talks continue this week in Geneva. I have said that we don't make the linkage, we have heard what the Russian side has said. But I think we are just going to focus on the goal the two presidents have set for themselves, and that's significant reductions in these dangerous arms." (Q: But is having this difference not going to be a problem before the talks even begin?) "Well, this is something that I believe will be worked out between the two sides." 4. Cutaway of reporter STORYLINE: A US State Department official expressed confidence on Tuesday that a spat over missile defence with Russia will not impede arms reduction talks. Russia said it is ready for deep cuts in nuclear weapons if the US eases Moscow's concerns about missile shields in eastern Europe. The United States said the two issues were separate. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters that he believed the United States and Russia will be able to settle their differences. "Both presidents have set before themselves the goal of significant reductions in strategic arms, and that's what each country is working towards," Kelly said on Tuesday. Russia on Tuesday made clear it expected the US to accept its position. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a security meeting in Vienna that arms reduction and missile defence are linked, "and both parties recognise it." US President Barack Obama has delayed previous plans by the Bush administration to build a small missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic, with the aim of intercepting missiles from Iran targeted at the West. Russia prefers that the US scrap the system altogether. The countries are working to replace the expiring Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that significantly cut American and Russian nuclear arsenals. The US and Russia are hoping for progress on START talks by the time Obama visits Moscow in July. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0432EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0830: China Turkey Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:China Turkey- REPLAY Turkish President Abdullah Gul arrives for state visit LENGTH: 00:57 FIRST RUN: 0530 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610621 DATELINE: Beijing, 24 June 2009 LENGTH: 00:57 SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of plane taxiing 2. Close of plane turning 3. Wide of plane taxiing 4. Mid and tilt-down of Turkish President Abdullah Gul and wife walking down stairs 5. Wide of plane on tarmac 6. Gul getting into car 7. Wide of motorcade leaving airport STORYLINE: Turkish President Abdullah Gul arrived in Beijing on Wednesday, starting an official visit to China. Gul said on Tuesday that he hoped his visit will be a landmark in the Sino-Turkish relationship. Gul is accompanied by a large group of businessmen and state officials including State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babacan, State Minister for Foreign Trade Zafer Caglayan and Interior Minister Besir Atalay. He will meet with Chinese leaders including President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao to discuss bilateral relations, ways to improve and strengthen cooperation between Turkey and China, as well as regional and international issues, said the official statement of Gul's office before his departure. Officials of the two countries will also sign several agreements and a Turkey-China Business Forum will be held on the sidelines of Gul's visit, the statement said. Besides his talks in the capital city of Beijing, Gul will also visit Chinese cities Xi'an, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Urumchi. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0433EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0830: China US Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:China US- REPLAY US Dpt of Defence delegation attends US-China defence consultative talks LENGTH: 02:29 FIRST RUN: 0630 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Mandarin/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610627 DATELINE: Beijing, 24 June 2009 LENGTH: 02:29 SHOTLIST: 1. Medium of Chinese military official walking to media 2. Cutaway of reporters 3. Wide of press conference 4. SOUNDBITE (Mandarin) Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotian, Deputy chief of staff of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA): "The Chinese side reiterated our opposition to US military aircrafts' spying activities in Chinese territory, and the Chinese side is willing to continue the consultations with US side on this issue. We hope both sides can make joint efforts to avoid such incidents from happening again since such incidents will surely have a negative impact on our bilateral relations in general. As to the confrontation between the Chinese naval submarine and the US destroyer at sea, it was not discussed during the dialogue. We have not received any detailed report about it. To resolve the security issue at sea, we agreed to hold a special meeting in July to address this issue." 5. Medium of reporter asking question 6. SOUNDBITE (Mandarin) Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotian, Deputy chief of staff of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA): "The security of northeast Asia and the North Korea nuclear issue is not only the concern of US, Japan and South Korea, but also a serious concern of China. During the discussion, we reiterated our stance on this issue, which has always been consistent. We hope and urge the relevant parties to take positive and stabilising measures, to control the situation on the Korean Peninsula, and resolve this issue through diplomatic negotiations and dialogue." 7. Cutaway of cameramen and officials 8. SOUNDBITE (Mandarin) Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotian, Deputy chief of staff of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA): "We urge the US side to give enough importance to China's core interest and grave concern on security and stop weapons sales to Taiwan, and secure a solid foundation for bilateral military relations and sound development." 9. Medium, pull out to wide of official walking away STORYLINE: A top Chinese military officer said on Wednesday that Beijing had agreed to work with the US military on avoiding further confrontations at sea that threaten to harm overall relations between the two countries. A series of recent naval encounters, including a collision between a Chinese submarine and a US sonar device, have caused concerns about a lack of communication between the militaries of the countries. The issue was at the centre of the first high-level military talks between the countries in 18 months, with People's Liberation Army deputy chief of staff Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotian saying China had reiterated its opposition to US surveillance patrols in the South China Sea during two days of discussions in Beijing that ended on Wednesday. "Our two sides agreed to work together to avoid such incidents from happening again since such incidents will surely have a negative impact on our bilateral relations in general," Ma told a news conference at the close of the US-China Defense Consultative Talks. He said specific incidents were not discussed, but added that the sides had agreed in principle to hold a bilateral forum next month to discuss the specific issues for avoiding future altercations. High-level exchanges of military visits are also planned, he said without giving any details. Ma said Chinese officials and the US delegation led by US Defence Undersecretary Michele Flournoy also discussed North Korea, which counts China as its closest ally. Pyonyang has threatened war with the US and its allies in response to new UN sanctions imposed over its recent nuclear test blast. He did not give specific details of what was said on North Korea. China had hosted now-stalled six-nation talks aimed at pressing Pyongyang to halt its nuclear programmes in return for financial aid and diplomatic inducements. China regards the entire South China Sea and island groups within it as its own - despite competing territorial claims from different Asian nations - and interprets international law as giving it the right to police foreign naval activity there. In the latest incident earlier this month, a Chinese submarine damaged a sonar array being towed by a US destroyer. China called that an accident. The US has confirmed only that there was damage. Pentagon officials have said there were four incidents earlier this year where Chinese-flagged fishing vessels manoeuvred close to unarmed US ships crewed by civilians and used by the Pentagon to do underwater surveillance and submarine hunting missions. The US doesn't take a position on sovereignty claims to the sea but insists on the US Navy's right to transit the area and collect surveillance data. The defence discussions were last held in December 2007. They had been suspended by Beijing in anger over US arms sales to Taiwan, the self-governing island China claims as its own territory. Ma said that China had pressed the US delegation on the issue of the arms sales, calling them a "central topic of the discussions". "We urge the US side to pay enough importance to China's core interest and grave concern on security and stop weapon sales to Taiwan, and secure a solid foundation for bilateral military relations and sound development," he said. In a possible further raising of tensions, a US destroyer is reportedly tracking a North Korean ship suspected of carrying illicit weapons to Myanmar. Flournoy was due to travel on to South Korea for talks on Friday. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0435EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0830: Venezuela Arrest Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:Venezuela Arrest- REPLAY Venezuela to deport top Italian Mafia suspect LENGTH: 00:46 FIRST RUN: 0130 RESTRICTIONS: Part No Access Venezuela TYPE: Spanish/Nat SOURCE: VTV/Globovision STORY NUMBER: 610613 DATELINE: Caracas, 22/23 June 2009 LENGTH: 00:46 SHOTLIST: VTV - AP Clients Only Caracas - 23 June 2009 1. Pan of Interior Minister and authorities during news conference 2. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Tareck El Aissami, Venezuelan Interior and Justice Minister: "Mr Miceli Salvatore will be deported in the next few days. We are coordinating with Interpol and Italian authorities to carry out this deportation." Globovision - No Access Venezuela Caracas - 22 June 2009 3. Drug trafficker Salvatore Miceli getting out of car and being led by police into a forensic medical facility 5. Mid of Miceli and police walking inside medical facility 6. Close-up of Interpol vehicle 7. Mid of Miceli being led by police down steps and into car STORYLINE: A convicted European drug trafficker dubbed the "Mafia's foreign minister" will be deported to Italy after his capture in Caracas in a joint operation by Venezuelan and Italian police, authorities said on Tuesday. Salvatore Miceli was caught at a Caracas hotel on Saturday, Venezuelan police said. He will be deported to Italy "in the next few days," Justice Minister Tareck El Aissami told reporters. Miceli was one of Europe's top five drug traffickers, said Captain Antonello Parasiliti of the Carabinieri police in Trapani, who led the Italian police operation to arrest Miceli in Venezuela. Parasiliti told The Associated Press by phone interview that Miceli worked as a middleman between Italy's and South America's organised crime groups, leading fellow mobsters to call him the "Mafia's foreign minister" and "the chicken that lays golden eggs." Miceli had been under surveillance by Italian and Venezuelan police for three days before he was captured late on Saturday, Italian police said. Italian police said two other Italian suspects were also detained. They have not been identified. Venezuelan authorities say Miceli is suspected of trafficking cocaine, heroin and morphine. Interpol's secretary-general, Ronald K. Noble, congratulated Italian and Venezuelan police in a statement on Monday, saying Miceli's capture "will seriously undermine a close network of transnational organised crime groups." Miceli, 63, was born in Salemi, a town in western Sicily, and followed in the footsteps of his grandfather - local Mafia boss Salvatore Zizzo, Parasiliti said. In the 1970s, Miceli was allegedly involved in a series of ransom kidnappings that helped fund drug trafficking clans in nearby Trapani. Miceli was arrested in the early 1990s on drug trafficking and Mafia charges, but was later freed while awaiting trial and went on the run after being convicted in 2001, Parasiliti said. He said a 2003 probe uncovered Miceli's role as an intermediary between South American drug cartels, the Sicilian Cosa Nostra and Calabria's 'ndrangheta - leading authorities to issue another arrest warrant. Venezuelan television on Monday showed police leading a handcuffed Miceli for forensic testing to demonstrate that he was not mistreated prior to deportation. El Aissami said over the weekend that Miceli apparently tried to alter his features with plastic surgery, but Parasiliti dismissed that claim, saying the man looked very similar to photos taken 10 years ago, only older. To avoid capture, Miceli ensured that people who came to meet him started out early in the morning - reaching him in the evening after changing clothes and taking elaborate routes to elude any followers, Parasiliti said. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0435EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0830: Mexico Storm Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:Mexico Storm- WRAP Andres weakens from hurricane to tropical storm; more LENGTH: 03:09 FIRST RUN: 0630 RESTRICTIONS: Part No Access Mexico TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/ TV Azteca STORY NUMBER: 610626 DATELINE: Various, 23 June 2009 LENGTH: 03:09 SHOTLIST: (FIRST RUN 2130 NEWS UPDATE - 23 JUNE 2009) AP Television - AP Clients Only Manzanillo, Colima State 1. Traffic in principal avenue 2. Various of people walking in streets 3. Wide of beach and waves 4. Wide of boat in the sea 5. Mid of waves 6. Mid of palm trees 7. Rain drops on floor (FIRST RUN 2330 AMERICAS PRIME NEWS - 23 JUNE 2009) TV Azteca - No Access Mexico Lazaro Cardenas, Michoacan State 8. Wide of street as it rains 9. Close of rain falling on car 10. Various of cars driving through flooded streets (FIRST RUN 0630 ASIA PRIME NEW - 24 JUNE 2009) AP Television - AP Clients Only Puerto Vallarta 11. Wide Puerto Vallarta coastline 12. Medium palm trees blowing in the wind 13. Medium hotel area on coastline in the rain 14. Wide waves breaking against shore of hotel strip 15. Medium waves breaking on the rocks 16. Medium palm trees blowing in the wind 17. Wide empty sidewalk in front of beach as it rains 18. Wide restaurant along the beach 19. Close rain dripping off roof of restaurant 20. SOUNDBITE: (English) Doug Bilasker, North Carolina tourist: "Um, not changing vacation plans, maybe rearranging some boat travel and some outdoor events, but just going to stay in Vallarta and enjoy the weather as much as I can." 21. Wide sign with beach flag warning levels 22. Close red flag indicating danger to swimmers 23. Wide empty beachfront restaurant 24. Medium empty tables 25. Wide hills of Puerto Vallarta filled with clouds STORYLINE: A weakening Tropical Storm Andres hit Mexico's coast south tourist resort of Puerta Vallarta with rain and wind on Wednesday, before heading out into the Pacific and brushing past the tip of Baja California. Andres briefly flared up into the Eastern Pacific season's first hurricane on Tuesday, but quickly weakened back to a tropical storm after dealing a glancing blow to Mexico's southwestern coast, where it flooded homes and left at least one person dead. Its winds weakened to 110 kilometres per hour (70 miles per hour) late on Tuesday and it was expected to weaken even more over the next day or two as it headed back out to sea, the US National Hurricane Centre said. The centre of the storm as of 11 p.m. PDT (2 a.m. EDT, 0700 GMT) was about 150 kilometres (90 miles) south-southwest of Cabo Corrientes, just south of Puerto Vallarta. Moving near 17 kilometres per hour (10 miles per hour) toward the west-northwest, it was forecast to pass by that part of the coast early on Wednesday. Mexican authorities posted a hurricane warning for the coastal strip from just south of Manzanillo to near Puerto Vallarta, and heavy rain flooded homes and wind blew down trees in the states of Jalisco, Colima and Guerrero. A light rain fell Tuesday night in Puerto Vallarta as tourists emptied beaches and retreated to hotel restaurants. Port authorities said the arrival of the cruise ship Carnival Splendor was rescheduled from Wednesday to July 1. Eighteen shelters were prepared as officials visited high-risk areas to advise residents of the storm, said Alfredo Rivas, director of Puerto Vallarta's Fire Department. He said people were staying put because it was raining lightly and because they felt they were not in danger. Rain poured down on Manzanillo, where authorities opened 14 shelters amid forecasts that the storm would likely graze the port city. To the south, rain caused flooding Monday in the resort of Acapulco that forced about 200 people to evacuate their homes. A fisherman drowned when choppy currents overturned his boat in a lagoon in Tecpan de Galeana, between Acapulco and Zihuatanejo, a state police report said. The US National Hurricane Centre predicted Andres would bring a storm surge of as much as almost one metre (three feet) above normal, while dumping as much as 200 millimetres (eight inches) of rain in a few spots. The forecast track showed the storm then weakening as it continues northwest along the coast before veering into the open Pacific and just south of the Los Cabos resorts at the tip of the Baja California peninsula on Thursday morning. Late on Sunday, Andres became the first named storm of the eastern Pacific hurricane season, which began on May 15 and ends November 30. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0436EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0830: Mexico Environment Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:Mexico Environment- REPLAY Environment ministers from 30 countries discuss climate change LENGTH: 01:29 FIRST RUN: 0130 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610568 DATELINE: Morelos, 23 June 2009 LENGTH: 01:29 SHOTLIST: 1. Various of delegates at climate change conference 2. Wide of US envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, taking seat at conference 3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Todd Stern, US envoy for climate change: ++QUALITY AS INCOMING++ "Our proposal involves about a 14 or 15 per cent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020, rising up to over an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. The legislation that I referred to a few minutes ago, the so called Waxman-Markey legislation would envision about a 17 per cent reduction from 2005 levels, again ramping up year by year all the way up to over 80 per cent by 2050. So, we will continue working with congress, trying to get legislation passed." 4. Mid of attendees at conference 5. People gathered in foyer 6. Wide of delegates at conference 7. Mid of conference sign reading (Spanish): "Third preparatory meeting of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate." STORYLINE: US President Barack Obama's climate envoy dismissed recommendations that the United States and other developed countries reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases 40 per cent by 2020. "Our proposal involves about a 14 or 15 per cent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020, rising up to over an 80 per cent reduction by 2050," Todd Stern said on Tuesday at a conference on global warming in Morelos, just south of Mexico City. Stern was speaking at the end of a two-day meeting of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, a gathering of 19 nations and the European Union that together produce 80 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases. The group, called together by Obama, was trying to build a replacement climate change treaty for the expiring Kyoto Protocol. A panel of United Nations scientists had recommended that industrial countries cut carbon emissions by 25 per cent to 40 per cent by 2020 to avoid a catastrophic rise in sea levels, harsher storms and droughts and climate disruptions. Some poorer and island countries are pushing for reductions of as much as 45 per cent. After rejecting that idea, Stern pointed to progress on legislation before the US Congress that would require lesser reductions. He said the Waxman-Markey bill was expected to move to the floor of the US House this week for debate. The bill calls for a 17 per cent cut in US emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 2020 from 2005 levels, and an 83 per cent reduction by mid-century. Carbon dioxide, produced by burning coal and other fossil fuels, is the leading manmade greenhouse gas that scientists have linked to global warming. Such measures may not be enough to bring agreement on a climate change accord, which the United Nations hopes will be agreed on at a conference in Copenhagen next December. Stern said there were "still significant differences between the parties" on emissions levels at the talks. But the final document from the Mexico talks indicated only that "many leaders' representatives expressed support for agreeing to a long-term goal by 2050," indicating there wasn't even complete agreement on the idea of emission caps by that late date. Somewhat more progress was made on financing for emissions reduction, technology and adaptation to climate change. Mexico's proposal for a "green fund" to which all but the very poorest countries would contribute, and then receive funding for clean energy and environmental projects, appeared to be gaining traction. Stern voiced support for the proposal, adding that "there are a number of countries that sat around the table that also think it's an interesting idea." Unlike the current, largely private carbon credit market in which polluting companies pay to offset their emissions, the new, 10 (b) billion US dollar fund would be financed through government contributions and run by a multilateral agency, possibly the World Bank. Mexico's government said on Tuesday that it was open to including carbon credits in the framework of the proposed fund, to make more money available to poor countries to develop cleaner technologies and prepare for climate change phenomena like floods and droughts. Environmental activists said that while Mexico's proposal lacked compliance mechanisms to ensure that wealthy countries contribute, it was preferable to the current carbon credits market. Stern agreed there would be a need for "some sort of mechanism for a more regular provision and a more dependable provision of funding to poor countries." Norway has suggested a fund financed by proceeds from auctioning emission permits, but Stern said that proposal was "more amenable to some countries than others," without offering any specifics. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com. (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0437EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0830: Philippines Feast Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:Philippines Feast- REPLAY Residents douse each other with water to celebrate feast of town's patron saint LENGTH: 01:06 FIRST RUN: 0330 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Tagalog/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610617 DATELINE: Manila, 24 June 2009 LENGTH: 01:06 SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of street zoom in to residents throwing water on passing car 2. Welcome to San Juan sign above road, tilt down to residents with buckets of water asking jeepney to stop, running around to rear of vehicle 3. Interior of jeepney, passengers being soaked with buckets of water 4. Children cheering, throwing water as jeepney drives away 5. Wide of people cheering by roadside 6. Various of man with hose watering jeepney passengers 7. SOUNDBITE: (Tagalog) Andrew Franco, Driver, San Juan Resident: "Since the beginning it has been a tradition here, of St John the Baptist, so people should not get upset. If they will get mad they should not pass San Juan so that they won't get wet because that's what makes the people of San Juan happy." 8. Woman being soaked with water 9. Boy throwing bucket of water at police officer riding on passing vehicle STORYLINE: Residents of San Juan, a suburb of Manila, celebrated the feast day of the town's patron saint on Wednesday by dousing each other with water. The festivities commemorate the feast of Saint John the Baptist, after whom the town was named. The revellers soaked residents and passers-by with water to depict the baptism, a Christian sacrament, which Saint John performed on Jesus Christ. This year there were fewer passers-by to be drenched as classes in the primary and secondary schools were suspended due to a coming storm. However, this did not dampen the celebrations as the residents continued splashing each other with water, an act they believe brings good fortune. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0439EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0830: SKorea NKorea Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:SKorea NKorea- REPLAY SKor Defence ministry says NKor plans to hold maritime firing exercise LENGTH: 00:55 FIRST RUN: 0330 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Korean/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610616 DATELINE: Seoul, 24 June 2009 LENGTH: 00:55 SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of South Korean Defence Ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae entering briefing room 2. Various of reporters 3. SOUNDBITE: (Korean) Won Tae-jae, South Korean Defence Ministry spokesman: "North Korea announced that it is going to hold a maritime firing exercise from the 25th (June) to July 9th, starting at 8 a.m. (2300 GMT) until 8 p.m. (1100 GMT) near the sea of Wonsan, and it also announced the area as a restricted zone for navigation." 4. Mid of reporter 5. Wide of briefing room 6. SOUNDBITE: (Korean) Won Tae-jae, South Korean Defence Ministry spokesman: "We are inspecting for possible firing (of missiles) from the launching site, which we know about, or for other kinds of exercises near this area." 7. Wide of media STORYLINE: South Korea's Defence Ministry on Wednesday said North Korea planned to hold a maritime firing exercise, expected to take place off the coast of Wonsan, North Korea. Speaking at a briefing in Seoul, Defence Ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae said the South Korean government would monitor closely activity from the designated launch site. Pyongyang issued a warning over the weekend to mariners of upcoming live-fire missile exercises. The exclusion zone cited in the notice covers a stretch in the Sea of Japan, 450 kilometres by 110 kilometres (279 miles by 68 miles) off the coast of Wonsan, North Korea. Won said the warning lasts from June 25 to July 9, from approximately 8 a.m. (2300 GMT) to 8 p.m. local time (1100 GMT). According to US intelligence reports, Pyongyang is expected to launch short- to medium-range missiles rather than a long-range missile similar to one tested in April. US defence and counterproliferation officials say intelligence suggests that North Korea is likely to fire short- and medium-range missiles, based of the splashdown zone referred to in the notice and other activities that are consistent with such launches. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence. If the indications are correct, the US state of Hawaii can rest easy. But in the event North Korea launches a long-range missile, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has ordered the deployment of a ground-based mobile missile intercept system and a radar system to Hawaii. Together they could shoot down an incoming missile in midair. Experts say North Korea has not yet built a ballistic missile that can reach Hawaii, which is about 4,500 miles (7,200 kilometres) from North Korea. US defence officials told Congress earlier this month they think North Korea is still three to five years away from being able to hit the West coast of the United States with a long-range Taepodong-2 missile. If the Taeopodong-2 works as designed, it could travel as far as 4,000 miles (6,400 kilometres), placing parts of the West coast of the United States within range, US officials have said. North Korea's last three missile tests have failed to achieve that distance. US officials said they have not seen preparations for the launch of a Taeopodong-2 missile similar to that launched on April 5. It took North Korea about 12 days to stack and fuel that missile, which it claimed was a space-launch vehicle intended to put a satellite into orbit. It failed sometime in its second or third stages, splashing down into the ocean after travelling about 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometres). Pyongyang has also not mastered mounting a nuclear bomb on a long-range missile despite recently conducting its second underground nuclear test. The yield was estimated by US intelligence as a "few" kilotons. The communist regime has vowed to bolster its nuclear arsenal and threatened war to protest United Nations sanctions in the wake of its second nuclear test. It conducted its first nuclear test in October 2006, and there are suspicions it is preparing for a third. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0440EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0830: ++US Obama Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:++US Obama- NEW Obama comments on his cigarette smoking LENGTH: 00:45 FIRST RUN: 0830 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610630 DATELINE: Washington DC - 23 June 2009 LENGTH: 00:45 SHOTLIST 1. US President Barack Obama entering White House briefing 2. Rear shot of Obama at podium 3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Barack Obama, US President: "As a former smoker, I constantly struggle with it. Have I fallen off the wagon sometimes? Yes. Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No. I don't do it in front of my kids, I don't do it in front of my family, and I would say that I am 95 percent cured, but there are times where - (audience laughs) - there are times where I mess up." 4. Obama leaving STORYLINE It fell to President Barack Obama to confirm the gossip that his aides had spent weeks trying to snuff out: he still sneaks an occasional cigarette. "There are times where I mess up," Obama said at a White House news conference on Tuesday. But, the president hastened to add, he never smokes in front of his young daughters and not on a daily basis. "I am 95 percent cured," he said. It was the first public acknowledgment from the president that he still has not kicked the habit completely. In the past, he had alluded to his three-decades-old habit without giving direct answers. One day after signing the nation's toughest anti-tobacco legislation into law, Obama was asked again Tuesday about his smoking habit and came clean. "Look, I've said before that as a former smoker I constantly struggle with it. Have I fallen off the wagon sometimes? Yes," Obama said. "Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No." Obama has said he used to average about five cigarettes a day, although stress sometimes drove him to reach for a lighter more often. He promised his wife he would quit if she agreed that he should run for president. Michelle Obama told CBS' "60 Minutes" early in the presidential campaign that she hated it and told him that he could not be a smoking president. Now in the White House, Obama is finding that his nicotine intake is part of the public debate, much to the president's annoyance. He said the legislation, which faced a veto threat under former President George W. Bush, was aimed at preventing young people from taking up the habit. Obama began smoking as a teenager and has been an on-again, off-again smoker ever since. He said the new law that was put in place was about the next generation of kids coming up. Obama and his wife Michelle have two daughters, 10-year-old Malia and 8-year-old Sasha. "I don't do it in front of my kids, I don't do it in front of my family," Obama said. Obama refused to say how many cigarettes he smokes, where he sneaks them or how often he lights up now that he is in the White House. During the presidential campaign, aides packed nicotine gum in their pockets to help Obama control his urges. Obama occasionally bummed cigarettes from aides, while also making sure to emphasise his efforts to stop for good and his progress toward quitting. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0504EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0830: +China Dissident Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:+China Dissident- WRAP Dissident arrested for agitating subversion against state ADDS wife, lawyer LENGTH: 01:55 FIRST RUN: 0830 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Mandarin/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610632 DATELINE: Beijing, 24 June 2009/FILE LENGTH: 01:55 SHOTLIST: (FIRST RUN 0430 NEWS UPDATE - 24 JUNE, 2009) FILE: Beijing - 24 July, 2008 1. Wide of Purple Bamboo Park 2. Various of Liu Xiaobo, prominent Chinese dissident, walking in park ++NEW (FIRST RUN 0930 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 24 JUNE, 2009) Beijing - 24 June, 2009 3. Wide of Liu Xia, wife of Liu Xiaobo talking to reporter 4. Cutaway of hands 5. SOUNDBITE: (Mandarin) Liu Xia, wife of Liu Xiaobo: "I don't know, no one knows where he was taken to. The only thing I know is that for the past six months he has been confined to a room with no windows, no air, no sun." 6. Cutaway of interview 7. SOUNDBITE: (Mandarin) Liu Xia, wife of Liu Xiaobo: "This means that in this country there is no freedom of speech. A person's basic rights are not guaranteed. Moreover, if you try to exercise your due rights as a citizen, you end up deprived of more freedoms." 8. Set-up of Liu Xiaobo's lawyer, Mo Shaoping 9. SOUNDBITE: (Mandarin) Mo Shaoping, Liu Xiaobo's lawyer: "Where do you draw the line between what is freedom of expression and what can constitute a crime of 'inciting subversion of state power'? The state has not defined that. Many scholars have requested to the Parliament, to the Supreme Court and to the Procurator for a clear definition of what sort of opinions and writings can constitute a crime of 'inciting subversion', we need to know where is the limit to our freedom of expression?" ++NEW (FIRST RUN 0930 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 24 JUNE, 2009) FILE: Beijing - 3 June, 2008 10. Wide of Liu Xiaobo 11. Close of Liu Xiaobo's face (FIRST RUN 0430 NEWS UPDATE - 24 JUNE, 2009) FILE: Beijing - 24 July 2008 12. SOUNDBITE: (Mandarin) Liu Xiaobo, writer and political activist: "If the government does not set up places to protest then it would have to face the prospect of protests happening at any time, anywhere, without any control, especially in those sensitive areas. They know it will be very bad for China's image to crackdown on those violently." 13. Wide of park STORYLINE: Prominent Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, who co-authored a manifesto calling for sweeping reforms to China's rigid political system, has been arrested for activities allegedly aimed at overthrowing the country's socialist system, state media said on Wednesday. Liu has been in police custody since they took him away on December 8, a day before the political document was released. Xinhua News Agency quoted a Beijing police statement as saying "Liu has been engaged in agitation activities, such as the spreading of rumours and defaming of the government, aimed at subversion of the state and overthrowing the socialism system in recent years." It gave no other details. His wife, Liu Xia said her husband had been held in a room without sunlight for the past six months. "I don't know, no one knows where he was taken to. The only thing I know is that for the past six months he has been confined to a room with no windows, no air, no sun," she said. The arrest marks the highest-profile arrest of a Chinese dissident since human rights activist Hu Jia was detained last year ahead of the Beijing Olympics. Hu was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison for sedition last April. China has always reacted sharply to any challenges to its one-party system, but is also cracking down on any dissent ahead of a gala celebrating the communist regime's 60th anniversary on October 1. Liu's lawyer, Mo Shaoping, said he was only made aware of the Xinhua report when journalists started calling him for confirmation. According to Xinhua, police have obtained permission from the courts to arrest Liu on suspicion of committing a crime. Mo said this indicates the investigation into Liu's case is still continuing and that he has yet to be formally charged. The next step would be indictment. Agitating to subvert is a less serious charge than subversion and can be punished with five years in prison or less, or a period of deprivation of political rights, Mo said. Subversion carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. Mo said the state hadn't made clear where to "draw the line between what is freedom of expression and what can constitute a crime of 'inciting subversion of state power'. "Many scholars have requested to the Parliament, to the Supreme Court and to the Procurator for a clear definition of what sort of opinions and writings can constitute a crime of 'inciting subversion', we need to know where is the limit to our freedom of expression?" he added. Speaking last July, Liu said China needed a legitimate way of protesting in the country, and for people's voices to be heard. "If the government does not set up places to protest then it would have to face the prospect of protests happening at any time, any where, without any control, especially in those sensitive areas. They know it will be very bad for China's image to crackdown on those violently," he said. Liu, 53, is a former university professor who spent 20 months in jail for joining the 1989 student-led protests in Tiananmen Square. In his writings, most published only on the Internet, Liu has called for civil rights and political reform, making him subject to routine harassment by authorities. He was among more than 300 lawyers, writers, scholars and artists who signed "Charter 08" in December calling for a new constitution guaranteeing human rights, election of public officials, freedom of religion and expression, and an end to the Communist Party's hold over the military, courts and government. Police detained Liu a day ahead of the charter's release, possibly because they considered him a key organiser, in addition to his role in drafting and revising the document, Mo has said. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0544EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0830: ++Italy Berlusconi Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:++Italy Berlusconi- NEW Reax to Berlusconi telling gossip magazine he doesn't pay for sex LENGTH: 02:31 FIRST RUN: 0830 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Italian/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610631 DATELINE: Rome - 24 June 2009 LENGTH: 02:31 SHOTLIST 1. Wide newspapers 2. Close up on "Chi", Italian weekly magazine, owned by Berlusconi's group, with Berlusconi and his nephew as cover photo; Headline reading: (Italian) "Now it is my turn to talk: Italian prime minister for the first time talks about the hot issues of his private life" 3. Close up on "La Repubblica", headline reading: (Italian) "Berlusconi says: D'Addario has been manoeuvred." 4. Close up on picture of Patrizia D'Addario, a woman who said she was paid to attend a party at the premier's residence in Rome in October 2008, and then returned November 4 and stayed the night. 5. Close up "La Stampa", daily newspaper, tilt up from photo of Berlusconi with his son Piersilvio, daughter Marina and to headline, reading (Italian) Berlusconi strikes out: I never paid for women." 6. Close up "Corriere della Sera" headlines, reading (Italian) "Berlusconi strikes back: I never paid for women." 7. Close up photo of Berlusconi with US President Barack Obama 8. Mid of photo of Berlusconi with his wife and headlines reading: (Italian) "Bari: Berlusconi strikes out: I never paid for women." 9. Wide of Piazza Venezia in central Rome 10. Medium shot people of walking 11. SOUNDBITE: (Italian) Woman, no name given, Vox pop: "We should all be ashamed as Italians, to be represented by such an individual" Q: "What do you think he is going to do?" "He's clutching at straws, as usual. His public image has not been positive for long time, and we as Italians should be aware of it, but we don't seem to be smart enough." 12. Wide of Palazzo Grazioli, Berlusconi's Rome residence 13. Close up Italian flag on Grazioli Palace 14. SOUNDBITE: (Italian) Antonio, no last name given, Vox pop: "Apart from the fact that there is for sure some manoeuvring (against Berlusconi), it's about time that the people and these (opposition) politicians mind their own business, because what Berlusconi does in his private time it's his own business, the important thing is that he shows to be a honest person in administering the country." 15. Medium shot street scene central Rome 16. Medium shot entrance to Palazzo Grazioli 17. Wide shot Palazzo Grazioli STORYLINE Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi has told a gossip magazine he has never paid a woman for sex, as he continues to be dogged by suspicions stemming from his purported fondness for young models and starlets. Berlusconi gave his first direct response to the claims in an interview with Chi magazine that was published on Wednesday. Previously, he had simply dismissed as "garbage" and a smear campaign reports that an acquaintance of his had paid at least three women to attend parties at his residences. "I have never paid a woman," Berlusconi was quoted as saying in the interview. "I never understood what the satisfaction is when you are missing the pleasure of conquest." Berlusconi said that Patrizia D'Addario, the model at the centre of the claims, was "very well paid" to make the allegations, which have prompted an investigation in the southern city of Bari into the local businessman accused of recruiting and paying the women. In a statement to the ANSA news agency, D'Addario denied she had been paid to mount a scandal. Berlusconi has been on the defensive ever since his wife announced several weeks ago she was divorcing him, citing his selection of young starlets and showgirls for European Parliament elections and his presence at the birthday party of an 18-year-old model in Naples. Berlusconi has insisted there was nothing scandalous in his relationship with Noemi Letizia, whom he has said was the daughter of an old friend from political circles. He said he went to the party because he happened to be in Naples that day. In the interview with Chi, Berlusconi was quoted as saying that he was "sad, but serene," over the end of his relationship with his wife, Veronica Lario. "It was a very painful wound. I don't know if time will be able to cure it," he was quoted as saying in the interview provided in advance by Chi. As the Letizia scandal began to abate, D'Addario told Italian media she was paid euro 1,000 (1,400 US dollar) to attend a party at Berlusconi's Rome residence. This was followed by similar claims by two other women and reports that D'Addario had given over to Bari prosecutors audio and video tapes proving the allegations. Giampaolo Tarantini, the man accused in the Bari probe of favouring prostitution, has said he merely reimbursed the women for their travel and expenses. He said Berlusconi didn't know the expenses were paid. Despite the scandals and criticism in local and international media, Berlusconi has kept his popularity intact, with his centre-right forces emerging victorious from EU elections earlier this month and a spate of local and provincial runoffs. According to results released Tuesday, Berlusconi's Freedom People's party snatched a half-dozen provinces from the centre-left in voting Sunday and Monday, including the important provinces of Milan and Venice. In addition, the centre-right grabbed a handful of cities from the opposition, though the Democratic Party held on to its longtime strongholds in Florence and Bologna and kept the province of Turin as well. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0559EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM -------------------

HOUSE FLOOR DEBATE: The House meets for legislative business Suspensions (2 bills): 1) H.R. 3945 - Hurricane Katrina Financial Services Relief Act of 2005 (Sponsored by Rep. Baker / Financial Services Committee); 2) H.Res. 368 - Congratulating the State of Israel on the election of Ambassador Dan Gillerman as Vice-President of the 60th United Nations General Assembly (Sponsored by Rep. Schiff / International Relations Committee) H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (Subject to a Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Baker / Financial Services Committee) H.J.Res. 65 - Disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (Privileged Resolution) (Sponsored by Rep. LaHood / Armed Services Committee) H.R. 420 - Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005 (Subject to a Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Smith (TX) / Judiciary Committee) H.Con.Res. __ - To make amendments to H.Con.Res. 95, the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2006 (Subject to a Rule) TimeCode: 10:03:56.6 the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain. the chaplain: o god of light and understanding, fill your people with great expectations. with your guidance and creative presence, good people working together can accomplish almost TimeCode: 10:04:11.6 any goal they set before them. heartfelt prayer must conform their intention to your holy will. be with the members of congress today as they accomplish the work of the people in this house of representatives. TimeCode: 10:04:29.0 stir within them a wisdom that penetrates every problem. send them sound knowledge to surround every issue important to this nation so that the consequences of their action, TimeCode: 10:04:46.0 which will be felt around the world, may build true security and grant lasting peace both in our day and forever. amen. the speaker: thank you, TimeCode: 10:05:02.8 chaplain. the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will TimeCode: 10:05:20.5 be offered by the gentlewoman from ohio, mrs. jones. mrs. jones: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. TimeCode: 10:05:40.5 the speaker: the chair will at this time entertain 10 one-minutes on each side. the gentlewoman from north carolina, for what purpose do you rise? TimeCode: 10:05:49.0 ms. foxx: to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. following a historic election, the iraqi people took another huge step towards democracy with nearly 79% approving a new constitution. however, this political milestone was not reached without a cost paid by our TimeCode: 10:06:05.6 american soldiers. as we sadly mark the 2,000th death in iraq, we must take time to honor the sacrifice our soldiers have made for this country. our men and women are fighting terrorists in iraq so that we do not have to fight them in this country. now is the time to honor these TimeCode: 10:06:21.1 soldiers and thank their families for the sacrifices they are making to keep our country safe. unfortunately, there's some out there who have chosen this solemn occasion to score political points. they're using this opportunity to call for withdrawal of our troops from iraq. TimeCode: 10:06:35.8 nothing could be more wrong. bailing out would hand a victory to the terrorists and a defeat to the united states. one group is actually using this occasion to raise funds. featured on their website is a television ad featuring a coffin in the sand. TimeCode: 10:06:52.3 click on this ad and you're immediately taken to a contribution page asking for a donation. mr. speaker, we need to continue to honor our troops by staying the course in iraq. using these sacrifices for political purposes, as many are doing, is wrong. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman TimeCode: 10:07:07.7 from oregon rise? mr. blumenauer: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: madam speaker, our chaplain reminded us that the actions on the floor of the house are felt around the world. well, today one half of the people who are ill around the TimeCode: 10:07:23.6 world are sick needlessly from waterborne disease, and up to five million are going to die this year as a result. we know how to solve this problem and the solution is affordable. TimeCode: 10:07:38.1 for what it costs europeans for perfume in a year or less than what americans spend on elective surgery, we could fulfill the united nations' commitment to cut in half the people without safe drinking TimeCode: 10:07:54.8 water and sanitation by the year 2015. sadly, the united states, despite its leadership in the united nations on this issue, still itself doesn't have a comprehensive program to address this inaction. TimeCode: 10:08:12.5 our international relations committee is sending to the floor bipartisan legislation to correct this policy deficiency. h.r. 1973, the senator paul simon water for the poor act, will establish safe drinking TimeCode: 10:08:27.9 water and sanitation as a core foreign policy principle and create a plan. today's the last day to add your name to the list of sponsors. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. blumenauer: i ask that you do so before it reaches the floor. TimeCode: 10:08:42.7 the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, in the early morning hours of this past weekend i accompanied zapato county sheriff gonzalez and his swat team and poss sees patrolling the border in TimeCode: 10:09:00.7 mexico. every day he leads his 24-member force into the daily criminals crossing the border, searching for human smugglers. TimeCode: 10:09:17.6 these outlaws have better vehicles, electronic surveillance equipment than our good guys. they even track our peace officers with g.p.s. when they use their cell phones. they make $30,000 a week. sheriff gonzalez makes about TimeCode: 10:09:33.0 $40,000 a year. sheriff gonzalez is an unwavering patriot and outstanding texas lawman. he is defending america against illegal invaders and fighting the war against vicious, violate drug cartels that threaten our home and country. he and his dedicated deputies TimeCode: 10:09:49.0 need resources and funding to help fund the war for the border. our homeland is worth protecting. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? mrs. jones: scuningt 1 and revise and extend. TimeCode: 10:10:03.8 the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. jones: thank you. madam speaker, i rise today to discuss the lives of three great women. the old people used to say that trouble comes in threes, and the threes i'm thinking of are constance baker motley, who was TimeCode: 10:10:21.4 the first african-american woman elected to the new york state senate in 1964, first woman to serve as manhattan burrough president in 1965 and TimeCode: 10:10:34.5 appointed the first african-american judge in 1966. number two is c. delores tucker, the first african-american woman to serve as secretary of state of the commonwealth of pennsylvania and in any state in america. she went on to be an advocate for appointment of women in the presidential administrations TimeCode: 10:10:51.6 and thirdly, we lost rosa parks this week. three significant, hard-working, dedicated african-american women who stood out in history in the work that they did. i extend today -- i stand today and ask all of you to join me TimeCode: 10:11:07.3 in extending sympathies and condolences to the families of c. delores tucker, constance baker motley, and rosa parks. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. pence: i ask unanimous TimeCode: 10:11:22.5 consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pence: when it comes to making tough choices in the wake of hurricane katrina, madam speaker, presidential leadership will make the difference. TimeCode: 10:11:37.2 yesterday in remarks before the economic club of washington, d.c., the president of the united states called on congress to, quote, redouble our efforts to be wise about how we spend your money. the president went on to say we can help the people of the gulf coast region recover and rebuild and we can be good TimeCode: 10:11:53.2 stewards of the taxpayers' dollars at the same time. he called on congress to reduce unnecessary spending to identify offsets and pledged again to offer spending rescissions to provide the emergency relief, in his words, in a fiscally responsible way. TimeCode: 10:12:10.8 president george w. bush yesterday encouraged congress to push the envelope when it comes to cutting spending and his strong leadership will make the difference. congress should heed the call of president bush to rebuild with generosity and fiscal TimeCode: 10:12:26.1 responsibility in the wake of hurricane katrina. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: request permission to address the house and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. TimeCode: 10:12:39.2 mr. kucinich: thank you, madam speaker. i'm urging all members of the house to join in support of house resolution 151, which is a resolution of inquiry that requests the president of the united states to provide to the house of representatives documents in his possession TimeCode: 10:12:55.4 relating to the anticipated effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the united states. with the devastation of hurricanes wilma, rita, and others, we are aware that TimeCode: 10:13:12.1 there's a new phenomenon that is affecting this country with respect to climate change. scientists may dispute whether or not the meteorological changes that we have witnessed are somehow related to changes TimeCode: 10:13:27.9 in the global climate, but one thing's for sure, it's important that congress begin a dial long with the administration -- a dialogue with the administration. it's important we find out what connection there may be with climate change and effects on TimeCode: 10:13:42.0 coastal regions. hurricane katrina certainly illustrated that we should be concerned about climate change. this resolution of inquiry now sponsored by 151 members of the house aims to get the facts from the administration, begin a dialogue that will be TimeCode: 10:13:57.6 important to our nation's economy and our national security. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. price: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, have you seen the headlines? bird flu anxiety spreads across europe. TimeCode: 10:14:14.7 bird flu could kill 150 million people. w.h.o. warns of dire flu pandemic. media should report facts, not create panic. unfortunately, today many of the stories we see and read are short on facts and long on panic and it's time that we TimeCode: 10:14:32.5 brought some sanity to all of the sensationalism. no one should doubt the potential of the bird flu, however, responsible people are working diligently to be certain we are prepared for any threat and are able to respond quickly. but certain facts are important to keep in mind. this evian flu virus has been TimeCode: 10:14:49.6 around since at least -- this avian flu virus has been around since at least 1977. it's not new. the c.d.c. reports the current risk to americans is, quote, low, unquote. so there's cause for concern, not panic. TimeCode: 10:15:04.5 our real concern should be expanded. we need to address our ability to respond to any infectious disease, providing incentives to u.s. based countries building immunization and building a program are two of the steps we should take. TimeCode: 10:15:19.0 and importantly, these actions should move forward in an environment of concern not panic. review TimeCode: 10:15:47.3 our progress in iraq. TimeCode: 10:15:48.1 what's important is resolving the mess. hear what the experts are saying. a retired general, former head of the national security agency, said the invasion of iraq will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in u.s. TimeCode: 10:16:05.5 history. the national security advisor under the first bush said you have to know when to stop using force. you can encourage democracy over time with the assistance and aid the traditional way. not how the neoconservatives are TimeCode: 10:16:18.3 trying to do it in iraq. and lawrence wilkerson, a retired lieutenant colonel, said president bush's foreign policy was ruinous and said that we have courted disaster in iraq in north carolina and iran. these are not the words of partisans or the board members TimeCode: 10:16:36.0 at moveon.org. these are experts in america and the american people know it's time for a new direction and priorities. the current path is not a path to success. it's time for the president to level with the american people and produce a plan forward. the speaker pro tempore: for TimeCode: 10:16:51.7 what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: madam speaker, i am thrilled that president bush has nominated a son of south carolina to serve as chairman of the federal reserve board. as a boy in dillon, south TimeCode: 10:17:08.2 carolina, ben bernanke demonstrated his brilliance for economics at a young age. enjoyed calculus, and eventually received his doctorates from the massachusetts institute of TimeCode: 10:17:22.8 technology where he specialized in monetary policy. throughout the course of his career, he has taught our nation's top schools and been a leader of our economic institutions. as president bush's economic advisor, he has played a pivotal role in sustaining economic TimeCode: 10:17:40.1 growth in our country. today dr. bernanke is respected as one of the world's most accomplished monetary economists. as a successor to blarme alan greenspan, he will certainly have big shoes to fill. with his background, i am TimeCode: 10:17:55.6 confident he has the blodge, experience, and ability to serve as chairman of the federal reserve board. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? the gentleman is recognized. TimeCode: 10:18:11.9 mr. meeks: it is with great pain that i stand here today to mourn the recent passing of several phenomenal women and leaders in our nation's struggle for equal justice under the law. the passing of rosa parks, it's a sad reality, but i stand to TimeCode: 10:18:28.7 commemorate the triumphant lives. judge motley and rosa parks faced racism head-on and continued to work for a more just world until their last days. rosa parks was 92 years old and almost made it to the 50th anniversary of the montgomery TimeCode: 10:18:44.5 bus boycott which she set in motion by refusing to give her seat to a white man in a montgomery segregated bus system. she was arrested for her action. as a new yorker i hold dearly the legacy of judge motley, that is why i introduced legislation TimeCode: 10:18:59.1 to honor her. constance baker motley won nine out of 10 civil rights cases she argued before the supreme court. she worked on the major school segregation cases including brown v. board of education and advised civil rights cleared TimeCode: 10:19:16.0 including martin luther king jr. she was the first african-american to serve in the united states senate and first black woman to be appointed to a federal judgeship. rosa parks once said memories of our lives, of our works, and deeds will continue in others. she was absolutely right. not only will the memories live TimeCode: 10:19:30.5 on but the legacy has forever stirred the resolve of many in our nation to advocate for social justice, human dignity, and harmony. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? mrs. kelly: to address the house for one minute. TimeCode: 10:19:45.5 revise and exten. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. kelly: i rise today as we near the end of breast cancer awareness month to emphasize we must continue to do everything possible to help women across our country suffering from breast cancer. this congress must remain committed to increased breast cancer research and ensure the TimeCode: 10:20:02.1 necessary laws are place so that no woman is forced to fight breast cancer and red tape at the same time. i urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan breast cancer patient protection act that i sponsored together with the gentlewoman from connecticut, TimeCode: 10:20:18.2 ms. delauro, 151 co-sponsors in the house have recognized the importance of passing this bill. we need more support. TimeCode: 10:20:24.0 together we can improve treatment coverages and access to in patient care for the more than 200,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year. the widespread commitment to fighting breast cancer was seen in so many amazing community efforts this past month, i particularly want to recognize TimeCode: 10:20:40.5 the outstanding efforts of lillian jones and our hudson valley chapter of the american cancer society. they organized our very successful making strides against breast cancer walk in central valley new york. also deserving a tremendous praise are willa wright and the putnam county chapter of a.c.s. TimeCode: 10:20:57.9 and so many groups in new york's hudson valley who continue to unite and fight breast cancer. congress must unite and fight breast cancer right along with them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? the gentleman is recognized. TimeCode: 10:21:13.1 mr. bishop: mr. speaker, too many american families have experienced the loss of a loved one or know someone close who has suffered from some form of cancer. breast cancer in particular is the leading cause of death among women between 40 and 55, including my sister-in-law, abby TimeCode: 10:21:28.8 ir win, who died at age 41 after an 11-year struggle. 200,000 new dayses of breast cancer will be diagnosed this year alone, including 1,100 in my district. the good news is the 96% survival-rate if breast cancer TimeCode: 10:21:47.4 is -- survivoral rate if breast cancer is discovered early. back home on long island i'm proud to have an active breast cancer advisory board with TimeCode: 10:21:58.9 leading researchers, advocates, and survivors, i found their insights and ideas to be invaluable. we should continue to do all we can every day not just during breast cancer awareness month to encourage the surviferse, volunteers, and health care professionals to keep up the TimeCode: 10:22:13.4 fight against breast cancer. mr. speaker, by raising awareness we bring ourselves that much closer to the promise of a cure. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, this week the house will begin TimeCode: 10:22:30.0 work on reconciliation which is a way that we begin to reform out-of-control spending programs in order to help pay for the hurricane relief. there are only three ways we can pay for this hurricane relief. either number one we are going to raise taxes on the american TimeCode: 10:22:44.9 people yet again. we are going to pass debt on to our children. or we are going to find a way to moderate the growth of federal programs. now, the democrats say that this is tantamount to massive cuts that will hurt the poor. madam speaker, next year's budget is going to be greater TimeCode: 10:22:59.8 than this year's budget which was greater than last year's budget. what we call mandatory spending, which encompasses most of these welfare programs, mandatory spending is going to grow at a rate of 6.3% as opposed to 6.4%. i believe only an accountant for TimeCode: 10:23:17.7 enron would call that a cut. also, madam speaker, the best way to help the poor is through paychecks not welfare checks. under the economic policies of this administration, four million new jobs have been created with a future. TimeCode: 10:23:31.7 we have the highest rate of home othership in the history of america and unparalleled economic growth. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. lantos: madam speaker, i would like to extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. TimeCode: 10:23:46.1 mr. lantos: madam speaker, three generations ago hitler threatened to destroy the jewish people and the appeasers and the pseudo sophisticates said it was merely auditory. TimeCode: 10:24:02.0 a few months ago the leadership of syria threatened to destroy the prime minister of lebanon and the pseudo sophisticates and the appeasers thought it was only auditory. TimeCode: 10:24:19.7 yesterday the president of iran announced it is his policy to destroy the state of israel. and the pseudo sophisticates and the appeasers again say this is only oratorry. i call on the united nations, TimeCode: 10:24:38.7 all civilized nations to take appropriate action in the u.n. and individually, denouncing this outrageous statement. there is no room for the president of a nation to call for the destruction of a member TimeCode: 10:24:56.0 state of the united nations, a democratic ally of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from the district of columbia rise? ms. norton: to address the house for one minute. TimeCode: 10:25:07.4 the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: madam speaker, it has been -- i've had to commemorate two important black women who died earlier, c. TimeCode: 10:25:23.2 delors tucker, rosa parks. this morning i rise to celebrate the life of one of america's great lawyers, consequence tans baker motley, the first black woman on the federal bench. TimeCode: 10:25:34.9 that however is surely not her greatest public service. what greater service to your country than to have been an architect of the legal strategy that brought equality under law to the united states. TimeCode: 10:25:50.0 she argued 10 cases before the supreme court, perhaps the most notorious was the james meredith case that integrated the university of mississippi. she made 22 trips into mississippi for that case alone. the university of alabama, the university of georgia where she TimeCode: 10:26:08.5 helped shar lane hunter gault integrate that university. charlane hunter gault said, i'm quoting her, ms. motley talked about the south in those days as if it were a war zone and she TimeCode: 10:26:22.3 was fighting in a revolution. no one was going to distract her from carrying her task to successful conclusion. indeed, in the 1960's the south was a war zone. not only for activists but for their lawyers. TimeCode: 10:26:38.2 in a car with medgar evers, mr. evers told her to put away her legal pad and not look back. he was later assassinated. she was so outstanding that every office wanted her to be there first. TimeCode: 10:26:53.3 she was the first woman to serve in the new york state senate, the first to service manhattan bar president. she was the first woman and for me perhaps the most important of her firsts, to argue a case before the united states supreme court because she inspired a TimeCode: 10:27:11.1 whole generation of young lawyers. it should astonish us that the first african-american woman was appointed to the bench only in 1966. only 40 years ago. it should remind us that the TimeCode: 10:27:25.7 integration of the courts of our country is part and parcel of establishing equality under the law. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. watson: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's recognized. ms. watson: dentistry must stop TimeCode: 10:27:47.5 mercury in dental fillings. the common name is silver. the term is deceptive because it contains more than 50% mercury. who can conclusively say dental mercury is safe when in our TimeCode: 10:28:00.6 bodies? it is indisputed as a fact that mercury vapor is released during the entire life of a mercury filling. madam speaker, mercury amalgam is considered dangerous when TimeCode: 10:28:16.0 it's put in the mouth and labeled a hazardous waste when it's coming out. dental offices contribute approximately 54 tons of toxic mercury to the environment each year. TimeCode: 10:28:31.0 mercury hurts the body's immune system. mercury also causes neuro development problems. my bill will protect children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers immediately. we have abandoned other remnants TimeCode: 10:28:50.5 of pre-civil war medicine and we have abandoned all other uses of mercury in the body. now is the time to ban mercury in dental fillings. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for TimeCode: 10:29:03.7 what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jackson: madam speaker, did you see the headlines? sox win the world series. the speaker pro tempore: the TimeCode: 10:29:19.8 gentleman will remove his hat. the gentleman will have to remove his hat. mr. jackson: i thank the gentlelady. this house will never be out of decorum, i see that. the headlines are clear the sox win the world series and i rise to congratulate the 2005 world series champions, the chicago white sox, on their first title TimeCode: 10:29:37.2 in 88 years. not only were they in first place in the central division every single day of the 2005 baseball season, they also had the best record in the american league for the entire season as they amassed a total of 99 wins. this team had no batters with an average above .300. they in no superstars, yet they TimeCode: 10:29:53.5 came together as a team led by manager ozzie guillen, characterized by their stellar pitching and tenacious defense. this team epitomized the work ethic of the city of chicago. i would like to congratulate the houston astros on a great season and fard-fought series. TimeCode: 10:30:09.6 every game was close. i also would like to congratulate the championship series m.v.p. paul corner could TimeCode: 10:30:19.6 he. congratulations are also in order for the entire front office of the white sox including the chairman, vice chairman, general manager ken williams who are the architects of this championship team and madam speaker, last but not TimeCode: 10:30:30.0 least, i would like to congratulate the dedicated and long suffering pans city of chicago on the south side who once again celebrate a champion. to my friends and colleagues from the other side, both democrats and republicans, na-na-na-na-hey, goodbye. TimeCode: 10:30:49.0 maybe next year, guys. thanks and god bless you. thank you, madam speaker. go, sox. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 1409, an act to amend the foreign assistance TimeCode: 10:31:04.9 act of 1961 to provide assistance for orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the TimeCode: 10:31:20.2 speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have been served with a subpoena issued by the district court of johnson county, kansas, for testimony in a criminal case. after a consultation with the office of general counsel, i TimeCode: 10:31:37.3 have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedents and privileges of the house. signed, sincerely, julyly mertz, district director -- julie mertz, district director. the speaker pro tempore: for TimeCode: 10:31:53.6 what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. gingrey: madam speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 508 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar 104, house resolution 508, resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause TimeCode: 10:32:11.6 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 420, to amend rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure to improve attorney accountability and for other TimeCode: 10:32:27.2 purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the TimeCode: 10:32:41.8 chairman and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the TimeCode: 10:32:58.8 committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed TimeCode: 10:33:14.7 in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time TimeCode: 10:33:30.6 specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against TimeCode: 10:33:44.4 such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the TimeCode: 10:34:00.4 committee of the whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit or with or TimeCode: 10:34:17.9 without -- one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, TimeCode: 10:34:30.4 mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. madam speaker, house resolution 508 is a structured rule. it provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and TimeCode: 10:34:47.5 ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. it waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and it provides gnat amendment in the nature of -- that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as TimeCode: 10:35:03.1 an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read. it makes in order only those amendments printed in the rules committee report accompanying the resolution. it provides that the amendments printed in the report may be TimeCode: 10:35:15.1 offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall TimeCode: 10:35:30.3 not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. this resolution waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. TimeCode: 10:35:48.0 madam speaker, i rise today in support of house resolution 508 and the underlying bill, h.r. 420, the lawsuit abuse reduction act of 2005. first, i want to thank -- or i want to commend representative TimeCode: 10:36:06.0 sensenbrenner, the distinguished chairman of the committee on the judiciary, not just for the underlying bill, but for a number of recent bills aimed at strengthening our legal system by protecting people's rights under the law and shielding them from frivolous proceedings. TimeCode: 10:36:21.5 additionally, i want to thank representative lamar smith, the chairman of the subcommittee on the courts, the internet, and intellectual property, for sponsoring h.r. 420. madam speaker, over the past couple of weeks, this house has taken several important steps to reform our legal system to TimeCode: 10:36:39.0 relieve our overburdened court dockets and drastically reduce the number of costly frivolous claims against innocent and legitimate businesses. on october 24, we passed and sent to the president's desk s. 397, the lawful commerce in TimeCode: 10:36:56.9 arms act of 2005, by a vote of 283-144 in the house. i might add that in the spirit of bipartisanship, 59 democrats, one independent joined 223 republicans in TimeCode: 10:37:12.5 passing this landmark legislation that refocuses liability for gun violence on the actual criminal, the person who pulled the trigger. additionally in this house, 226 republicans along with 80 democrats passed h.r. 554, the TimeCode: 10:37:30.4 personal responsibility in food consumption act of 2005. this bill also reaffirms the need for individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and not expect someone TimeCode: 10:37:43.6 else to foot the bill for the adverse health consequences of their own gluttonny. today, mr. speaker, we have another -- gluttony. today, mr. speaker, we have another opportunity to pass meaningful legislation to strengthen our court system TimeCode: 10:37:58.8 even further and to protect the falsely accused. the lawsuit abuse reduction act of 2005 will go a long way to curb the actions of individuals who would seek to abuse our courts by gaming the judicial system. TimeCode: 10:38:13.8 last week, there were probably millions of people across this country who tuned in, ticket in hand, to see if they had won a $340 million powerball jackpot. unfortunately, they're also people who look to the courts, TimeCode: 10:38:33.4 legal briefs in hand, as if it were the powerball lottery. however, madam speaker, it is the american people and small businesses that pay the ultimate price for frivolous lawsuits and this type of jackpot justice. they pay for it through high TimeCode: 10:38:49.7 prices for goods and services. they pay for it through diminished quality of products. they pay for it through loss of economic freedom. and they pay for it through a clogged court system that has been turned into an a.t.m. for junk lawsuits. TimeCode: 10:39:04.9 in fact, the current tort system is estimated to cost the american people well over $200 billion, that's with a b, per year. clearly the lawsuit abuse reduction act of 2005 is a bill that is sorely overdue, sorely TimeCode: 10:39:22.4 needed, and i might add, was approved by this house in the last congress by a vote of 229-174. with respect to the underlying bill, it would amend federal rule 11 of civil procedure by restoring the mandatory TimeCode: 10:39:38.9 sanctions for the filing of frivolous lawsuits. this bill would require that courts impose an appropriate penalty on attorneys, law firms, or parties who continue to file frivolous lawsuits. also, this bill would eliminate TimeCode: 10:39:56.6 the free pass provision that allows attorneys to avoid sanctions if they withdraw their frivolous claim after a motion for sanctions has been filed. madam speaker, h.r. 420 also would prevent forum shopping by TimeCode: 10:40:15.3 requiring that personal injury cases only be brought in those jurisdictions either where the plaintiff, the defendant, or a related business resides, or where the alleged injury or surrounding circumstances occurred. TimeCode: 10:40:28.3 this act would also institute a three strikes and you're out sanction that would suspend an attorney from practicing in federal court if a federal judge determines the lawyer has violated rule 11 on three or more occasions. h.r. 420 clearly emphasizes TimeCode: 10:40:46.8 that personal responsibility is not just some catch phrase that applies only to some people such as a fast food connoisseur, an arms owner, a firearms owner, a consumer, or, indeed, a doctor. TimeCode: 10:41:02.9 personal responsibility and professional accountability should be the rule for those in the legal field too, and that's why this house should pass this bill. in cloaching, madam speaker -- in closing, madam speaker, i TimeCode: 10:41:16.7 would just emphasize that house resolution 508 is a straightforward rule and h.r. 420 is a straightforward bill. simply put, it just makes sense to stop and punish the willful abuse of our legal system by TimeCode: 10:41:32.2 the slash-and-burn tactics of frivolous lawsuits. as always, i look forward to the consideration of this rule, and i ask my colleagues to support it and the underlying bill. and madam speaker, with that, i reserve the balance of my time. TimeCode: 10:41:47.8 the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from georgia, dr. gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, TimeCode: 10:42:01.9 and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, here we go again. you know, whenever the republican leadership appears to be floundering or simply needs some legislative filler, they turn to the judiciary committee for some kind of anti-lawyer, anti-lawsuit bill. we recently considered a bill TimeCode: 10:42:17.9 to ban lawsuits against people who want to sue fast food companies even though these cases are nonexistent. now we're here considering another bill that will pass the house and go nowhere in the senate. the fact is that the republican leadership has run out of TimeCode: 10:42:33.3 meaningful legislation to consider. they've run out of ideas. so here we are once again considering another bill that attacks america's judicial system and takes away rights from our fellow citizens. time after time, the republican leadership refuses to bring TimeCode: 10:42:49.3 necessary legislation to the floor. where, madam speaker, is the legislation combating poverty or ending hunger or increasing access to affordable and comprehensive health care? where are their priorities? there are 45 million americans TimeCode: 10:43:05.4 who have no health insurance in this country. where is the increase in the minimum wage? where is the legislation to lower gas and oil prices? it was comical to see the republican leadership gather at a press conference the other day in reaction to the news TimeCode: 10:43:21.3 that oil companies are making record profits. and what was their response? they very nicely asked the oil companies to do more. well, why should the oil companies do more when they passed legislation to give the companies more tax breaks and subsidies? TimeCode: 10:43:36.5 where is the oversight into the iraq war? over 2,000 americans have lost their lives in iraq and all we get from this leadership and all we get from this white house is stay the course. well, stay the course is not a policy. it is a sound bite. we owe our young men and women more than just a sound bite. TimeCode: 10:43:52.9 where is the genuinely independent 9/11-style commission to investigate the botched response to hurricane katrina and to make recommendations on how to prevent such another tragedy in the future? where is the fully constituted functioning ethics committee to TimeCode: 10:44:08.2 look into the numerous ethics charges mounting in this body? no, here we are dealing with legislation that we dealt with last year that's going nowhere. the fact is the republican leadership doesn't care much about these issues, and i know that they're out of step with the american people on these TimeCode: 10:44:24.1 issues. so instead, they bring us the lawsuit abuse reduction act once again. this is like watching a bad tv rerun. it wasn't good the first time, it's even worse the second time. remember, we considered this bill last year, and just like last year, it will pass this TimeCode: 10:44:41.8 republican-controlled congress, they'll do their press releases, they'll send it over to the senate, and it will go nowhere. later today, we will hear from members of the house judiciary committee who will have particular subject expertise on the specifics of this TimeCode: 10:44:55.3 legislation. i will leave it to these members to explain the intricacies of the federal code and the rules of civil procedure and how rule 11 fits in. i would like, for a few minutes, however, to talk about the continued abuse of power that the republican majority takes to a new level today. TimeCode: 10:45:12.0 under this rule and under this bill, republican fund raises are rewarded while the majority party continues its unabashed assault on the judicial branch of this nation. don't just take my word for it, madam speaker, one of the TimeCode: 10:45:25.2 broadest arrays of groups i have ever seen has come together to oppose this misguided, shortsighted, mean-spirited legislation. these groups include but are certainly not limited to the naacp legal defense fund, the american bar association, the national conference of state TimeCode: 10:45:44.0 legislatures, the national women's law center, and the consumers union. the one that stands out the most, however, is the opposition from the judicial conference of the united states. what is that? what is this conference that opposes what my republican friends will describe as a TimeCode: 10:45:58.3 critically important piece of legislation? the judicial conference was created by this very congress in 1922. the congressionally mandated mission is to be the principle body concerned with the TimeCode: 10:46:13.5 administration of the united states courts. the presiding officer of this organization is none other than the chief justice of the supreme court. and you know what the judicial conference has to say about this legislation? in a three-page letter to chairman sensenbrenner in short they say it's unnecessary and it TimeCode: 10:46:29.1 is harmful. if they were less judicious in their choice of words they would say what i say, it stinks. but what they say, madam speaker, this group representing the federal judges of this country, is that this legislation is fatally flawed. TimeCode: 10:46:45.4 they say that rule 11 of the federal rules of civil prudeure -- procedure what the underlying aims to fix is working better today than ever before. if their lert to the judiciary committee committee chairman they say that federal district TimeCode: 10:47:00.1 judges are united in their opposition to any legislation which seeks to amend rule 11. they specifically urge congress to reject this legislation. colleagues, let's think this through for just a second, shall we? TimeCode: 10:47:15.3 the organization representing president appointed, senate confirmed judges thinks this legislation is unwise. why? why? why? -- why do we think we know better than the federal judges? i would laugh if i didn't think TimeCode: 10:47:32.3 the majority was so sincere in their attempts to undermine the constitutional rights of every single american. shame on you. shame on all you for trying to eviscerate the constitution all for a few extra campaign dollars, because that's what this is about. the underlying legislation is not sound public policy, plain TimeCode: 10:47:50.4 and simple. quite on the contrary it's outright political grandstanding. let's be honest and let's call this bill and this debate what they really are, legislative abuse and a political charade. the majority's reckless disregard for judicial integrity TimeCode: 10:48:05.4 marks our constitution's separation of powers doctrine and i implore my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, in TimeCode: 10:48:21.7 response to some of the comments that were made, i just want to hold up this document that lists over 300 groups in support of lara, lawsuit abuse reduction TimeCode: 10:48:37.2 act of 2005, and ask unanimous consent that these be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gingrey: i'd like to also point out that the federal judicial center was in opposition to class action reform which we passed in the TimeCode: 10:48:55.0 previous congress and the 108th, by a vote in this body of 279-149. so with that i will continue to reserve the balance of my time. TimeCode: 10:49:09.2 the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: if i could inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he has. i'm the last speaker. mr. gingrey: we don't actually have any additional speakers at this time so right now i'm TimeCode: 10:49:23.4 reserving the balance of my time for the purpose of closing unless another speaker -- mr. mcgovern: will i close. madam speaker, i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record as well a letter signed by a number of groups urging a vote against h.r. 420. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. TimeCode: 10:49:38.9 mr. mcgovern: i would like to send the letter that was sent to every member of congress by michael s. greco on behalf of the president of the american bar association opposing this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i would also like to insert into the record the text of the letter that i mentioned in my opening speech TimeCode: 10:49:56.1 from the judicial conference the united states which very strongly opposes this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i think the reason why we have no other speakers on this side is because everything that possibly could be said was said last TimeCode: 10:50:10.3 year. and so all we need to do is just replay the tape recorder and listen to the arguments. we just seem to be repeating the same debates over and over and over again. again i would urge my colleagues to vote against this TimeCode: 10:50:23.9 legislation. this is unwise policy. i understand that the genesis of this legislation is to appeal to those who like to contribute lots of money to particular campaigns, but quite frankly i think that's not a sound reason to pass this legislation. as i mentioned before, the judicial conference of the TimeCode: 10:50:40.8 united states has outlined very clearly why this is a bad bill. i would hope that my colleagues would listen to some of the experts and do what is right and reject this legislation. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. TimeCode: 10:50:54.8 mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i might point out that the people that oppose this legislation as the gentleman from massachusetts mentioned earlier are the very one that is support his party. i think that there's a little balance there if that be true in TimeCode: 10:51:12.5 either instance. madam speaker, i'd first like to close this debate by thanking my colleagues for a very productive discussion of both the rule and h.r. 420. the opportunity before this house today, it's another example of how this congress is TimeCode: 10:51:28.3 improving our legal system and preventing frivolous lawsuits from closing the doors ever justice for those who have truly been harmed. contrary to what the opponents of legal reform might say, the underlying bill as well as other TimeCode: 10:51:42.7 recent bills do not demonstrate contempt for our legal system or the eseemed profession of attorneys, but rather demonstrate respect for the important and historic role of our judicial system in defending the rights and ensuring the constitutional application of TimeCode: 10:51:58.2 the laws. frivolous lawsuits have not only driven up cost and destroyed economic opportunity for the american people, but they have also damaged the image of the courts. and when the american people stop respecting the decisions of the judiciary, the courts begin TimeCode: 10:52:15.5 to lose their effectiveness and they cease to perform their actually mandated role. so for the sake of the courts and for the sake of the american people, we in this house need to push forward with this additionalle, meaningful, and genuine reform. TimeCode: 10:52:32.3 therefore i would like to urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, of the center aisle, to support this rule and the underlying bill. madam speaker, with that i yield back the balance of my time. and i move the previous question. TimeCode: 10:52:47.4 the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. and without objection the motion TimeCode: 10:53:03.5 to reconsider is laid upon the table.no carrierringconnect cl realignment commission as TimeCode: 10:54:14.4 submitted by the president on september 15, 2005. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is agreed to accordingly, the house resolves itself into the committee of the TimeCode: 10:54:30.7 whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of house joint resolution 65. the chair appoints the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chairman: the house is in TimeCode: 10:54:52.3 the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of house joint resolution 65 which the clerk will report the by title. the clerk: house joint resolution 65, joint resolution disapproving the recommendations of the defense base closure and TimeCode: 10:55:09.1 realignment commission. the chairman: without objection, the joint resolution is considered as read the first time. pursuant to section 2908-d of public law 101-510, debate shall not exceed two hours. TimeCode: 10:55:25.5 the gentleman from california, mr. hunter will be recognized for one hour in opposition to the joint resolution. and a member in favor of the joint resolution will be recognized for one hour. the gentleman from illinois. TimeCode: 10:55:41.4 for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. chairman, i'd like to claim the time, the one hour, in support of the resolution. the chairman: the gentleman from illinois, mr. lahood, will be recognized for one hour. TimeCode: 10:55:57.1 the chair recognizes at this point the gentleman from california. mr. hunter: mr. chairman, at this time i yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton, and i ask unanimous consent that mr. skelton be allowed to control this time. TimeCode: 10:56:13.0 i would also ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to designate mr. hefley as controlling our time. the chairman: without objection. the gentleman from california. TimeCode: 10:56:29.7 mr. hunter: mr. speaker, thank you. mr. speaker, tonight m. the end of a long and difficult process for selecting military installations for closure and realignment. TimeCode: 10:56:43.8 under the brac law, the recommendations made by the 2005 brac commission will be combining unless a joint resolution of disapproval such as the one before us today is enacted. for those of us with military installations in our districts, TimeCode: 10:57:00.1 the brac process is a trying one. and i might mention we have had four brac rounds previous to this one. every one of us spend the last four years making a case to the pentagon and brac commission with respect to the military TimeCode: 10:57:15.4 value of our bases. nevertheless both d.o.d. and the brac commission have determined that a portion of our military infrastructure should be closed or realigned. as a result, the final recommendations of the commission include 22 closures that you would -- we would TimeCode: 10:57:31.7 designate as major closures, 33 major realignments and many smaller closure and realignment actions. according to the commission these actions will save more than $15 billion over the next two decades with annual savings of more than $2.5 billion after TimeCode: 10:57:50.1 implementation. some of my colleagues have questioned the need for a round of brac and the timing of this round. while i understand and appreciate such concerns, i believe that these issues have been thoroughly discussed and debated. in addition, by a vote of 43-14, TimeCode: 10:58:03.9 the armed services committee reported this resolution adversely to the house with a recommendation that it do not pass. as such, i intend to vote against house joint resolution 65 today. thereby allowing the brac TimeCode: 10:58:18.3 commission recommendations to stand. i would urge my colleagues to join me in doing so. on a final note, i would like to thank the brac commissioners for their service. since their appointments this spring, the commissioners visited more than 170 installations, conducted 20 TimeCode: 10:58:35.0 regional hearings and 20 deliberative hearings and participated in hundreds of meetings with public officials. and i thank also, mr. chairman, i would likely like to thank the chairman of the commission -- i would particularly like to thank TimeCode: 10:58:49.2 the chairman of the commission, mr. principi. he hook on another tough one in chairing this commission. it's a commission where you get beaten up lots of times. second-guessed a lot, cross-examinationed a lot, yet it's a necessary position and one that requires a guy or a lady with a lot of integrity. TimeCode: 10:59:09.1 and chairman principi is just such a person. i know also we had on our committee two former members of the armed services committee were on the brac commission, jim bilbray and jim hansen, and mr. TimeCode: 10:59:25.5 chairman, they have served us well as senior statesmen in what amendment to very, very difficult roles. i would like to acknowledge the good work of all the commission ers, it's not an easy job and to TimeCode: 10:59:39.4 some degree a very thankless job. nonetheless it's necessary and they put a lot of time and a lot of sweat into this process. so i want to thank them. mr. chairman, with that, i reserve the balance of my time. TimeCode: 10:59:56.3 the chairman: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. mr. lahood: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend in support of the

Secretary Robert Gates Speech at Chicago Economic Club: Economic Club of Chicago As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Chicago, IL, Thursday, July 16, 2009 Top of Form 1 Thank you, Secretary Daley, for that kind introduction. It's an honor to be at the Economic Club of Chicago. I certainly appreciate the special arrangements you made to have me here this afternoon. I thank all the distinguished citizens of this great city who came here today. I am mindful I am speaking in the adopted hometown of my boss. President Obama sends his greetings, as do Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod and the rest of the Chicago crew. They are no doubt discovering that Washington is the true "Windy City." The issue that brings me here today is central to the security of all Americans: the future of the United States military: How it should be organized, equipped - and funded - in the years ahead, to win the wars we are in while being prepared for threats on or beyond the horizon. Earlier this year, I recommended to President Obama - and he enthusiastically agreed - that we needed to fundamentally reshape the priorities of America's defense establishment and reform the way the Pentagon does business - in particular, the weapons we buy, and how we buy them. Above all, to prepare to wage future wars, rather than continuing the habit of rearming for previous ones. I am here on relatively short notice to speak publicly about these matters because the Congress is, as we speak, debating the president's defense budget request for the next fiscal year, a budget request that implements many needed reforms and changes. Most of the proposals - especially those that increase support for the troops, their families, and the war effort - have been widely embraced. However, some of the crucial reforms that deal with major weapons programs have met with a less than enthusiastic reaction in the Congress, among defense contractors, and within some quarters of the Pentagon itself. And so I thought it appropriate to address some of these controversial issues here - in a place that is, appropriately enough not only the adopted home of our Commander-in-Chief, but also a symbol of America's industrial base and economic power. 12:13:32 First, some context on how we got to this point. President Obama's budget proposal is, I believe, the nation's first truly 21st century defense budget. It explicitly recognizes that over the last two decades the nature of conflict has fundamentally changed - and that much of America's defense establishment has yet to fully adapt to the security realities of the post-Cold War era and this complex and dangerous new century. During the 1990s, the United States celebrated the demise of the Soviet Union and the so-called "end of history" by making deep cuts in the funding for, and above all, the size of the U.S. military, including a 40 percent drop in the size of the Active Army. This took place even as a post-Cold War world grew less stable, less predictable, and more turbulent. The U.S. military, with some advances in areas such as precision weaponry, essentially became a smaller version of the force that held off the Soviets in Germany for decades and expelled Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. There was little appetite for, or interest in, preparing for what we call "irregular warfare" - campaigns against insurgents, terrorists, militias, and other non-state groups. This was the bipartisan reality both in the White House and in Congress. Of course, after September 11th, some things did change. The base defense budget - not counting spending for the wars - increased by some 70 percent over the next eight years. During this period there were important changes in the way U.S. forces were organized, based and deployed, and investments were made in new technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles. However, when all was said and done, the way the Pentagon selected, evaluated, developed, and paid for major new weapons systems and equipment did not fundamentally change - even after September 11th. Indeed, the kinds of equipment, programs, and capabilities needed to protect our troops and defeat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan were not the highest priority of much of the Defense Department, even after several years of war. I learned about this lack of bureaucratic priority for the wars we are in the hard way - during my first few months on the job as the Iraq surge was getting underway. The challenges I faced in getting what our troops needed in the field stood in stark contrast to the support provided conventional modernization programs - weapons designed to fight other modern armies, navies, and air forces - that had been in the pipeline for many years and had acquired a loyal and enthusiastic following in the Pentagon, in the Congress, and in industry. The most pressing needs of today's warfighter - on the battlefield, in the hospital, or at home - simply lacked place and power at the table when priorities were being set and long-term budget decisions were being made. So the most important shift in President Obama's first defense budget was to increase and institutionalize funding for programs that directly support those fighting America's wars and their families. Those initiatives included more helicopter support, air lift, armored vehicles, personnel protection equipment, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, we also increased funding for programs that provide long-term support to military families and treatment for the signature wounds of this conflict - such as traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress. But, while the world of terrorists and other violent extremists - of insurgents and IEDs - is with us for the long haul, we also recognize that another world has emerged. Growing numbers of countries and groups are employing the latest and increasingly accessible technologies to put the United States at risk in disruptive and unpredictable ways. Other large nations - known in Pentagon lingo as "near-peers" - are modernizing their militaries in ways that could, over time, pose a challenge to the United States. In some cases, their programs take the form of traditional weapons systems such as more advanced fighter aircraft, missiles, and submarines. But other nations have learned from the experience of Saddam Hussein's military in the first and second Gulf wars - that it is ill-advised, if not suicidal, to fight a conventional war head-to-head against the United States: fighter-to-fighter, ship-to-ship, tank-to-tank. They also learned from a bankrupted Soviet Union not to try to outspend us or match our overall capabilities. Instead, they are developing asymmetric means that take advantage of new technologies - and our vulnerabilities - to disrupt our lines of communication and our freedom of movement, to deny us access, and to narrow our military options and strategic choices. At the same time, insurgents or militias are acquiring or seeking precision weapons, sophisticated communications, cyber capabilities, and even weapons of mass destruction. The Lebanese extremist group Hezbollah currently has more rockets and high-end munitions - many quite sophisticated and accurate - than all but a handful of countries. In sum, the security challenges we now face, and will in the future, have changed, and our thinking must likewise change. The old paradigm of looking at potential conflict as either regular or irregular war, conventional or unconventional, high end or low - is no longer relevant. And as a result, the Defense Department needs to think about and prepare for war in a profoundly different way than what we have been accustomed to throughout the better part of the last century. What is needed is a portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict. As a result, we must change the way we think and the way we plan - and fundamentally reform - the way the Pentagon does business and buys weapons. It simply will not do to base our strategy solely on continuing to design and buy - as we have for the last 60 years - only the most technologically advanced versions of weapons to keep up with or stay ahead of another superpower adversary - especially one that imploded nearly a generation ago. To get there we must break the old habit of adding layer upon layer of cost, complexity, and delay to systems that are so expensive and so elaborate that only a small number can be built, and that are then usable only in a narrow range of low-probability scenarios. We must also get control of what is called "requirements creep" - where more features and capabilities are added to a given piece of equipment, often to the point of absurdity. The most flamboyant example of this phenomenon is the new presidential helicopter - what President Obama referred to as defense procurement "run amok." Once the analysis and requirements were done, we ended up with a helicopter that cost nearly half a billion dollars each and enabled the president to, among other things, cook dinner while in flight under nuclear attack. We also had to take a hard look at a number of weapons programs that were grotesquely over budget, were having major performance problems, were reliant on unproven technology, or were becoming increasingly detached from real world scenarios - as if September 11th and the wars that followed had never happened. Those of you with experience in the technology or manufacturing sectors have at some point probably faced some combination of these challenges in your own businesses. But in the defense arena, we faced an additional, usually insurmountable obstacle to bring rationality to budget and acquisition decisions. Major weapons programs, irrespective of their problems or performance, have a habit of continuing long after they are wanted or needed, recalling Ronald Reagan's old joke that a government program represents the closest thing we'll ever see to eternal life on this earth. 12:13:32 First, there is the Congress, which is understandably concerned, especially in these tough economic times, about protecting jobs in certain states and congressional districts. There is the defense and aerospace industry, which has an obvious financial stake in the survival and growth of these programs And there is the institutional military itself - within the Pentagon, and as expressed through an influential network of retired generals and admirals, some of whom are paid consultants to the defense industry, and some who often are quoted as experts in the news media. As a result, many past attempts by my predecessors to end failing or unnecessary programs went by the wayside. Nonetheless I determined in a triumph of hope over experience, and the president agreed, that given the urgency of the wars we are in, the daunting global security environment we will inhabit for decades to come, and our country's economic problems, we simply cannot afford to move ahead with business as usual. 12:14:44 To this end, the president's budget request cut, curtailed, or ended a number of conventional modernization programs - satellites, ground vehicles, helicopters, fighters - that were either performing poorly or in excess to real-world needs. Conversely, future-oriented programs where the U.S. was relatively underinvested were accelerated or received more funding. For example, we must sustain and continually improve our specialized strategic deterrent to ensure that our - and our allies' - security is always protected against nuclear-armed adversaries. In an initiative little noticed, the President's program includes money to begin a new generation of ballistic missile submarines and nearly $700 million in additional funds to secure and assure America's nuclear deterrent. 12:15:40 Some of our proposed reforms are meeting real resistance. They are called risky. Or not meeting a certain military requirement. Or lacking in study and analysis. Those three words - requirements, risk, and, analysis - are commonly invoked in defense matters. If applied correctly, they help us make sound decisions. I've found, however, that more often they have become the holy trinity of the status quo or business as usual. In truth, preparing for conflict in the 21st century means investing in truly new concepts and new technologies. It means taking into account all the assets and capabilities we can bring to the fight. It means measuring those capabilities against the real threats posed by real world adversaries with real limitations, not threats conjured up from enemies with unlimited time, unlimited resources, and unlimited technological acumen. 12:16:45 Air superiority and missile defense - two areas where the budget has attracted the most criticism - provide case studies. Let me start with the controversy over the F-22 fighter jet. We had to consider, when preparing for a future potential conventional state-on-state conflict, what is the right mix of the most advanced fighter aircraft and other weapons to deal with the known and projected threats to U.S. air supremacy? For example, we now have unmanned aerial vehicles that can simultaneously perform intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance missions as well as deliver precision-guided bombs and missiles. The president's budget request would buy 48 of the most advanced UAVs - aircraft that have a greater range than some of our manned fighters, in addition to the ability to loiter for hours over a target. And we will buy many more in the future. 12:17:45 We also took into consideration the capabilities of the newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas - most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale. Some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program. And we already have eight foreign development partners who are comitted to buying them along with us. 12:18:36 It has had development problems to be sure, as has every advanced military aircraft ever fielded. But if properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America's tactical aviation fleet for decades to come if - and it is a big if - money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft that our military leadership considers of lower priority or excess to our needs. 12:19:11 Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need - a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios - specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s - a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs. These are examples of how far-fetched some of the arguments have become for a program that has cost $65 billion - and counting - to produce 187 aircraft, not to mention the thousands of uniformed Air Force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it. In light of all these factors, and with the support of the Air Force leadership, I concluded that 183 - the program of record since 2005, plus four more added in the FY 09 supplemental - was a sufficient number of F-22s and recommended as such to the president. The reaction from parts of Washington has been predictable for many of the reasons I described before. The most substantive criticism is that completing the F-22 program means we are risking the future of U.S. air supremacy. To assess this risk, it is worth looking at real-world potential threat and assessing the capabilities that other countries have now or in the pipeline. Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security. Correspondingly, the recent tests of a possible nuclear device and ballistic missiles by North Korea brought scrutiny to the changes in this budget that relate to missile defense. The risk to national security has again been invoked, mainly because the total missile defense budget was reduced from last year. 12:22:21 In fact, where the threat is real or growing - from rogue states or from short-to-medium range missiles that can hit our deployed troops or our allies and friends - this budget sustains or increases funding. Most of the cuts in this area come from two programs that are designed to shoot down enemy missiles immediately after launch. This was a great idea, but the aspiration was overwhelmed by the escalating costs, operational problems, and technological challenges. Consider the example of one of those programs - the Airborne Laser. This was supposed to put high-powered lasers on a fleet of 747s. After more than a decade of research and development, we have yet to achieve a laser with enough power to knock down a missile in boost phase more than 50 miles from the launch pad - thus requiring these huge planes to loiter deep in enemy air space to have a feasible chance at a direct hit. Moreover, the 10 to 20 aircraft needed would cost about $1.5 billion each plus tens of millions of dollars each year for maintenance and operating costs. The program and operating concept were fatally flawed and it was time to face reality. So we curtailed the existing program while keeping the prototype aircraft for research and development. Many of these decisions - like the one I just described - were more clear-cut than others. But all of them, insofar as they involved hundreds of billions of dollars and the security of the American people, were treated with the utmost seriousness by the senior civilian and military leadership of the Pentagon. An enormous amount of thought, study, assessment, and analysis underpins these budget recommendations - including the National Defense Strategy I issued last summer. 12:24:18 Some have called for yet more analysis before making any of the decisions in this budget. But when dealing with programs that were clearly out of control, performing poorly, and excess to the military's real requirements, we did not need more study, more debate, or more delay - in effect, paralysis through analysis. What was needed were three things - common sense, political will, and tough decisions. Qualities too often in short supply in Washington, D.C. All of these decisions involved considering trade-offs, balancing risks, and setting priorities - separating nice-to-haves from have-to-haves, requirements from appetites. We cannot expect to eliminate risk and danger by simply spending more - especially if we're spending on the wrong things. But more to the point, we all - the military, the Congress, and industry - have to face some iron fiscal realities. The last defense budget submitted by President George W. Bush for Fiscal Year 2009 was $515 billion. In that budget the Bush administration proposed - at my recommendation - a Fiscal Year 2010 defense budget of $524 billion. The budget just submitted by President Obama for FY 2010 was $534 billion. Even after factoring inflation, and some of the war costs that were moved from supplemental appropriations, President Obama's defense request represents a modest but real increase over the last Bush budget. I know. I submitted them both. In total, by one estimate, our budget adds up to about what the entire rest of the world combined spends on defense. Only in the parallel universe that is Washington, D.C., would that be considered "gutting" defense. The fact is that if the defense budget had been even higher, my recommendations to the president with respect to troubled programs would have been the same - for all the reasons I described earlier. There is a more fundamental point: If the Department of Defense can't figure out a way to defend the United States on a budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year, then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by buying a few more ships and planes. What is important is to have a budget baseline with a steady, sustainable, and predictable rate of growth that avoids extreme peaks and valleys that are enormously harmful to sound budgeting. From the very first defense budget I submitted for President Bush in January 2007, I have warned against doing what America has done multiple times over the last 90 years by slashing defense spending after a major conflict. The war in Iraq is winding down, and one day so too will the conflict in Afghanistan. When that day comes, the nation will again face pressure to cut back on defense spending, as we always have. It is simply the nature of the beast. And the higher our base budget is now, the harder it will be to sustain these necessary programs, and the more drastic and dangerous the drop-off will be later. So where do we go from here? Authorization for more F-22s is in both versions of the defense bill working its way through the Congress. The president has indicated that he has real red lines in this budget, including the F-22. Some might ask: Why threaten a veto and risk a confrontation over a couple billion dollars for a dozen or so planes? 12:28:29 The grim reality is that with regard to the budget we have entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity - whether for more F-22s or anything else - is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I cannot accept and I will not take. 12:29:05 And, with regard to something like the F-22, irrespective of whether the number of aircraft at issue is 12 planes or 200, if we can't bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision - reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two different secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, and the current Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff, where do we draw the line? And if not now, when? 12:29:36 If we can't get this right - what on earth can we get right? It is time to draw the line on doing Defense business as usual. The President has drawn that line. And that red line is a veto. And it is real. On a personal note, I joined CIA more than 40 years ago to help protect my country. For just about my entire professional career in government I have generally been known as a hawk on national security. One criticism of me when I was at CIA was that I overestimated threats to the security of our country. Well, I haven't changed. I did not molt from a hawk into a dove on January 20, 2009. I continue to believe, as I always have, that the world is, and always will be, a dangerous and hostile place for my country with many who would do America harm and who hate everything we are and stand for. But, the nature of the threats to us has changed. And so too should the way our military is organized and equipped to meet them. 12;30:49 I believe - along with the senior military leadership of this nation - that the defense budget we proposed to President Obama and that he sent to Congress is the best we could design to protect the United States now and in the future. The best we could do to protect our men and women in uniform, to give them the tools they need to deter our enemies, and to win our wars today and tomorrow. We stand by this reform budget, and we are prepared to fight for it. 12:31:20 A final thought. I arrived in Washington 43 years ago this summer. Of all people, I am well aware of the realities of Washington and know that things do not change overnight. After all, the influence of politics and parochial interests in defense matters is as old as the Republic itself. Henry Knox, the first secretary of war, was charged with building the first American fleet. To get the support of Congress, Knox eventually ended up with six frigates being built in six different shipyards in six different states. But the stakes today are very high - with the nation at war, and a security landscape steadily growing more dangerous and unpredictable. I am deeply concerned about the long-term challenges facing our defense establishment - and just as concerned that the political state of play does not reflect the reality that major reforms are needed, or that tough choices and real discipline are necessary. 12:32:24 We stand at a crossroads. We simply cannot risk continuing down the same path - where our spending and program priorities are increasingly divorced from the very real threats of today and the growing ones of tomorrow. These threats demand that all of our nation's leaders rise above the politics and parochialism that have too often plagued considerations of our nation's defense - from industry to interest groups, from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. The time has come to draw a line and take a stand against the business-as-usual approach to national defense. We must all fulfill our obligation to the American people to ensure that our country remains safe and strong. Just as our men and women in uniform are doing their duty to this end, we in Washington must now do ours.

Secretary Robert Gates Speech at Chicago Economic Club: Economic Club of Chicago As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Chicago, IL, Thursday, July 16, 2009 Top of Form 1 Thank you, Secretary Daley, for that kind introduction. It's an honor to be at the Economic Club of Chicago. I certainly appreciate the special arrangements you made to have me here this afternoon. I thank all the distinguished citizens of this great city who came here today. I am mindful I am speaking in the adopted hometown of my boss. President Obama sends his greetings, as do Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod and the rest of the Chicago crew. They are no doubt discovering that Washington is the true "Windy City." The issue that brings me here today is central to the security of all Americans: the future of the United States military: How it should be organized, equipped - and funded - in the years ahead, to win the wars we are in while being prepared for threats on or beyond the horizon. Earlier this year, I recommended to President Obama - and he enthusiastically agreed - that we needed to fundamentally reshape the priorities of America's defense establishment and reform the way the Pentagon does business - in particular, the weapons we buy, and how we buy them. Above all, to prepare to wage future wars, rather than continuing the habit of rearming for previous ones. I am here on relatively short notice to speak publicly about these matters because the Congress is, as we speak, debating the president's defense budget request for the next fiscal year, a budget request that implements many needed reforms and changes. Most of the proposals - especially those that increase support for the troops, their families, and the war effort - have been widely embraced. However, some of the crucial reforms that deal with major weapons programs have met with a less than enthusiastic reaction in the Congress, among defense contractors, and within some quarters of the Pentagon itself. And so I thought it appropriate to address some of these controversial issues here - in a place that is, appropriately enough not only the adopted home of our Commander-in-Chief, but also a symbol of America's industrial base and economic power. 12:13:32 First, some context on how we got to this point. President Obama's budget proposal is, I believe, the nation's first truly 21st century defense budget. It explicitly recognizes that over the last two decades the nature of conflict has fundamentally changed - and that much of America's defense establishment has yet to fully adapt to the security realities of the post-Cold War era and this complex and dangerous new century. During the 1990s, the United States celebrated the demise of the Soviet Union and the so-called "end of history" by making deep cuts in the funding for, and above all, the size of the U.S. military, including a 40 percent drop in the size of the Active Army. This took place even as a post-Cold War world grew less stable, less predictable, and more turbulent. The U.S. military, with some advances in areas such as precision weaponry, essentially became a smaller version of the force that held off the Soviets in Germany for decades and expelled Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. There was little appetite for, or interest in, preparing for what we call "irregular warfare" - campaigns against insurgents, terrorists, militias, and other non-state groups. This was the bipartisan reality both in the White House and in Congress. Of course, after September 11th, some things did change. The base defense budget - not counting spending for the wars - increased by some 70 percent over the next eight years. During this period there were important changes in the way U.S. forces were organized, based and deployed, and investments were made in new technologies such as unmanned aerial vehicles. However, when all was said and done, the way the Pentagon selected, evaluated, developed, and paid for major new weapons systems and equipment did not fundamentally change - even after September 11th. Indeed, the kinds of equipment, programs, and capabilities needed to protect our troops and defeat the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan were not the highest priority of much of the Defense Department, even after several years of war. I learned about this lack of bureaucratic priority for the wars we are in the hard way - during my first few months on the job as the Iraq surge was getting underway. The challenges I faced in getting what our troops needed in the field stood in stark contrast to the support provided conventional modernization programs - weapons designed to fight other modern armies, navies, and air forces - that had been in the pipeline for many years and had acquired a loyal and enthusiastic following in the Pentagon, in the Congress, and in industry. The most pressing needs of today's warfighter - on the battlefield, in the hospital, or at home - simply lacked place and power at the table when priorities were being set and long-term budget decisions were being made. So the most important shift in President Obama's first defense budget was to increase and institutionalize funding for programs that directly support those fighting America's wars and their families. Those initiatives included more helicopter support, air lift, armored vehicles, personnel protection equipment, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, we also increased funding for programs that provide long-term support to military families and treatment for the signature wounds of this conflict - such as traumatic brain injury and post traumatic stress. But, while the world of terrorists and other violent extremists - of insurgents and IEDs - is with us for the long haul, we also recognize that another world has emerged. Growing numbers of countries and groups are employing the latest and increasingly accessible technologies to put the United States at risk in disruptive and unpredictable ways. Other large nations - known in Pentagon lingo as "near-peers" - are modernizing their militaries in ways that could, over time, pose a challenge to the United States. In some cases, their programs take the form of traditional weapons systems such as more advanced fighter aircraft, missiles, and submarines. But other nations have learned from the experience of Saddam Hussein's military in the first and second Gulf wars - that it is ill-advised, if not suicidal, to fight a conventional war head-to-head against the United States: fighter-to-fighter, ship-to-ship, tank-to-tank. They also learned from a bankrupted Soviet Union not to try to outspend us or match our overall capabilities. Instead, they are developing asymmetric means that take advantage of new technologies - and our vulnerabilities - to disrupt our lines of communication and our freedom of movement, to deny us access, and to narrow our military options and strategic choices. At the same time, insurgents or militias are acquiring or seeking precision weapons, sophisticated communications, cyber capabilities, and even weapons of mass destruction. The Lebanese extremist group Hezbollah currently has more rockets and high-end munitions - many quite sophisticated and accurate - than all but a handful of countries. In sum, the security challenges we now face, and will in the future, have changed, and our thinking must likewise change. The old paradigm of looking at potential conflict as either regular or irregular war, conventional or unconventional, high end or low - is no longer relevant. And as a result, the Defense Department needs to think about and prepare for war in a profoundly different way than what we have been accustomed to throughout the better part of the last century. What is needed is a portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict. As a result, we must change the way we think and the way we plan - and fundamentally reform - the way the Pentagon does business and buys weapons. It simply will not do to base our strategy solely on continuing to design and buy - as we have for the last 60 years - only the most technologically advanced versions of weapons to keep up with or stay ahead of another superpower adversary - especially one that imploded nearly a generation ago. To get there we must break the old habit of adding layer upon layer of cost, complexity, and delay to systems that are so expensive and so elaborate that only a small number can be built, and that are then usable only in a narrow range of low-probability scenarios. We must also get control of what is called "requirements creep" - where more features and capabilities are added to a given piece of equipment, often to the point of absurdity. The most flamboyant example of this phenomenon is the new presidential helicopter - what President Obama referred to as defense procurement "run amok." Once the analysis and requirements were done, we ended up with a helicopter that cost nearly half a billion dollars each and enabled the president to, among other things, cook dinner while in flight under nuclear attack. We also had to take a hard look at a number of weapons programs that were grotesquely over budget, were having major performance problems, were reliant on unproven technology, or were becoming increasingly detached from real world scenarios - as if September 11th and the wars that followed had never happened. Those of you with experience in the technology or manufacturing sectors have at some point probably faced some combination of these challenges in your own businesses. But in the defense arena, we faced an additional, usually insurmountable obstacle to bring rationality to budget and acquisition decisions. Major weapons programs, irrespective of their problems or performance, have a habit of continuing long after they are wanted or needed, recalling Ronald Reagan's old joke that a government program represents the closest thing we'll ever see to eternal life on this earth. 12:13:32 First, there is the Congress, which is understandably concerned, especially in these tough economic times, about protecting jobs in certain states and congressional districts. There is the defense and aerospace industry, which has an obvious financial stake in the survival and growth of these programs And there is the institutional military itself - within the Pentagon, and as expressed through an influential network of retired generals and admirals, some of whom are paid consultants to the defense industry, and some who often are quoted as experts in the news media. As a result, many past attempts by my predecessors to end failing or unnecessary programs went by the wayside. Nonetheless I determined in a triumph of hope over experience, and the president agreed, that given the urgency of the wars we are in, the daunting global security environment we will inhabit for decades to come, and our country's economic problems, we simply cannot afford to move ahead with business as usual. 12:14:44 To this end, the president's budget request cut, curtailed, or ended a number of conventional modernization programs - satellites, ground vehicles, helicopters, fighters - that were either performing poorly or in excess to real-world needs. Conversely, future-oriented programs where the U.S. was relatively underinvested were accelerated or received more funding. For example, we must sustain and continually improve our specialized strategic deterrent to ensure that our - and our allies' - security is always protected against nuclear-armed adversaries. In an initiative little noticed, the President's program includes money to begin a new generation of ballistic missile submarines and nearly $700 million in additional funds to secure and assure America's nuclear deterrent. 12:15:40 Some of our proposed reforms are meeting real resistance. They are called risky. Or not meeting a certain military requirement. Or lacking in study and analysis. Those three words - requirements, risk, and, analysis - are commonly invoked in defense matters. If applied correctly, they help us make sound decisions. I've found, however, that more often they have become the holy trinity of the status quo or business as usual. In truth, preparing for conflict in the 21st century means investing in truly new concepts and new technologies. It means taking into account all the assets and capabilities we can bring to the fight. It means measuring those capabilities against the real threats posed by real world adversaries with real limitations, not threats conjured up from enemies with unlimited time, unlimited resources, and unlimited technological acumen. 12:16:45 Air superiority and missile defense - two areas where the budget has attracted the most criticism - provide case studies. Let me start with the controversy over the F-22 fighter jet. We had to consider, when preparing for a future potential conventional state-on-state conflict, what is the right mix of the most advanced fighter aircraft and other weapons to deal with the known and projected threats to U.S. air supremacy? For example, we now have unmanned aerial vehicles that can simultaneously perform intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance missions as well as deliver precision-guided bombs and missiles. The president's budget request would buy 48 of the most advanced UAVs - aircraft that have a greater range than some of our manned fighters, in addition to the ability to loiter for hours over a target. And we will buy many more in the future. 12:17:45 We also took into consideration the capabilities of the newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas - most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale. Some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program. And we already have eight foreign development partners who are comitted to buying them along with us. 12:18:36 It has had development problems to be sure, as has every advanced military aircraft ever fielded. But if properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America's tactical aviation fleet for decades to come if - and it is a big if - money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft that our military leadership considers of lower priority or excess to our needs. 12:19:11 Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need - a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios - specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s - a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs. These are examples of how far-fetched some of the arguments have become for a program that has cost $65 billion - and counting - to produce 187 aircraft, not to mention the thousands of uniformed Air Force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it. In light of all these factors, and with the support of the Air Force leadership, I concluded that 183 - the program of record since 2005, plus four more added in the FY 09 supplemental - was a sufficient number of F-22s and recommended as such to the president. The reaction from parts of Washington has been predictable for many of the reasons I described before. The most substantive criticism is that completing the F-22 program means we are risking the future of U.S. air supremacy. To assess this risk, it is worth looking at real-world potential threat and assessing the capabilities that other countries have now or in the pipeline. Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security. Correspondingly, the recent tests of a possible nuclear device and ballistic missiles by North Korea brought scrutiny to the changes in this budget that relate to missile defense. The risk to national security has again been invoked, mainly because the total missile defense budget was reduced from last year. 12:22:21 In fact, where the threat is real or growing - from rogue states or from short-to-medium range missiles that can hit our deployed troops or our allies and friends - this budget sustains or increases funding. Most of the cuts in this area come from two programs that are designed to shoot down enemy missiles immediately after launch. This was a great idea, but the aspiration was overwhelmed by the escalating costs, operational problems, and technological challenges. Consider the example of one of those programs - the Airborne Laser. This was supposed to put high-powered lasers on a fleet of 747s. After more than a decade of research and development, we have yet to achieve a laser with enough power to knock down a missile in boost phase more than 50 miles from the launch pad - thus requiring these huge planes to loiter deep in enemy air space to have a feasible chance at a direct hit. Moreover, the 10 to 20 aircraft needed would cost about $1.5 billion each plus tens of millions of dollars each year for maintenance and operating costs. The program and operating concept were fatally flawed and it was time to face reality. So we curtailed the existing program while keeping the prototype aircraft for research and development. Many of these decisions - like the one I just described - were more clear-cut than others. But all of them, insofar as they involved hundreds of billions of dollars and the security of the American people, were treated with the utmost seriousness by the senior civilian and military leadership of the Pentagon. An enormous amount of thought, study, assessment, and analysis underpins these budget recommendations - including the National Defense Strategy I issued last summer. 12:24:18 Some have called for yet more analysis before making any of the decisions in this budget. But when dealing with programs that were clearly out of control, performing poorly, and excess to the military's real requirements, we did not need more study, more debate, or more delay - in effect, paralysis through analysis. What was needed were three things - common sense, political will, and tough decisions. Qualities too often in short supply in Washington, D.C. All of these decisions involved considering trade-offs, balancing risks, and setting priorities - separating nice-to-haves from have-to-haves, requirements from appetites. We cannot expect to eliminate risk and danger by simply spending more - especially if we're spending on the wrong things. But more to the point, we all - the military, the Congress, and industry - have to face some iron fiscal realities. The last defense budget submitted by President George W. Bush for Fiscal Year 2009 was $515 billion. In that budget the Bush administration proposed - at my recommendation - a Fiscal Year 2010 defense budget of $524 billion. The budget just submitted by President Obama for FY 2010 was $534 billion. Even after factoring inflation, and some of the war costs that were moved from supplemental appropriations, President Obama's defense request represents a modest but real increase over the last Bush budget. I know. I submitted them both. In total, by one estimate, our budget adds up to about what the entire rest of the world combined spends on defense. Only in the parallel universe that is Washington, D.C., would that be considered "gutting" defense. The fact is that if the defense budget had been even higher, my recommendations to the president with respect to troubled programs would have been the same - for all the reasons I described earlier. There is a more fundamental point: If the Department of Defense can't figure out a way to defend the United States on a budget of more than half a trillion dollars a year, then our problems are much bigger than anything that can be cured by buying a few more ships and planes. What is important is to have a budget baseline with a steady, sustainable, and predictable rate of growth that avoids extreme peaks and valleys that are enormously harmful to sound budgeting. From the very first defense budget I submitted for President Bush in January 2007, I have warned against doing what America has done multiple times over the last 90 years by slashing defense spending after a major conflict. The war in Iraq is winding down, and one day so too will the conflict in Afghanistan. When that day comes, the nation will again face pressure to cut back on defense spending, as we always have. It is simply the nature of the beast. And the higher our base budget is now, the harder it will be to sustain these necessary programs, and the more drastic and dangerous the drop-off will be later. So where do we go from here? Authorization for more F-22s is in both versions of the defense bill working its way through the Congress. The president has indicated that he has real red lines in this budget, including the F-22. Some might ask: Why threaten a veto and risk a confrontation over a couple billion dollars for a dozen or so planes? 12:28:29 The grim reality is that with regard to the budget we have entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity - whether for more F-22s or anything else - is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I cannot accept and I will not take. 12:29:05 And, with regard to something like the F-22, irrespective of whether the number of aircraft at issue is 12 planes or 200, if we can't bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision - reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two different secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, and the current Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff, where do we draw the line? And if not now, when? 12:29:36 If we can't get this right - what on earth can we get right? It is time to draw the line on doing Defense business as usual. The President has drawn that line. And that red line is a veto. And it is real. On a personal note, I joined CIA more than 40 years ago to help protect my country. For just about my entire professional career in government I have generally been known as a hawk on national security. One criticism of me when I was at CIA was that I overestimated threats to the security of our country. Well, I haven't changed. I did not molt from a hawk into a dove on January 20, 2009. I continue to believe, as I always have, that the world is, and always will be, a dangerous and hostile place for my country with many who would do America harm and who hate everything we are and stand for. But, the nature of the threats to us has changed. And so too should the way our military is organized and equipped to meet them. 12;30:49 I believe - along with the senior military leadership of this nation - that the defense budget we proposed to President Obama and that he sent to Congress is the best we could design to protect the United States now and in the future. The best we could do to protect our men and women in uniform, to give them the tools they need to deter our enemies, and to win our wars today and tomorrow. We stand by this reform budget, and we are prepared to fight for it. 12:31:20 A final thought. I arrived in Washington 43 years ago this summer. Of all people, I am well aware of the realities of Washington and know that things do not change overnight. After all, the influence of politics and parochial interests in defense matters is as old as the Republic itself. Henry Knox, the first secretary of war, was charged with building the first American fleet. To get the support of Congress, Knox eventually ended up with six frigates being built in six different shipyards in six different states. But the stakes today are very high - with the nation at war, and a security landscape steadily growing more dangerous and unpredictable. I am deeply concerned about the long-term challenges facing our defense establishment - and just as concerned that the political state of play does not reflect the reality that major reforms are needed, or that tough choices and real discipline are necessary. 12:32:24 We stand at a crossroads. We simply cannot risk continuing down the same path - where our spending and program priorities are increasingly divorced from the very real threats of today and the growing ones of tomorrow. These threats demand that all of our nation's leaders rise above the politics and parochialism that have too often plagued considerations of our nation's defense - from industry to interest groups, from the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. The time has come to draw a line and take a stand against the business-as-usual approach to national defense. We must all fulfill our obligation to the American people to ensure that our country remains safe and strong. Just as our men and women in uniform are doing their duty to this end, we in Washington must now do ours.

AP-APTN-0630: World Iran Reax Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:World Iran Reax- WRAP Anti Iran govt protest outside Greek parliament; protest in San Francisco LENGTH: 03:06 FIRST RUN: 0330 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610618 DATELINE: Various, 23 June 2009 LENGTH: 03:06 SHOTLIST: (FIRST RUN 0330 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 24 JUNE 2009) San Francisco, California, United States 1. Wide of San Francisco City Hall 2. Mid of protestors with signs 3. Close-up of sign reading: (English) "My name is Neda" 4. Wide of news conference 5. SOUNDBITE: (English) Ross Mirkarimi, San Francisco City Councilman: "It is absolutely essential that we continue, as an Iranian American community, to continue to advance the idea of peaceful and non-violent protest. We do not want this to be our Tiananmen Square despite the fact that the government of Iran has already articulated its rejection of the election, and its denial of any kind of freedom of speech in a way that one would take for granted here in the United States." 6. Close up of "Neda" sign 7. SOUNDBITE: (English) Mitra Moheb, Iranian-American citizen: "The world saw how she died. Very unfortunate so she has become a symbol, I think, because even though we didn't hear her shout anything, we heard her very loud what she wanted to say to the world." 8. Mid of protestors 9. Close up of woman shouting, sign 10. Mid of man holding sign 11. Close up of sign (FIRST RUN 2130 NEWS UPDATE - 23 JUNE 2009) Athens, Greece 12. Wide of protesters chanting, holding placards reading: (English) "We want freedom" 13. Mid of protesters holding up placards 14. Close of placard showing image of alleged injured student protesters in Iran 15. Close of placard showing map of Iran with colours of Iranian flag 16. Close of placard reading: (English) "This Persian President doesn't know English," tilt up to protester wearing cloth over his mouth with the word "No" written on it 17. Wide of protest outside Greek parliament 18. SOUNDBITE: (English) name unknown, protester, vox pop: "We are Iranian people, we want to say to all people in the world - we want freedom, we don't want dictatorship in Iran, we want to be free. We cannot think in Iran, we cannot speak, we cannot go everywhere. They are dictators, they are fascists, they are killing people, without reason, without reason killing people. Iran is in blood now. You should help to Iran, you should help to Iran now, after you cannot do anything for us." 19. Mid of protesters clapping and chanting, holding green balloon 20. Close of protester with face painted in colours of Iranian flag 21. Close of banner reading (English): "Free Iran" 22. Wide of protesters, waving Iranian flag STORYLINE: Scores of protesters gathered in front of San Francisco City Hall and the Greek parliament on Tuesday to show their support for demonstrations in Iran following the disputed presidential election on June 12. Hundreds of people gathered at San Francisco's City Hall on Tuesday to denounce the ongoing violence in Iran. Local media reported that the rally came just hours before the city's Board of Supervisors (the name given to San Francisco's city council) passed a resolution supporting the Iranian people in their fight for democracy. The resolution calls for the Iranian government to respect its people's right to non-violent protest and to create an accountable election process. City supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, an Iranian-American, who authored the resolution, spoke at the rally. "It is absolutely essential that we continue, as an Iranian American community, to continue to advance the idea of peaceful and non-violent protest," he said. "We do not want this to be our Tiananmen Square", referring to the bloody crackdown on pro-democracy activists in China in 1989. Many attending the demonstration held signs that made reference to a woman who purportedly died during the demonstrations in Iran and who has since become a powerful symbol for demonstrators both in Iran and around the world. An internet video has circulated worldwide of the apparent shooting death of Neda Agha Soltan, a 26-year-old woman who bled to death in a Tehran street. Meanwhile, about 250 Iranians living in Greece held a peaceful protest in Athens on Tuesday over the contested presidential election in Iran. Protesters held up banners with slogans including "Free Iran" outside the Greek parliament. One protester urged the international community to help Iran. "They are dictators, they are fascists, they are killing people, without reason," said the protester. At least 17 people have been killed in protests in Iran since the disputed presidential election on June 12. Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi claims he was the true winner of the election, but the electoral commission declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won by a landslide, which sparked angry demonstrations over the past 10 days. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0234EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0630: FILE China Liu Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:FILE China Liu- REPLAY State media says dissident Liu Xiaobo arrested for agitating subversion against state LENGTH: 00:33 FIRST RUN: 0430 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Mandarin/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610619 DATELINE: FILE: Beijing, 24 July 2008 LENGTH: 00:33 SHOTLIST: FILE: Beijing - 24 July 2008 1. Wide of Purple Bamboo Park 2. Various of Liu Xiaobo, prominent Chinese dissident, walking in park 3. SOUNDBITE: (Mandarin) Liu Xiaobo, writer and political activist: "If the government does not set up places to protest then it would have to face the prospect of protests happening at any time, anywhere, without any control, especially in those sensitive areas. They know it will be very bad for China's image to crackdown on those violently." 4. Wide of park STORYLINE: Prominent Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, who co-authored a manifesto calling for sweeping reforms to China's rigid political system, has been arrested for activities allegedly aimed at overthrowing the country's socialist system, state media said on Wednesday. Liu has been in police custody since they took him away on December 8, a day before the political document was released. Xinhua News Agency quoted a Beijing police statement as saying "Liu has been engaged in agitation activities, such as the spreading of rumours and defaming of the government, aimed at subversion of the state and overthrowing the socialism system in recent years." It gave no other details. Liu's lawyer Mo Shaoping said he had not been informed officially of the charges. It marks the highest-profile arrest of a Chinese dissident since human rights activist Hu Jia was detained last year ahead of the Beijing Olympics. China has always reacted sharply to any challenges to its one-party system, but is also cracking down on any dissent ahead of a gala celebrating the Communist regime's 60th anniversary on October 1. Liu, 53, is a former university professor who spent 20 months in jail for joining the 1989 student-led protests in Tiananmen Square. In his writings, most published only on the Internet, Liu has called for civil rights and political reform, making him subject to routine harassment by authorities. Speaking to AP Television last July, Liu said China needed a legitimate way of protesting inside the country, and for people's voices to be heard. "If the government does not set up places to protest then it would have to face the prospect of protests happening at any time, any where, without any control, especially in those sensitive areas. They know it will be very bad for China's image to crackdown on those violently," he said. Liu was among more than 300 lawyers, writers, scholars and artists who signed "Charter 08" in December calling for a new constitution guaranteeing human rights, election of public officials, freedom of religion and expression, and an end to the Communist Party's hold over the military, courts and government. Police detained Liu a day ahead of the charter's release, possibly because they considered him a key organiser, in addition to his role in drafting and revising the document, Liu's lawyer Mo has said. He has been held in an unknown location since December. Chinese law limits "house arrest" to six months and Mo demanded on June 8 that Liu be released immediately, saying it was illegal to hold him any longer. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0235EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0630: China Turkey Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:China Turkey- REPLAY Turkish President Abdullah Gul arrives for state visit LENGTH: 00:57 FIRST RUN: 0530 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610621 DATELINE: Beijing, 24 June 2009 LENGTH: 00:57 SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of plane taxiing 2. Close of plane turning 3. Wide of plane taxiing 4. Mid and tilt-down of Turkish President Abdullah Gul and wife walking down stairs 5. Wide of plane on tarmac 6. Gul getting into car 7. Wide of motorcade leaving airport STORYLINE: Turkish President Abdullah Gul arrived in Beijing on Wednesday, starting an official visit to China. Gul said on Tuesday that he hoped his visit will be a landmark in the Sino-Turkish relationship. Gul is accompanied by a large group of businessmen and state officials including State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babacan, State Minister for Foreign Trade Zafer Caglayan and Interior Minister Besir Atalay. He will meet with Chinese leaders including President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao to discuss bilateral relations, ways to improve and strengthen cooperation between Turkey and China, as well as regional and international issues, said the official statement of Gul's office before his departure. Officials of the two countries will also sign several agreements and a Turkey-China Business Forum will be held on the sidelines of Gul's visit, the statement said. Besides his talks in the capital city of Beijing, Gul will also visit Chinese cities Xi'an, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Urumchi. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0235EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0630: Philippines Feast Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:Philippines Feast- REPLAY Residents douse each other with water to celebrate feast of town's patron saint LENGTH: 01:06 FIRST RUN: 0330 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Tagalog/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610617 DATELINE: Manila, 24 June 2009 LENGTH: 01:06 SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of street zoom in to residents throwing water on passing car 2. Welcome to San Juan sign above road, tilt down to residents with buckets of water asking jeepney to stop, running around to rear of vehicle 3. Interior of jeepney, passengers being soaked with buckets of water 4. Children cheering, throwing water as jeepney drives away 5. Wide of people cheering by roadside 6. Various of man with hose watering jeepney passengers 7. SOUNDBITE: (Tagalog) Andrew Franco, Driver, San Juan Resident: "Since the beginning it has been a tradition here, of St John the Baptist, so people should not get upset. If they will get mad they should not pass San Juan so that they won't get wet because that's what makes the people of San Juan happy." 8. Woman being soaked with water 9. Boy throwing bucket of water at police officer riding on passing vehicle STORYLINE: Residents of San Juan, a suburb of Manila, celebrated the feast day of the town's patron saint on Wednesday by dousing each other with water. The festivities commemorate the feast of Saint John the Baptist, after whom the town was named. The revellers soaked residents and passers-by with water to depict the baptism, a Christian sacrament, which Saint John performed on Jesus Christ. This year there were fewer passers-by to be drenched as classes in the primary and secondary schools were suspended due to a coming storm. However, this did not dampen the celebrations as the residents continued splashing each other with water, an act they believe brings good fortune. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0236EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0630: US Train Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:US Train- WRAP Investigation into cause of train crash which killed nine; NTSB presser LENGTH: 01:41 FIRST RUN: 0030 RESTRICTIONS: Part No Access NAmerica/Internet TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/ABC STORY NUMBER: 610614 DATELINE: Washington DC, 23 June 2009 LENGTH: 01:41 SHOTLIST: ++NEW (FIRST RUN 0030 NEWS UPDATE - 24 JUNE 2009) ABC - No Access NAmerica/Internet 1. Wide of locomotive attached to damaged train 2. Medium of locomotive towing damaged train ++NEW (FIRST RUN 0030 NEWS UPDATE - 24 JUNE 2009) AP Television - AP Clients Only 3. National Transportation Safety Board Investigator Debbie Hersman walking with officials 4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Debbie Hersman, National Transportation Safety Board Investigator: "We've made recommendations about putting recorders on these cars. We've made recommendations about retro-fitting for crashworthiness purposes for these cars and to date those recommendations have not been accomplished." ++NEW (FIRST RUN 0030 NEWS UPDATE - 24 JUNE 2009) ABC - No Access NAmerica/Internet 5. Medium of Washington DC Mayor Adrian Fenty walking to news briefing 6. SOUNDBITE: (English) Adrian Fenty, Washington DC Mayor: "We now have final confirmation that nine people have died as a result of yesterday's accident. All of those people are now pulled from the wreckage." (FIRST RUN 1330 EUROPE PRIME NEWS - 23 JUNE 2009) AP Television - AP Clients Only 7. Medium shot officials working on impact area of metro crash ++NEW (FIRST RUN 0030 NEWS UPDATE - 24 JUNE 2009) ABC - No Access NAmerica/Internet 8. SOUNDBITE: (English) Debbie Hersman, National Transportation Safety Board Investigator: "They found in the operator's control area that the mushroom, the emergency brakes, the emergency mushroom was found in a depressed condition, that it was pushed in. " (FIRST RUN 1830 NORTH AMERICA PRIME NEWS - 23 JUNE 2009) AP Television - AP Clients Only 9. Wide of recovery efforts at site of crash 10. Tight of emergency workers working on crash site 11. Medium of officials watching recovery effort 12. Wide of workers and search dog at crash site 13. Medium of wreckage STORYLINE: Investigators looking into the deadly crash of two Metro transit trains in Washington DC focused on Tuesday on why a computerised system failed to halt an oncoming train, and why the train failed to stop even though the emergency brake was pressed. At the time of the crash, the train also was operating in automatic mode, meaning it was controlled primarily by computer. In that mode, the operator's main job is to open and close the doors and respond in case of an emergency. Debbie Hersman, an investigator with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), said it was unclear whether the emergency brake actually was engaged when Monday's crash occurred. Hersman told reporters in Washington, DC on Tuesday that the mushroom-shaped button that activates it was found pushed down in the operator's compartment. Hersman said it was not clear when the button was pressed or how it got that way, and also said there was evidence of braking on the train's rotors, indicating it was likely that the operator tried to slow down. The train ploughed into a stopped train ahead of it at the height of Monday's evening rush hour, killing nine people and injuring more than 70 in the deadliest accident in the 30-year history of the Metro. Crews spent Tuesday pulling apart the wreckage and searching for bodies. Washington's mayor, Adrian Fenty, confirmed that all of the deceased had been pulled from the wreckage. Authorities also worked to determine why the train's safeguards apparently did not kick in. Investigators want to examine the mobile phone and texting records of the train operator, identified as Jeanice McMillan, to determine whether she was distracted before the crash, Hersman said. Safety officials were also investigating a passenger's statement that the train had stopped briefly then started again before the crash. On Tuesday, all Metro trains were running on manual control as a precaution against computer malfunction. The cars in the moving train were some of the oldest in the transit network, dating to the founding of the system. Federal officials had sought to phase out the aging fleet because of safety concerns, but the transit system kept the old trains running, saying it lacked money for new cars. Hersman told the Associated Press that the NTSB had warned in 2006 that the old fleet should be replaced or retrofitted to make it better able to survive a crash. "To date those recommendations have not been accomplished," she said. Metro has long pleaded for more funding to ensure the system's safety. The transit network is supported by the District of Columbia, Maryland and the Virginia jurisdictions that it serves. However, unlike other major systems, Metro has no dedicated funding source. Metro officials have long argued that the federal government should contribute because the trains serves the capital, and some 40 percent of rush-hour riders are federal workers. Metro General Manager John Catoe said last year it would take seven (b) billion US dollars just to maintain current service and keep the system running safely and reliably from 2010 to 2020. That includes replacements for aging rail cars. It would take (b) billions more, he said, to deploy longer trains and more buses to meet the projected increase in demand. The number of trips taken on Metro trains is expected to grow 22 percent to about one (m) million a day by 2020. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0237EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0630: US Russia Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:US Russia- REPLAY US expresses confidence that missile spat with Russia will be worked out LENGTH: 01:22 FIRST RUN: 0230 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Natsound SOURCE: DoS TV STORY NUMBER: 610615 DATELINE: Washington DC, 23 June 2009 LENGTH: 01:22 SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of briefing room, US State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly walking in 2. Cutaway of reporter asking question 3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Ian Kelly, US State Department Spokesman: "Both presidents have set before themselves the goal of significant reductions in strategic arms, and that's what each country is working towards. I think that we have made progress in the talks that we have had so far. The talks continue this week in Geneva. I have said that we don't make the linkage, we have heard what the Russian side has said. But I think we are just going to focus on the goal the two presidents have set for themselves, and that's significant reductions in these dangerous arms." (Q: But is having this difference not going to be a problem before the talks even begin?) "Well, this is something that I believe will be worked out between the two sides." 4. Cutaway of reporter STORYLINE: A US State Department official expressed confidence on Tuesday that a spat over missile defence with Russia will not impede arms reduction talks. Russia said it is ready for deep cuts in nuclear weapons if the US eases Moscow's concerns about missile shields in eastern Europe. The United States said the two issues were separate. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters that he believed the United States and Russia will be able to settle their differences. "Both presidents have set before themselves the goal of significant reductions in strategic arms, and that's what each country is working towards," Kelly said on Tuesday. Russia on Tuesday made clear it expected the US to accept its position. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a security meeting in Vienna that arms reduction and missile defence are linked, "and both parties recognise it." US President Barack Obama has delayed previous plans by the Bush administration to build a small missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic, with the aim of intercepting missiles from Iran targeted at the West. Russia prefers that the US scrap the system altogether. The countries are working to replace the expiring Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that significantly cut American and Russian nuclear arsenals. The US and Russia are hoping for progress on START talks by the time Obama visits Moscow in July. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0238EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0630: Venezuela Arrest Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:Venezuela Arrest- REPLAY Venezuela to deport top Italian Mafia suspect LENGTH: 00:46 FIRST RUN: 0130 RESTRICTIONS: Part No Access Venezuela TYPE: Spanish/Nat SOURCE: VTV/Globovision STORY NUMBER: 610613 DATELINE: Caracas, 22/23 June 2009 LENGTH: 00:46 SHOTLIST: VTV - AP Clients Only Caracas - 23 June 2009 1. Pan of Interior Minister and authorities during news conference 2. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Tareck El Aissami, Venezuelan Interior and Justice Minister: "Mr Miceli Salvatore will be deported in the next few days. We are coordinating with Interpol and Italian authorities to carry out this deportation." Globovision - No Access Venezuela Caracas - 22 June 2009 3. Drug trafficker Salvatore Miceli getting out of car and being led by police into a forensic medical facility 5. Mid of Miceli and police walking inside medical facility 6. Close-up of Interpol vehicle 7. Mid of Miceli being led by police down steps and into car STORYLINE: A convicted European drug trafficker dubbed the "Mafia's foreign minister" will be deported to Italy after his capture in Caracas in a joint operation by Venezuelan and Italian police, authorities said on Tuesday. Salvatore Miceli was caught at a Caracas hotel on Saturday, Venezuelan police said. He will be deported to Italy "in the next few days," Justice Minister Tareck El Aissami told reporters. Miceli was one of Europe's top five drug traffickers, said Captain Antonello Parasiliti of the Carabinieri police in Trapani, who led the Italian police operation to arrest Miceli in Venezuela. Parasiliti told The Associated Press by phone interview that Miceli worked as a middleman between Italy's and South America's organised crime groups, leading fellow mobsters to call him the "Mafia's foreign minister" and "the chicken that lays golden eggs." Miceli had been under surveillance by Italian and Venezuelan police for three days before he was captured late on Saturday, Italian police said. Italian police said two other Italian suspects were also detained. They have not been identified. Venezuelan authorities say Miceli is suspected of trafficking cocaine, heroin and morphine. Interpol's secretary-general, Ronald K. Noble, congratulated Italian and Venezuelan police in a statement on Monday, saying Miceli's capture "will seriously undermine a close network of transnational organised crime groups." Miceli, 63, was born in Salemi, a town in western Sicily, and followed in the footsteps of his grandfather - local Mafia boss Salvatore Zizzo, Parasiliti said. In the 1970s, Miceli was allegedly involved in a series of ransom kidnappings that helped fund drug trafficking clans in nearby Trapani. Miceli was arrested in the early 1990s on drug trafficking and Mafia charges, but was later freed while awaiting trial and went on the run after being convicted in 2001, Parasiliti said. He said a 2003 probe uncovered Miceli's role as an intermediary between South American drug cartels, the Sicilian Cosa Nostra and Calabria's 'ndrangheta - leading authorities to issue another arrest warrant. Venezuelan television on Monday showed police leading a handcuffed Miceli for forensic testing to demonstrate that he was not mistreated prior to deportation. El Aissami said over the weekend that Miceli apparently tried to alter his features with plastic surgery, but Parasiliti dismissed that claim, saying the man looked very similar to photos taken 10 years ago, only older. To avoid capture, Miceli ensured that people who came to meet him started out early in the morning - reaching him in the evening after changing clothes and taking elaborate routes to elude any followers, Parasiliti said. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0240EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0630: Mexico Environment Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:Mexico Environment- REPLAY Environment ministers from 30 countries discuss climate change LENGTH: 01:29 FIRST RUN: 0130 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610568 DATELINE: Morelos, 23 June 2009 LENGTH: 01:29 SHOTLIST: 1. Various of delegates at climate change conference 2. Wide of US envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, taking seat at conference 3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Todd Stern, US envoy for climate change: ++QUALITY AS INCOMING++ "Our proposal involves about a 14 or 15 per cent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020, rising up to over an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. The legislation that I referred to a few minutes ago, the so called Waxman-Markey legislation would envision about a 17 per cent reduction from 2005 levels, again ramping up year by year all the way up to over 80 per cent by 2050. So, we will continue working with congress, trying to get legislation passed." 4. Mid of attendees at conference 5. People gathered in foyer 6. Wide of delegates at conference 7. Mid of conference sign reading (Spanish): "Third preparatory meeting of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate." STORYLINE: US President Barack Obama's climate envoy dismissed recommendations that the United States and other developed countries reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases 40 per cent by 2020. "Our proposal involves about a 14 or 15 per cent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020, rising up to over an 80 per cent reduction by 2050," Todd Stern said on Tuesday at a conference on global warming in Morelos, just south of Mexico City. Stern was speaking at the end of a two-day meeting of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, a gathering of 19 nations and the European Union that together produce 80 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases. The group, called together by Obama, was trying to build a replacement climate change treaty for the expiring Kyoto Protocol. A panel of United Nations scientists had recommended that industrial countries cut carbon emissions by 25 per cent to 40 per cent by 2020 to avoid a catastrophic rise in sea levels, harsher storms and droughts and climate disruptions. Some poorer and island countries are pushing for reductions of as much as 45 per cent. After rejecting that idea, Stern pointed to progress on legislation before the US Congress that would require lesser reductions. He said the Waxman-Markey bill was expected to move to the floor of the US House this week for debate. The bill calls for a 17 per cent cut in US emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 2020 from 2005 levels, and an 83 per cent reduction by mid-century. Carbon dioxide, produced by burning coal and other fossil fuels, is the leading manmade greenhouse gas that scientists have linked to global warming. Such measures may not be enough to bring agreement on a climate change accord, which the United Nations hopes will be agreed on at a conference in Copenhagen next December. Stern said there were "still significant differences between the parties" on emissions levels at the talks. But the final document from the Mexico talks indicated only that "many leaders' representatives expressed support for agreeing to a long-term goal by 2050," indicating there wasn't even complete agreement on the idea of emission caps by that late date. Somewhat more progress was made on financing for emissions reduction, technology and adaptation to climate change. Mexico's proposal for a "green fund" to which all but the very poorest countries would contribute, and then receive funding for clean energy and environmental projects, appeared to be gaining traction. Stern voiced support for the proposal, adding that "there are a number of countries that sat around the table that also think it's an interesting idea." Unlike the current, largely private carbon credit market in which polluting companies pay to offset their emissions, the new, 10 (b) billion US dollar fund would be financed through government contributions and run by a multilateral agency, possibly the World Bank. Mexico's government said on Tuesday that it was open to including carbon credits in the framework of the proposed fund, to make more money available to poor countries to develop cleaner technologies and prepare for climate change phenomena like floods and droughts. Environmental activists said that while Mexico's proposal lacked compliance mechanisms to ensure that wealthy countries contribute, it was preferable to the current carbon credits market. Stern agreed there would be a need for "some sort of mechanism for a more regular provision and a more dependable provision of funding to poor countries." Norway has suggested a fund financed by proceeds from auctioning emission permits, but Stern said that proposal was "more amenable to some countries than others," without offering any specifics. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com. (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0241EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0630: SKorea NKorea Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:SKorea NKorea- REPLAY SKor Defence ministry says NKor plans to hold maritime firing exercise LENGTH: 00:55 FIRST RUN: 0330 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Korean/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610616 DATELINE: Seoul, 24 June 2009 LENGTH: 00:55 SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of South Korean Defence Ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae entering briefing room 2. Various of reporters 3. SOUNDBITE: (Korean) Won Tae-jae, South Korean Defence Ministry spokesman: "North Korea announced that it is going to hold a maritime firing exercise from the 25th (June) to July 9th, starting at 8 a.m. (2300 GMT) until 8 p.m. (1100 GMT) near the sea of Wonsan, and it also announced the area as a restricted zone for navigation." 4. Mid of reporter 5. Wide of briefing room 6. SOUNDBITE: (Korean) Won Tae-jae, South Korean Defence Ministry spokesman: "We are inspecting for possible firing (of missiles) from the launching site, which we know about, or for other kinds of exercises near this area." 7. Wide of media STORYLINE: South Korea's Defence Ministry on Wednesday said North Korea planned to hold a maritime firing exercise, expected to take place off the coast of Wonsan, North Korea. Speaking at a briefing in Seoul, Defence Ministry spokesman Won Tae-jae said the South Korean government would monitor closely activity from the designated launch site. Pyongyang issued a warning over the weekend to mariners of upcoming live-fire missile exercises. The exclusion zone cited in the notice covers a stretch in the Sea of Japan, 450 kilometres by 110 kilometres (279 miles by 68 miles) off the coast of Wonsan, North Korea. Won said the warning lasts from June 25 to July 9, from approximately 8 a.m. (2300 GMT) to 8 p.m. local time (1100 GMT). According to US intelligence reports, Pyongyang is expected to launch short- to medium-range missiles rather than a long-range missile similar to one tested in April. US defence and counterproliferation officials say intelligence suggests that North Korea is likely to fire short- and medium-range missiles, based of the splashdown zone referred to in the notice and other activities that are consistent with such launches. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence. If the indications are correct, the US state of Hawaii can rest easy. But in the event North Korea launches a long-range missile, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has ordered the deployment of a ground-based mobile missile intercept system and a radar system to Hawaii. Together they could shoot down an incoming missile in midair. Experts say North Korea has not yet built a ballistic missile that can reach Hawaii, which is about 4,500 miles (7,200 kilometres) from North Korea. US defence officials told Congress earlier this month they think North Korea is still three to five years away from being able to hit the West coast of the United States with a long-range Taepodong-2 missile. If the Taeopodong-2 works as designed, it could travel as far as 4,000 miles (6,400 kilometres), placing parts of the West coast of the United States within range, US officials have said. North Korea's last three missile tests have failed to achieve that distance. US officials said they have not seen preparations for the launch of a Taeopodong-2 missile similar to that launched on April 5. It took North Korea about 12 days to stack and fuel that missile, which it claimed was a space-launch vehicle intended to put a satellite into orbit. It failed sometime in its second or third stages, splashing down into the ocean after travelling about 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometres). Pyongyang has also not mastered mounting a nuclear bomb on a long-range missile despite recently conducting its second underground nuclear test. The yield was estimated by US intelligence as a "few" kilotons. The communist regime has vowed to bolster its nuclear arsenal and threatened war to protest United Nations sanctions in the wake of its second nuclear test. It conducted its first nuclear test in October 2006, and there are suspicions it is preparing for a third. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0242EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0630: +Mexico Storm Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:+Mexico Storm- WRAP Andres weakens from hurricane to tropical storm ADDS more LENGTH: 03:09 FIRST RUN: 0630 RESTRICTIONS: Part No Access Mexico TYPE: English/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/ TV Azteca STORY NUMBER: 610626 DATELINE: Various, 23 June 2009 LENGTH: 03:09 SHOTLIST: (FIRST RUN 2130 NEWS UPDATE - 23 JUNE 2009) AP Television - AP Clients Only Manzanillo, Colima State 1. Traffic in principal avenue 2. Various of people walking in streets 3. Wide of beach and waves 4. Wide of boat in the sea 5. Mid of waves 6. Mid of palm trees 7. Rain drops on floor (FIRST RUN 2330 AMERICAS PRIME NEWS - 23 JUNE 2009) TV Azteca - No Access Mexico Lazaro Cardenas, Michoacan State 8. Wide of street as it rains 9. Close of rain falling on car 10. Various of cars driving through flooded streets ++NEW (FIRST RUN 0630 ASIA PRIME NEW - 24 JUNE 2009) AP Television - AP Clients Only Puerto Vallarta 11. Wide Puerto Vallarta coastline 12. Medium palm trees blowing in the wind 13. Medium hotel area on coastline in the rain 14. Wide waves breaking against shore of hotel strip 15. Medium waves breaking on the rocks 16. Medium palm trees blowing in the wind 17. Wide empty sidewalk in front of beach as it rains 18. Wide restaurant along the beach 19. Close rain dripping off roof of restaurant 20. SOUNDBITE: (English) Doug Bilasker, North Carolina tourist: "Um, not changing vacation plans, maybe rearranging some boat travel and some outdoor events, but just going to stay in Vallarta and enjoy the weather as much as I can." 21. Wide sign with beach flag warning levels 22. Close red flag indicating danger to swimmers 23. Wide empty beachfront restaurant 24. Medium empty tables 25. Wide hills of Puerto Vallarta filled with clouds STORYLINE: A weakening Tropical Storm Andres hit Mexico's coast south tourist resort of Puerta Vallarta with rain and wind on Wednesday, before heading out into the Pacific and brushing past the tip of Baja California. Andres briefly flared up into the Eastern Pacific season's first hurricane on Tuesday, but quickly weakened back to a tropical storm after dealing a glancing blow to Mexico's southwestern coast, where it flooded homes and left at least one person dead. Its winds weakened to 110 kilometres per hour (70 miles per hour) late on Tuesday and it was expected to weaken even more over the next day or two as it headed back out to sea, the US National Hurricane Centre said. The centre of the storm as of 11 p.m. PDT (2 a.m. EDT, 0700 GMT) was about 150 kilometres (90 miles) south-southwest of Cabo Corrientes, just south of Puerto Vallarta. Moving near 17 kilometres per hour (10 miles per hour) toward the west-northwest, it was forecast to pass by that part of the coast early on Wednesday. Mexican authorities posted a hurricane warning for the coastal strip from just south of Manzanillo to near Puerto Vallarta, and heavy rain flooded homes and wind blew down trees in the states of Jalisco, Colima and Guerrero. A light rain fell Tuesday night in Puerto Vallarta as tourists emptied beaches and retreated to hotel restaurants. Port authorities said the arrival of the cruise ship Carnival Splendor was rescheduled from Wednesday to July 1. Eighteen shelters were prepared as officials visited high-risk areas to advise residents of the storm, said Alfredo Rivas, director of Puerto Vallarta's Fire Department. He said people were staying put because it was raining lightly and because they felt they were not in danger. Rain poured down on Manzanillo, where authorities opened 14 shelters amid forecasts that the storm would likely graze the port city. To the south, rain caused flooding Monday in the resort of Acapulco that forced about 200 people to evacuate their homes. A fisherman drowned when choppy currents overturned his boat in a lagoon in Tecpan de Galeana, between Acapulco and Zihuatanejo, a state police report said. The US National Hurricane Centre predicted Andres would bring a storm surge of as much as almost one metre (three feet) above normal, while dumping as much as 200 millimetres (eight inches) of rain in a few spots. The forecast track showed the storm then weakening as it continues northwest along the coast before veering into the open Pacific and just south of the Los Cabos resorts at the tip of the Baja California peninsula on Thursday morning. Late on Sunday, Andres became the first named storm of the eastern Pacific hurricane season, which began on May 15 and ends November 30. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0253EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0630: ++China US Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:++China US- NEW US Dpt of Defence delegation attends US-China defence consultative talks LENGTH: 02:29 FIRST RUN: 0630 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Mandarin/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610627 DATELINE: Beijing, 24 June 2009 LENGTH: 02:29 SHOTLIST: 1. Medium of Chinese military official walking to media 2. Cutaway of reporters 3. Wide of press conference 4. SOUNDBITE (Mandarin) Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotian, Deputy chief of staff of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA): "The Chinese side reiterated our opposition to US military aircrafts' spying activities in Chinese territory, and the Chinese side is willing to continue the consultations with US side on this issue. We hope both sides can make joint efforts to avoid such incidents from happening again since such incidents will surely have a negative impact on our bilateral relations in general. As to the confrontation between the Chinese naval submarine and the US destroyer at sea, it was not discussed during the dialogue. We have not received any detailed report about it. To resolve the security issue at sea, we agreed to hold a special meeting in July to address this issue." 5. Medium of reporter asking question 6. SOUNDBITE (Mandarin) Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotian, Deputy chief of staff of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA): "The security of northeast Asia and the North Korea nuclear issue is not only the concern of US, Japan and South Korea, but also a serious concern of China. During the discussion, we reiterated our stance on this issue, which has always been consistent. We hope and urge the relevant parties to take positive and stabilising measures, to control the situation on the Korean Peninsula, and resolve this issue through diplomatic negotiations and dialogue." 7. Cutaway of cameramen and officials 8. SOUNDBITE (Mandarin) Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotian, Deputy chief of staff of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA): "We urge the US side to give enough importance to China's core interest and grave concern on security and stop weapons sales to Taiwan, and secure a solid foundation for bilateral military relations and sound development." 9. Medium, pull out to wide of official walking away STORYLINE: A top Chinese military officer said on Wednesday that Beijing had agreed to work with the US military on avoiding further confrontations at sea that threaten to harm overall relations between the two countries. A series of recent naval encounters, including a collision between a Chinese submarine and a US sonar device, have caused concerns about a lack of communication between the militaries of the countries. The issue was at the centre of the first high-level military talks between the countries in 18 months, with People's Liberation Army deputy chief of staff Lieutenant General Ma Xiaotian saying China had reiterated its opposition to US surveillance patrols in the South China Sea during two days of discussions in Beijing that ended on Wednesday. "Our two sides agreed to work together to avoid such incidents from happening again since such incidents will surely have a negative impact on our bilateral relations in general," Ma told a news conference at the close of the US-China Defense Consultative Talks. He said specific incidents were not discussed, but added that the sides had agreed in principle to hold a bilateral forum next month to discuss the specific issues for avoiding future altercations. High-level exchanges of military visits are also planned, he said without giving any details. Ma said Chinese officials and the US delegation led by US Defence Undersecretary Michele Flournoy also discussed North Korea, which counts China as its closest ally. Pyonyang has threatened war with the US and its allies in response to new UN sanctions imposed over its recent nuclear test blast. He did not give specific details of what was said on North Korea. China had hosted now-stalled six-nation talks aimed at pressing Pyongyang to halt its nuclear programmes in return for financial aid and diplomatic inducements. China regards the entire South China Sea and island groups within it as its own - despite competing territorial claims from different Asian nations - and interprets international law as giving it the right to police foreign naval activity there. In the latest incident earlier this month, a Chinese submarine damaged a sonar array being towed by a US destroyer. China called that an accident. The US has confirmed only that there was damage. Pentagon officials have said there were four incidents earlier this year where Chinese-flagged fishing vessels manoeuvred close to unarmed US ships crewed by civilians and used by the Pentagon to do underwater surveillance and submarine hunting missions. The US doesn't take a position on sovereignty claims to the sea but insists on the US Navy's right to transit the area and collect surveillance data. The defence discussions were last held in December 2007. They had been suspended by Beijing in anger over US arms sales to Taiwan, the self-governing island China claims as its own territory. Ma said that China had pressed the US delegation on the issue of the arms sales, calling them a "central topic of the discussions". "We urge the US side to pay enough importance to China's core interest and grave concern on security and stop weapon sales to Taiwan, and secure a solid foundation for bilateral military relations and sound development," he said. In a possible further raising of tensions, a US destroyer is reportedly tracking a North Korean ship suspected of carrying illicit weapons to Myanmar. Flournoy was due to travel on to South Korea for talks on Friday. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0258EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-0630: ++Iran Morning Wednesday, 24 June 2009 STORY:++Iran Morning- NEW Residents react after deadline extended for elex review; vox pops, headlines LENGTH: 01:17 FIRST RUN: 0630 RESTRICTIONS: NO ACCESS BBC PERSIAN TV SERVICE/VOA PERSIAN TV TYPE: Farsi/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 610625 DATELINE: Tehran, 24 June 2009 LENGTH: 01:17 ++NO ACCESS BBC PERSIAN TV SERVICE/ VOA PERSIAN TV++ ++AP Television is adhering to Iranian law that stipulates all media are banned from providing BBC Persian or VOA Persian any coverage from Iran, and under this law if any media violate this ban the Iranian authorities can immediately shut down that organisation in Tehran.++ SHOTLIST: 1. Wide of traffic on street 2. People waiting at bus stop 3. Man and woman running to catch bus 4. Close-up of newspaper headline reading (English) "GC rules out votes cancellation" 5. Pan from people looking at headlines to newspapers laid out for sale 6. SOUNDBITE: (Farsi) Vox pop, Salehi (no first name given), local resident: "When it (Guardians Council) wants its deadline to be extended it means there ought to be a specific reason for this. It has certainly found something and wants to follow it up and find a conclusion." 7. Close-up of newspaper headline reading (Farsi) "Guardian Council deadline to study electoral complains extended for five days" 8. Wide of people in front of news stand 9. SOUNDBITE: (Farsi) Vox pop, no name given, local resident: "If it (Guardians Council) declares a neutral stance it can put an end to this crisis. It should just be neutral. We are hopeful that they find a solution within the extended deadline so that we will not observe any more killing of our brothers in our country." 10. Wide of news stand STORYLINE: Overwhelmed by police and left with limited alternatives, Iranian demonstrators have resorted to more subtle ways of challenging the outcome of the presidential election: holding up posters, shouting from rooftops and turning on car headlights. But the restrained expressions of discontent appeared to be scattered as Iran's ruling clerics dealt the opposition new setbacks, making it clear they have no intention of holding a new vote and setting up a special court to deal with hundreds of protesters arrested in more than a week of unrest. The latest moves, and a fresh deployment of riot police and militia to break up any street gatherings, signalled the regime's determination to squelch dissent and mute the voices of those whose protests have been the largest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Amid the crackdown, there was one small concession on Tuesday from supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is law in the Islamic Republic. State TV said he agreed to extend by five days a deadline for registering complaints about the election. Yet the regime made it clear that it stood by the results and there would be no rerun of the disputed vote. State-run Press TV earlier quoted Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, the spokesman for Iran's top electoral body, the Guardians Council, as saying it found "no major fraud or breach in the election". However, some residents in Tehran were optimistic on Wednesday, saying there might be a reason for the extension of the deadline. "It (Guardians Council) has certainly found something and wants to follow it up and find a conclusion," one resident said. No rallies were reported on Tuesday. Many in Tehran seemed hesitant to confront the feared Revolutionary Guard and members of the Basij militia, suggesting the harsh response wrought by hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Khamenei to large and boisterous demonstrations may have weakened the opposition's resolve. Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi says he's the true winner of the election. Iran's electoral commission declared Ahmadinejad the winner by a landslide, ignoring Mousavi's claims of widespread and systematic vote fraud. Mousavi has been out of sight in recent days, but a short message posted on his Web site asserted that "all the reports of violations in the elections will be published soon". State TV reported that Ahmadinejad would be sworn in sometime between July 26 and August 19. Another opposition figure, reformist presidential candidate Mahdi Karroubi, called for a day of mourning for at least 17 people killed in protests since the election. Some social networking sites suggested that the mourning would take place on Thursday. On Monday, the council had acknowledged in a rare step that it found voting irregularities in 50 of 170 districts, including ballot counts that exceeded the number of eligible voters. Still, it said the discrepancies, involving some three (m) million votes, were not widespread enough to affect the outcome. Iran also expelled two diplomats from Britain - a country it bitterly accuses of meddling and spying - while Britain in turn sent two Iranian envoys home. A number of journalists have been detained since the protests began, although there have been conflicting accounts. The Paris-based Reporters Without Borders put the figure of reporters detained at 34. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said 13 were in custody. Severe restrictions on reporters have made it almost impossible to independently verify reports on demonstrations, clashes and casualties. Iran has ordered journalists for international news agencies to stay in their offices, barring them from reporting on the streets. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 06-24-09 0304EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM -------------------

AP-APTN-2330 Americas L Prime News-Final Tuesday, 30 March 2010 Americas L Prime News ++US Obama France 02:30 AP Clients Only NEW Obama urges sanctions on Iran 'within weeks;' French president agrees Canada G8 2 02:45 No Access Canada REPLAY Foreign Ministers hold joint news conference, comments on Iran +Colombia Hostage 2 02:30 Pt No Access Colombia WRAP Rebels free hostage after 12 years ADDS reunited with family Argentina Falklands 02:07 AP Clients Only REPLAY President Fernandez comments on the Falkland islands Argentina Maradona 01:49 Part No Access Brazil REPLAY Argentina coach Maradona bitten on lip by dog ++Mexico Energy 02:30 See Script NEW Intl Energy Forum meets, incl Brazil, China, India and Russia Europe Abuse 03:17 See Script REPLAY French and German bishops express support for pope in abuse scandal US Subway 01:56 AP Clients Only REPLAY Claims in wake of Moscow blasts, half NY subway cameras don't work US Fairground 2 02:35 No Access NAmerica/Internet REPLAY 2 stranded in the air on stalled Miami fair ride; rescue B-u-l-l-e-t-i-n begins at 2330 GMT. APEX 03-30-10 1956EDT -----------End of rundown----------- AP-APTN-2330: ++US Obama France Tuesday, 30 March 2010 STORY:++US Obama France- NEW Obama urges sanctions on Iran 'within weeks;' French president agrees LENGTH: 02:30 FIRST RUN: 2330 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/French/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 641580 DATELINE: Washington, DC, 30 March 2010 LENGTH: 02:30 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST: 1. US President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy walk into room for news conference, UPSOUND (English) Barack Obama, US President: "Please, everybody have a seat. Good afternoon. Bienvenue." 2. Cutaway of audience 3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Barack Obama, US President: "So I'm not interested in waiting months for a sanctions regime to be in place. I'm interested in seeing that regime in place in weeks, and we are working diligently with our international partners." 4. Obama and Sarkozy standing at podiums 5. SOUNDBITE: (English) Barack Obama, US President: "We have engaged. The door remains open if the Iranians choose to walk through it, but they understand very clearly what the terms of a diplomatic solution would be, and in the interim, we are going to move forcefully on a UN (United Nations) sanctions regime. Now, do we have unanimity in the international community? Not yet, and that's something that we have to work on." 6. Obama and Sarkozy standing at podiums 7. Side shot of Sarkozy speaking 8. SOUNDBITE: (French) Nicolas Sarkozy, French President: "The time to make a decision has arrived. Iran cannot continue on this mad race. We don't want to punish Iran, who deserves something better than those who are leading the country nowadays. Therefore, we will provide all our support in order to obtain the hardest sanctions within the Security Council. I already told President Obama that with Angela Merkel (German Chancellor) and Gordon Brown (British Prime Minister), we will make the effort so all of Europe gets involved in this sanctioning process." 9. Cutaway of woman in audience 10. SOUNDBITE: (French) Nicolas Sarkozy, French President: "The absence of peace in the Middle East is a problem for all of us because what it does is keep feeding terrorism all over the world, and I wish to express my solidarity vis a vis President Obama in condemning the settlement process. Everybody knows how engaged and committed I am vis a vis Israel's security, but the settlement process contributes nothing." 11. Cutaway of audience 12. Obama and Sarkozy shaking hands and exiting news conference STORYLINE: With the president of France at his side, US President Barack Obama declared on Tuesday he hopes to have international sanctions against Iran in place "within weeks," not months, because of its continuing nuclear programme. But he acknowledged he still lacks full support at the United Nations. "Do we have unanimity in the international community? Not yet," Obama said. "And that's something that we have to work on." Obama said he and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were "inseparable" in their thinking on the subject. For his part, Sarkozy told reporters, "Iran cannot continue its mad race" toward acquiring nuclear weapons. "The time to make a decision has arrived," he said. On the United Nations Security Council, veto-wielding permanent members Russia and China have expressed reservations toward a tougher set of sanctions, as have several of the rotating members who do not have veto powers. Obama said he understands that countries that have business ties with Iran, especially those who depend on Iran for oil imports, might have reservations. But Obama said that, while "the door remains open if the Iranians choose to walk though it," there have been no signs that they are close to moving back from their nuclear programme - and patience has all but run out. "I'm not interested in waiting months for a sanctions regime to be in place. I'm interested in seeing that regime in place in weeks." Earlier on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton predicted new sanctions would be forthcoming, hinting that sceptical nations such as China and Russia would eventually come along. At the conclusion of an international meeting of eight major powers in Quebec, Clinton cited a growing alarm around the world about the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran. Obama and Sarkozy met privately in the Oval Office and later planned dinner at the White House with their wives, Michelle Obama and French First Lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy. Obama said he and the French president discussed a wide range of global issues, including the financial regulatory overhaul and peace negotiations in the Middle East. Sarkozy also said he stands with the United States in condemning recent Israeli settlement activity in East Jerusalem. While his own commitment to Israel's security is well known, Sarkozy said the settlement activity in lands claimed by the Palestinians "contributes nothing." Sarkozy praised Obama for trying to engage the two sides in peace talks. Sarkozy said that the "absence of peace" in the region was "a problem for all of us" - "feeding terrorism all over the world." Obama hailed France as one of the United States' oldest and best allies, noting the two countries have fought together on battlefields from Yorktown in the Revolutionary War to Afghanistan now. However, the two have had clear differences on Afghanistan, with the Obama administration pressing France as well as other European nations to send more troops, and Sarkozy largely resisting such requests. Obama did not go into Tuesday's meeting intending to urge Sarkozy to send more troops, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said ahead of the meeting. Instead of troops, Obama will seek more French military or police trainers, according to two Western diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because the presidential discussions were private. French trainers have been among those killed in Afghanistan this year, and polls show most French voters don't support the effort. Both presidents went to extraordinary lengths to defuse trans-Atlantic speculation of a chilly relationship. Obama repeatedly referred to Sarkozy by his first name and spoke fondly of his trip to Paris last year. The private dinner invitation was also a gesture rarely extended to foreign leaders. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 03-30-10 2002EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: Canada G8 2 Tuesday, 30 March 2010 STORY:Canada G8 2- REPLAY Foreign Ministers hold joint news conference, comments on Iran LENGTH: 02:45 FIRST RUN: 2030 RESTRICTIONS: No Access Canada TYPE: English/Russian/Natsound SOURCE: CTV STORY NUMBER: 641579 DATELINE: Gatineau, Quebec - 30 March 2010 LENGTH: 02:45 CTV - NO ACCESS CANADA SHOTLIST 1. Mid of Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband sitting down for news conference 2. Wide of foreign ministers from Group of Eight industrialised nations at news conference 3. Cutaway of reporters, pan right to reporter asking question 4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Hillary Rodham Clinton, US Secretary of State: "The next weeks will be ones of intense negotiation in the (United Nations) Security Council among not only members of the Security Council, but many interested countries, some of whom are here on the dais. We see a growing awareness on the part of many countries, including China, as to the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran to regional and global stability, to our oil supply." 5. Cutaway of reporter sitting down after asking question 6. SOUNDBITE: (English) Hillary Rodham Clinton, US Secretary of State: "Sanctions are part of diplomacy. We chose a two-pronged strategy on engagement and on pressure, should engagement not succeed. But sanctions are a form of the overall diplomatic approach that the United States and others have made." 7. European Union representative and Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini 8. SOUNDBITE: (Russian) Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister: "The mechanism for which to work on the Iranian nuclear programme, is first of all, of course, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the council of governors of the IAEA, the Security Council of the UN, which has already adopted several resolutions to support the activity of the IAEA, that's the so-called Group of E3+3, including China. So, it wouldn't be ethical for us to try during this meeting, which isn't taking the form of negotiations, to create international mechanisms regarding sanctions on Iran." 9. Wide cutaway of reporters 10. SOUNDBITE: (English) David Miliband, British Foreign Secretary: "I think it's very important that you hear the message that the eight of us gave to each other during the talks yesterday and today. There was a very high degree of unity in respect of our mounting concern about the failure of Iran to respond in any kind of adequate way, both to the offer from the E3+3, which was first made in May, 2008, and secondly the more recent IAEA offer, in respect of the Tehran research reactor." 11. Various of ministers exiting news conference STORYLINE Top diplomats from the world's leading economies said on Tuesday that Iran's recent actions deepen doubts about the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme, with US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confident a consensus on sanctions would be reached at the United Nations Security Council. Closing a conference of foreign ministers from the Group of Eight industrialised nations, Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said it was time for the international community to take appropriate steps to persuade Iran to end its nuclear activities. Clinton agreed, saying, "We see a growing awareness on the part of many countries, including China, as to the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran to regional and global stability, to our oil supply." Clinton cited the disclosure of the uranium enrichment facility near the Iranian city of Qum, the plans for more facilities to be developed and announcements of greater efforts at enrichment. The main audience for the tough talk seems to be countries not represented at the exclusive Group of Eight economic club: China and countries like Turkey and Brazil that have not been on board with sanctions. The G-8 groups France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Russia. "Sanctions are part of diplomacy," said Clinton. "We chose a two-pronged strategy on engagement and on pressure, should engagement not succeed. But sanctions are a form of the overall diplomatic approach that the United States and others have made." The message about sanctions is largely directed at China, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and not a member of the G-8. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said, "There was a very high degree of unity in respect of our mounting concern about the failure of Iran to respond in any kind of adequate way, both to the offer from the E3+3, which was first made in May, 2008, and secondly the more recent IAEA offer, in respect of the Tehran research reactor." The E3+3 is made up of Britain, the United States, China, France, Germany and Russia. China, a vocal opponent of sanctions, wields veto power in the Security Council and, until recently, it had balked at the mere suggestion of taking additional punitive steps against Iran. China opposes nuclear weapons for Iran, but said the country has the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. Iran is already under three sets of UN Security Council sanctions and China has been holding up consideration of a fourth, saying diplomacy must be given more time to work. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 03-30-10 1929EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: +Colombia Hostage 2 Tuesday, 30 March 2010 STORY:+Colombia Hostage 2- WRAP Rebels free hostage after 12 years ADDS reunited with family LENGTH: 02:30 FIRST RUN: 2330 RESTRICTIONS: Pt No Access Colombia TYPE: Spanish/Natsound SOURCE: RCN/TELESUR STORY NUMBER: 641596 DATELINE: Various - 30 Mar 2010 LENGTH: 02:30 TELESUR - AP CLIENTS ONLY / MANDATORY CREDIT, DO NOT OBSCURE LOGO/GRAPHICS RCN - NO ACCESS COLOMBIA SHOTLIST ++NEW (FIRST RUN 2330 AMERICAS PRIME NEWS, 30 MARCH 2010) RCN - NO ACCESS COLOMBIA Florencia 1. Various of helicopter landing 2. Mid of Senator Piedad Cordoba and Roman Catholic Bishop Leonardo Gomez inside helicopter 3. Zoom out and pan to relatives of Pablo Emilio Moncayo running across tarmac, pan to Moncayo greeting his father Gustavo Moncayo 4. Various of Moncayo hugging relatives and Senator Cordoba 5. Various of Moncayo holding father's hand and holding flowers in the air 6. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Piedad Cordoba, Colombian Senator and mediator: "There was a camera filming what was going on but we did not see any cameras from Telesur, not at all." 7. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Frank Pearl, High Peace Commissioner: The government rejects that a media outlet like Telesur lends itself to do propaganda for a terrorist and kidnapping group. This media outlet must explain to the country why were they in Colombian territory in the company of FARC guerrillas." 8. Wide of Pearl leaving (FIRST RUN 2130 NEWS UPDATE, 30 MARCH 2010) TELESUR - AP CLIENTS ONLY / MANDATORY CREDIT, DO NOT OBSCURE LOGO/GRAPHICS ++QUALITY AS INCOMING++ Colombian jungle - Exact location unknown 9. Mid of moment when Sergeant Pablo Emilio Moncayo is released to Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba 10. Wide of Moncayo walking in circles hours before being released 11. Zoom in of Moncayo looking at his watch 12. Moncayo addressing the camera, UPSOUND (Spanish): "I can't imagine how happy they will be seeing me after so many years, I can't even begin to imagine it." STORYLINE A soldier held hostage for more than 12 years was freed by Colombian rebels and reunited with his family on Tuesday. Sergeant Pablo Emilio Moncayo was one of the longest-held hostages of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as the FARC. He was 19 when taken captive during a rebel attack on an army outpost in the mountains on December 21, 1997. A Brazilian helicopter carrying a team comprised of Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba, International Red Cross officials and a priest flew to an undisclosed hand-over spot in southern Colombia where rebels handed Moncayo over. Moncayo was later flown back to the city of Florencia, where he his family were waiting. The soldier smiled warmly as he stepped down from the helicopter in camouflage fatigues and extended a hand urging his family to slow down as they excitedly rushed toward him, then embraced. His mother and father carried white daisies, and his four sisters hugged and kissed him. Moncayo met his 6-year-old sister, Laura, for the first time. The soldier was generally in good health, said Adolfo Beteta, spokesman for the International Red Cross. Moncayo was one of the longest-held hostages of FARC. His father, high school teacher Gustavo Moncayo, gained fame for walking halfway across Colombia in 2007 to press for his release. The FARC also freed another soldier, 23-year-old Private Josue Calvo, on Sunday, in their first release of a captive in more than a year. According to Cordoba, an opposition Senator who has been a go-between in contacting the FARC, the guerrillas said that after Moncayo was freed they would end their unilateral releases and press the government to negotiate a swap of jailed rebels for remaining captives. Venezuela-based television channel Telesur showed footage of Moncayo waiting anxiously in the jungle before being handed over. The Colombian government's peace commissioner, Frank Pearl, criticised Telesur, which is funded in part by Venezuela's government, for releasing photos and videos of Moncayo together with Cordoba. Telesur did not say when the images of Moncayo - both in a military uniform and separately with Cordoba - were made. Pearl said there had been an agreement the handover would be discreet, and "the government rejects that a media outlet like Telesur lends itself to do propaganda for a terrorist group." There was no immediate response from Telesur, which has had access to exclusive video during previous releases. Cordoba and Roman Catholic Bishop Leonardo Gomez both said they hadn't noticed any cameras at the handover and saw only rebels. The FARC still holds at least 20 police and soldiers including Libio Jose Martinez, a 33-year-old sergeant who was captured in the same assault as Moncayo. President Alvaro Uribe has called the FARC's unilateral releases publicity stunts and has opposed a prisoner swap unless any guerrillas who are freed agree to abandon the rebels. Uribe, who leaves office in August after two consecutive four-year terms, is hugely popular in Colombia for aggressively fighting the FARC and dealing it crushing blows, including the 2008 rescue of former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, three US military contractors and eleven other captives. The FARC, the Western Hemisphere's last remaining major rebel army, has fought for nearly a half-century to topple a succession of governments. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 03-30-10 2045EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: Argentina Falklands Tuesday, 30 March 2010 STORY:Argentina Falklands- REPLAY President Fernandez comments on the Falkland islands LENGTH: 02:07 FIRST RUN: 2030 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Spanish/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/GOV TV STORY NUMBER: 641590 DATELINE: Buenos Aires - 30 Mar 2010/FILE LENGTH: 02:07 GOVERNMENT TV - AP CLIENTS ONLY AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST GOVERNMENT TV - AP CLIENTS ONLY Buenos Aires - 30 March 2010 1. Pan of people applauding as Argentine President Cristina Fernandez enters room 2. SOUNDBITE: (Spanish) Cristina Fernandez, President of Argentina: "(This will be) an eternal battle, but it will not be based on the use of force, like it was before, it will be an extensive cultural, diplomatic, political battle. It will be fought on all fronts, using all international and national instruments to defend our patrimony, which is not only territorial but also pertaining to our natural resources, to our right - as Argentines - to defend and demand what is ours." 3. Wide of audience applauding 4. Wide of Fernandez unveiling photograph in honour of the women who died in the Falklands war 5. Mid of Fernandez embracing woman and clapping 6. Close of photograph AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY FILE: Falkland Islands - date unknown 7. Various of penguins 8. Wide of church with water in the background 9. Mid of sign reading (English): "To the Argentine nation and people: You will be welcome in our country when you drop your sovereignty claim and recognise our rights to self determination." 10. Various of phone booths and red letter box 11. Mid of the British flag 12. Various of "Thatcher Drive" street sign 13. Wide of cars driving down road STORYLINE Argentine President Cristina Fernandez said on Tuesday that her country was prepared for an "extensive cultural, diplomatic" and "political battle," in its claim for the Falkland Islands. Fernandez made the comments during a ceremony in Buenos Aires ahead of the anniversary of the war with the United Kingdom over the islands. During the ceremony a photograph honouring the women killed during the war was unveiled. Fernandez asserted her government's intentions to use all legal recourses in its claim for the disputed territory. "It (the battle) will be fought on all fronts, using all international and national instruments to defend our patrimony, which is not only territorial but also pertaining to our natural resources, to our right - as Argentines - to defend and demand what is ours," she said. Britain and Argentina have disputed sovereignty over the islands since the early 19th century, and negotiations over their status dragged on until early 1982, when Argentina's military dictatorship opted to take the territory back by force. The Argentines invaded on April 2, sparking a brief war in which some 650 Argentine troops, more than 250 British personnel and three islanders were killed. Argentine forces surrendered 10 weeks later, an event which led to the collapse of the country's unpopular military junta and the restoration of civilian rule in 1983. In Britain, the military triumph greatly boosted the popularity of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Britain and Argentina re-established full diplomatic ties in 1990, but Buenos Aires continues to claim the islands as its own, even though it has made a commitment not to use force to press its claim. Several British oil companies have recently begun exploratory drilling in the area which has renewed tensions between the two nations. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 03-30-10 1929EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: Argentina Maradona Tuesday, 30 March 2010 STORY:Argentina Maradona- REPLAY Argentina coach Maradona bitten on lip by dog LENGTH: 01:49 FIRST RUN: 1530 RESTRICTIONS: Part No Access Brazil TYPE: Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/TV GLOBO STORY NUMBER: 641571 DATELINE: Buenos Aires - 30 March 2010/FILE LENGTH: 01:49 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY TV GLOBO - NO ACCESS BRAZIL SHOTLIST AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Buenos Aires, Argentina - 30 March 2010 1. Various of exterior of hospital where Argentina coach Diego Maradona is being treated for dog bite, media AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY FILE: Caracas, Venezuela - 28 January 2009 2. Maradona on football pitch showing off his skills with a football 3. Wide of Maradona embracing a boy, zoom in 4. Maradona kicking ball TV GLOBO - NO ACCESS BRAZIL FILE: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 22 December 2005 5. Various of Maradona entering field surrounded by body guards 6. Wide of Brazilian player Artur Antunes Coimbra Zico running to rescue Maradona from the media 7. Various of Maradona greeting other players 8. Maradona kneeling down and hugging Brazilian player Renato Gaucho 9. Various of Maradona playing 10. Maradona asking to be replaced FILE: Buenos Aires, Argentina - November 2006 11. Various of Maradona unveiling statue of himself STORYLINE Argentina football coach Diego Maradona underwent minor facial surgery on Tuesday after he was bitten by one of his pet dogs. The Argentine television station TN said Maradona had reconstructive surgery to repair an injury to his upper lip after he was bitten. He was expected to be discharged later on Tuesday from a clinic in the capital Buenos Aires. An official at Los Arcos clinic, who declined to be identified, said Maradona was in no danger and in good condition. Clinic officials said a news conference would be held later in the day. Argentine news reports said Maradona was playing with his Shar Pei when it bit him at his home in the Buenos Aries suburb of Ezeiza. Shar Pei are often used as a guard dog, though they are known to adjust well to family situations. Maradona, who led Argentina to the 1986 World Cup, will coach the Gauchos in the World Cup in South Africa. The team plays Canada on May 24 in Buenos Aries before leaving for its training headquarters in South Africa. Regarded as one of the world's greatest players, Maradona is revered in Argentina despite problems with drug addiction, scandals and lately the poor play of the team, which struggled to qualify for the World Cup despite some of the world's top players including Barcelona star Lionel Messi. Argentina plays in Group B in South Africa with Nigeria, Greece and South Korea. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 03-30-10 1929EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: ++Mexico Energy Tuesday, 30 March 2010 STORY:++Mexico Energy- NEW Intl Energy Forum meets, incl Brazil, China, India and Russia LENGTH: 02:30 FIRST RUN: 2330 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: Spanish/Nat SOURCE: CEPROPIE STORY NUMBER: 641574 DATELINE: Cancun - 30 March 2010 LENGTH: 02:30 CEPROPIE - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST ++AUDIO AS INCOMING++ 1. Wide pan right of people attending energy summit applauding as Mexican President Felipe Calderon enters energy summit meeting room 2. Pan left of Calderon shaking hands as he walks through room 3. Wide of meeting room 4. Mid of Calderon speaking at summit 5. SOUNDBITE (Spanish) Felipe Calderon, President of Mexico: "We face, on the other hand, an historic challenge of trying to change energy consumption patterns in order to switch them for much more environment-friendly fuels, and we want to be able to have an orderly and financially possible transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, which is the path to supporting the environmental sustainability of the planet. " 6. Wide of Calderon during speech ++VIDEO AS INCOMING++ 7. SOUNDBITE (Spanish) Felipe Calderon, President of Mexico: "Without a doubt, this forum represents a unique chance to have a closer dialogue and also a more wider open dialogue on the pending problems that we need to solve together as producers and consumers." 8. Pan right of people applauding at the end of Calderon's speech 9. Wide of meeting room after speech STORYLINE Mexican President Felipe Calderon inaugurated the biennial International Energy Forum (IEF) on Tuesday, where he said hoped the meeting would foster "closer dialogue between energy producers and consumers" as they try to make the switch from from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Representatives from 65 countries responsible for 90 percent of the world's oil production and consumption gathered in Cancun for the forum. The officials meeting in the popular resort on Mexico's Caribbean coast were discussing a possible plan for combating oil market volatility amid a shaky global economy. Oil prices have ranged from 70 to 80 US dollars a barrel over the past months. When the IEF's last meeting was held, in 2008, oil prices were well above 100 US dollars. Calderon said the world was facing a "historic challenge trying to change energy consumption patterns." All of the countries that attended the meeting acknowledged that traditional fossil fuels such as oil and gas still play a vital role but that it was necessary to increase the use of renewable energy such as biofuels. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 03-30-10 2122EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: Europe Abuse Tuesday, 30 March 2010 STORY:Europe Abuse- REPLAY French and German bishops express support for pope in abuse scandal LENGTH: 03:17 FIRST RUN: 1430 RESTRICTIONS: See Script TYPE: French/German/Nat SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/RTL STORY NUMBER: 641546 DATELINE: Paris/Berlin - 26/30 March 2010 LENGTH: 03:17 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY RTL - No Access Germany, Austria (except: Infoscreen, ATV+), German-speaking Switzerland (except: Telezueri), Luxemburg & Alto Adige SHOTLIST RTL - No Access Germany, Austria (except: Infoscreen, ATV+), German-speaking Switzerland (except: Telezueri), Luxemburg & Alto Adige Trier, Germany - 30 March 2010 1. Pan of Cathedral in Trier 2. Bishop of Trier Stephan Ackermann, and special delegate of the German Bishops Conference for sexual abuse cases, walking past camera with other officials 3. Pan from media to Ackermann and other church officials at table 4. SOUNDBITE (German) Bishop of Trier Stephan Ackermann and special delegate of the German Bishops Conference for sexual abuse cases: "The debate which was held these last weeks will also lead to an improvement to prevent, that is to protect children and young people, in the future. I say very clearly, that we will do everything possible to ensure that sexual abuse is never allowed to happen again in institutions of the Catholic church." 5. Pan over sign showing hotline number and Internet homepage address 6. SOUNDBITE (German) Bishop of Trier Stephan Ackermann and special delegate of the German Bishops Conference for sexual abuse cases: "With this launch we want to encourage the victims to inform us, regardless of whether it is about current or past cases. We want to be approachable and we want to know about the suffering and we want to stand by the victims in their rehabilitation. Sexual abuse must no longer be regarded a social taboo." 7. Pan from hotline sign on wall to Ackermann and Andreas Zimmer, head of the hotline service, posing for the cameras 8. SOUNDBITE (German) Bishop of Trier Stephan Ackermann and special delegate of the German Bishops Conference for sexual abuse cases: "The extent, regarding the 20 abuse cases which now affect the diocese in Trier in the years leading up to 1990, these are the cases that have been reported to us now. The extent of these alarms me on the one hand, because I had never speculated about what went on nor about how many offenders there might have been in my own diocese. But what the people (victims) are reporting shocks me even more." 9. Various shots of Cathedral AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Paris, France - 26 March 2010 10. Pan from journalists to spokesman for the Bishops Conference of France, Monsignor Bernard Podvin 11. Various close shots of the letter written by the Bishops' conference to Pope Benoit XVI 12. SOUNDBITE (French) Monsignor Bernard Podvin, spokesman for the Bishops Conference of France: "The position of the Church in France, which has been clearly expressed in a letter by Cardinal XXIII to the Holy Father, it is of course to be united with him in all that he undertakes at this time with much courage." 13. Close-up of a Christian cross on a jacket 14. SOUNDBITE (French) Monsignor Bernard Podvin, spokesman for the Bishops Conference of France: "He (the Pope) is not only someone who says, he is someone who does. He is really the Pope who fights against paedophilia and we think that all the rumours about him are absolutely unfair and are a part of a will to attack him personally for many other reasons. However, we are not impressed by these accusations because we view the clear condemnation of paedophilia without ambiguity. And we also look at the Catholic Church with justice and fairness for what it truly is." 15. Monsignor Bernard Podvin talking to reporters 16. Exterior of the building of the French Bishops Conference STORYLINE Germany's Roman Catholic church on Tuesday launched a hotline to offer more consistent help to victims who have claimed sexual abuse. Bishop Stephan Ackermann, the church's coordinator for all matters concerning the spiralling sexual abuse scandal, on Tuesday said the aim of the hotline aims to "encourage the victims to inform us, regardless of whether it is about current or past cases." "We want to be approachable and we want to know about the suffering and we want to stand by the victims in their rehabilitation," he said. He said he was "shocked" by the reports from people claiming to have been abused. "I had never speculated about what went on nor about how many offenders there might have been in my own diocese. But what the people (victims) are reporting shocks me even more." Ackermann also said that bishops will decide within a month whether or not to provide financial compensation to victims of sexual abuse. He said the question is tricky because the church does not want to buy itself out of its responsibility and also does not want to humiliate victims again. Ackermann said a task force is discussing "what is really appropriate" and bishops are to decide by the end of April. The French Bishops conference, meanwhile, expressed solidarity toward Pope Benedict XVI for his handling of abuse cases. The bishops said in a letter to the pope on Friday that these "abominable acts" had "disfigured the church, wounded Christian communities and cast suspicion on all the members of the clergy." But they also expressed solidarity with Benedict, saying the sexual abuse scandals were "being used in a campaign to attack you personally." Monsignor Bernard Podvin, a spokesman for the group, said on Friday that "all the rumours about him are absolutely unfair and are a part of a will to attack him personally for many other reasons." The French Church is part of the wave of sexual abuse allegations made by church members across Europe in recent weeks that have put the Vatican on the defensive and fuelled a growing sense of crisis. Some of the cases have raised questions about whether Joseph Ratzinger acted aggressively enough against priests under his supervision as an archbishop and cardinal before he became Pope Benedict XVI. Leaders of the Legionaries of Christ said that at first they couldn't believe the accusations against the late Mexican prelate Marcial Maciel, including molestation of seminarians and that he had a long relationship with a woman and fathered a daughter with her. But they said it was thanks to an investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, under the direction of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Benedict, that they were convinced the allegations were true. Before becoming cardinal, Benedict was the top authority in the Munich archdiocese in his German homeland. The New York Times reported Friday that Ratzinger, when archbishop, was copied in on a memo about a Munich archdiocese decision to return a priest in therapy for paedophilia to pastoral work. Vatican spokesman the Reverend Federico Lombardi quickly reiterated the Vatican's insistence that Benedict didn't know about the decision. Lombardi circulated a statement issued by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising stating that the decision to return the priest to pastoral work was made by the vicar general of that time, Reverend Gerhard Gruber. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 03-30-10 1929EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: US Subway Tuesday, 30 March 2010 STORY:US Subway- REPLAY Claims in wake of Moscow blasts, half NY subway cameras don't work LENGTH: 01:56 FIRST RUN: 2130 RESTRICTIONS: AP Clients Only TYPE: English/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION STORY NUMBER: 641592 DATELINE: New York - 30 Mar 2010 LENGTH: 01:56 AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY SHOTLIST 1. Mid of four overhead security cameras in New York subway station 2. Close of security camera, zoom out to wide of entrance turnstiles 3. People entering subway turnstiles 4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Esther Woo, subway passenger: "I mean, I kind of always knew that, there's not a lot of surveillance, period. Like with the toll booth workers, everything is pretty lax." 5. Various of people exiting subway platform through turnstiles 6. SOUNDBITE: (English) Clint Minarik, subway passenger: "I think that's a little bit shocking and especially NYU (New York University) is right down the street and there's a ton of kids, out of state kids, kids that aren't familiar with the area, that could possibly be here. They should feel safer." 7. Pull out from close of security camera to wide of subway entrance turnstiles 8. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg walks to podium for news conference 9. SOUNDBITE: (English) Michael Bloomberg, New York City Mayor: "So unfortunately, I'm sure the study was right, a lot of those cameras don't work and someday maybe we're going to get very badly hurt because of it." 10. Close of sign reading (English): "Video surveillance cameras may be in use in this station" 11. SOUNDBITE: (English) Michael Bloomberg, New York City Mayor: "We keep training, we keep working very hard to improve the security but we can only do so much. It's the MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority), it's their cameras, they have to maintain them." 12. Pull in to close of security camera on wall STORYLINE As Russian authorities work to tighten security in their underground transport system in the wake of the twin suicide bombings in the capital on Monday, concerns over security in New York City's subways have come to light with claims that half the security cameras don't work. About half the 4,313 security cameras installed along New York City's subways aren't working - a blind spot in the crime and terrorism safety net for the US nation's largest city. "A lot of those cameras don't work and maybe someday we're going to get very badly hurt because of it," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Tuesday. Bloomberg was quick to blame the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which oversees the cameras and subway. "It's the MTA, it's their cameras, they have to maintain them." While cameras are out of commission in the subway, the cash-strapped Metropolitan Transportation Authority has also been forced to cut officers who patrol the major bridges and tunnels on the weekends. The issue of operational cameras came to light after two men were stabbed to death on the subway and there was no camera installed in the station to catch an image of the killer. The New York Police Department says it doesn't depend on the surveillance cameras set up by the MTA, instead, officers patrol the subways and set up random bag searches in stations around the city. In the wake of the attacks on Moscow's subway on Monday, the New York Police department increased their presence in the underground, closely monitoring crimes in other cities and adapting their own strategy as needed. After the 2005 bombing in London that killed more than 50 people, bag searches were instituted in the New York subway. Overall, crime is down in the subways, even as ridership increases. In 1990, there were about 50 crimes a day reported in the subway, and now there are about five, according to police. About 5 (m) million people ride the subway every day, around a (m) million fewer than in the '90s. The NYPD is installing thousands of cameras around the city and is using private surveillance installed in major buildings as part of a massive security initiative. In addition, 500 specialised cameras are in place, an image from one of those cameras led officers to a suspect wanted in the brutal assault of a woman in a bar a few weeks ago. But the MTA, which just last week approved 93 (m) million US dollars in service cuts, is in charge of the cameras within the subway system. Of the 4,313 cameras, 2,270 are working and 2,043 aren't. Some are under construction and the agency is working to bring them online - an additional 900 should be up by June, the agency says. Some don't work because of heat, water or electrical problems, and around 1-thousand are held up by litigation. A division of the security company Lockheed Martin hired to install the systems sued the MTA last year, blaming the agency for delays preventing them from meeting construction deadlines. The MTA counter-sued, saying that Lockheed Martin had provided faulty products. Meanwhile, about 600 agents stationed in the subways have been laid off as a result of the budget. The MTA says that additional funding will be made available to add more cameras in priority areas. "The safety and security of our customers is the MTA's top priority," Kevin Ortiz, a spokesman for the MTA, said in a statement. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 03-30-10 2002EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM ------------------- AP-APTN-2330: US Fairground 2 Tuesday, 30 March 2010 STORY:US Fairground 2- REPLAY 2 stranded in the air on stalled Miami fair ride; rescue LENGTH: 02:35 FIRST RUN: 1930 RESTRICTIONS: No Access NAmerica/Internet TYPE: Natsound SOURCE: ABC STORY NUMBER: 641587 DATELINE: Miami, 30 March 2010 LENGTH: 02:35 ABC - NO ACCESS NAMERICA/INTERNET SHOTLIST (FIRST RUN 1830 NORTH AMERICA PRIME NEWS - 30 March 2010) 1. Wide of stalled carnival ride at Miami-Dade County Fair, zoom in of two people stuck on ride, dangling sideways in the air 2. Various of people stuck on ride 3. Wide of ride; fire engine driving towards ride 4. Rescue workers on cherry picker moving towards stranded ride passengers, pan to people stuck on ride (FIRST RUN 1930 ASIA PACIFIC PRIME NEWS - 30 March 2010) 5. Rescue workers on cherry picker moving up towards stranded passengers 6. Mid of ride starting to move downwards towards ground 7. Ride stopping near ground so passengers can get off 8. Riders getting off ride and walking away, escorted STORYLINE Two women were stranded high in the air aboard a stalled carnival ride in Miami, in the US state of Florida, on Tuesday, and a rescue team was mobilised to bring them down. A fire department spokeswoman said a call came in at 1:54 p.m. (1745GMT) on Tuesday to report the stalled ride - called the Spin Rider - at the Miami-Dade County Fair. Footage filmed from a helicopter hovering over the scene showed the seemingly calm riders strapped into their seats on an arm of the ride which was stuck vertically up into the air, with their feet dangling above the fairground. Rescue workers climbed into a cherry picker and approached the ride. The ride eventually - almost 50 minutes after it had initially stalled - began moving slowly towards the ground before the pair were able to get off. The Spin Rider stalled about two hours after the fair had opened for the day. The fair began on Thursday and lasts until April 11. Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN APEX 03-30-10 2002EDT ------------------- END -- OF -- ITEM -------------------

0545 CHENEY X81 05:57:32 TERRY MORAN CAMERA TERRY MORAN: So this is your first trip to Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein? DICK CHENEY: It is. MORAN: What surprised you today? What do you know about Iraq today that you didn't know yesterday? CHENEY: Well, I think, like most people who've looked at it, I've been tremendously impressed with what happened in the election just this past week. I mean, I really think that may be a seminal event in the history of Iraq, that it's such an important part of the process of building a democracy, a viable Iraq, an Iraq that can stand on its own, that the thing that strikes you when you come out is just the mood and the demeanor of the people you talk with -- speaking with Talabani and Jaafri, for example. I've met with both of them before, but they both, I think, were visibly relieved at how big the turnout was, that, in fact, the process is working, that there is strong support even in the Sunni areas for participation in the political process. MORAN: But you know, we've had elections before in this country, now, twice before this. There was that moment of hope after the January elections, with the amazing sights that that brought out, and those hopes have been dashed again and again. What makes you think this time it's going to be different? CHENEY: I disagree with the notion that hopes have been dashed. I don't think that's true. MORAN: Well, the violence has continued. CHENEY: Well, the violence has continued, but I think the key in terms of looking at the elections is that they've made every single milestone that's been set, every single one, from the time we turned over sovereignty in June of '04, to the first elections in January, then writing the constitution, getting the constitution ratified, and now national elections under that new constitution. They've had three elections this year. Each one's gotten better and stronger and more effective. I do think it's serving to undermine the legitimacy of the insurgency. I think it will make it increasingly difficult for the insurgents to be effective. We see it, for example, in the volume of tips that we get from the Iraqi people, intelligence information about where to find weapons caches, or who's responsible for some of the terrorist attacks. There's been a quantum leap over the course of the last year in terms of the number of intelligence reports coming in. The academy is doing better. The Iraqi security services are clearly much, much better now. There's a big change there over the last 18 months. I met today with some of the members and the leader of the 9th Mechanized Iraqi Division. These are men who've signed on to support the new government. And the benefit of having that election now is we're going to have a government that's a legitimate government of Iraq that nobody can claim lacks legitimacy. It's an Iraqi government elected by Iraqis under a constitution written by Iraqis. And so I think all of that is measurable progress. And while the level of violence has continued, I do believe that when we look back on this period of time, 2005 will have been the turning point when, in fact, we made sufficient progress both on the political front and the security front, so that we'll see that as the watershed year. MORAN: You talk about undermining the legitimacy of the resistance. Before the war you said Americans would be greeted as liberators here, and yet your own trip here today was undertaken in such secrecy that not even the prime minister of this country knew you were coming, and your movements around are in incredible secrecy and security. Do you ever think about how and why you got it wrong? 06:00:52 CHENEY: I don't think I got it wrong. I think the vast majority of the Iraqi people are grateful for what the United States did. I think they believe overwhelmingly that they're better off today than they were when Saddam Hussein ruled. I think the vast majority of them think of us as liberators. And I think your own polls show that, Terry. If you look at the poll that was done just recently by ABC, it shows a great deal of optimism, of hope, on the part of the Iraqi people, that their lives are better and going to get better in the future. So I really believe the notion that somehow the Iraqi people opposed what we did when we came in and toppled Saddam Hussein, or that a majority of them were against it, is just dead wrong. It's not true. I think a majority of them support it. MORAN: Well, if I may, that poll shows that half of Iraqis say the invasion should not have happened. That's what our poll showed. CHENEY: But it shows that the majority of them want us to stay and finish the job and get the job done. And I've had the experience just this week -- we met with 11 Iraqi voters in the Oval Office after they voted. These were Iraqis who voted in the United States because they're out of the country temporarily. It was a remarkably moving moment, and anecdotal evidence of how deeply they feel about the U.S. presence and about what we did for them. Many of them say look, a lot of us can't say it publicly, fearful still of saying anything to identify themselves with Americans, because they're still worried about the terrorists that are out there, or the remnants of the old regime that might come after them. There are still politicians running for office who have been assassinated. It's still a hostile environment made hostile by a relatively small part of the population. But their overwhelming sentiment was one of expressing gratitude for the president of the United States for what he had done to liberate Iraq and the fact that they're all now able to vote in a free election. One of them, as a matter of fact, a young woman, from Fallujah, who had served as an interpreter for the Marine Corps in Fallujah, who's back in the U.S. now, is enlisting in the Marine Corps so she can come back and serve in the United States Marine Corps as a Marine in Iraq. 06:02:48 MORAN: Let me take you back to something else you said before the war -- or actually not before the war, just last May. You said that the insurgency was in its last throes. Since you said the insurgency was in its last throes, hundreds of American G.I.s have been killed. Thousands of Iraqis have been (inaudible) and killed. And the lethality of the insurgency hasn't seemed to diminish at all. What did you mean by saying it was in its last throes? CHENEY: In fact, the number of attacks has declined. You can look at the level of attacks, for example, during the election period in January, the election period in October, the election period in December, and you'll see that there has been a decline in the number of incidents, attack incidents. The basic point, the one I've made already, is that I believe that the elections were the turning point. And we had that election in January, first free election in Iraq in decades, and that we will be able to look back from the perspective of time and see that 2005 was the turning point, was the watershed year, and that the establishment of a legitimate government in Iraq, which is what that political process is about, means the end of the insurgency, ultimately. It may take time. It may hang on for a while. But if you go back, there was a message we intercepted a couple of years ago from Zarqawi where he was, ineffective, communicating with bin Laden and his associates in Al Qaida, as I recall the story. But the specifics of it were that he was fearful that once a democracy was established in Iraq, he would have to look for another venue to operate in. He'd have to move on to some other locale. That's my point, that, in fact, the political process as it proceeds successfully -- and as I say, they've made every single milestone -- represents ultimately the end of the insurgency, because there will be a legitimate democratic government in Iraq, and I don't think the insurgents will be able to stand up to it. 06:04:46 MORAN: There is still a great debate in our country about how we got into this war. And many Americans -- most, according to some polls -- believe that you and the president misled the country into this way be deliberately exaggerating the threat from Saddam Hussein and deliberately suppressing the doubt and uncertainty that we now know existed in the intelligence community about his weapons of mass destruction program. You said in 2002 there is no doubt. But there was. Did you know it at the time? CHENEY: No, but, Terry, if you go back and look at the studies that have been -- look at the analysis that was done by the Robb-Silverman commission or by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Everybody believed in advance that he did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction. It turned out the intelligence was wrong. But all of the studies showed that at no time was there ever pressure brought to bear on the intelligence community, that we, in fact, reported what we received. The statements I made tracked almost perfectly with what was coming out of the intelligence community during that period of time. The director of the CIA, when asked by the president of the United States, in the Oval Office, how good is the intelligence on WMD, he said it's a slam-dunk case. That was the view of the intelligence community. There might have been people some place down in the bowels of the organization who didn't agree with it, but that was never communicated. MORAN: You never heard any doubt about these programs. CHENEY: No. Everybody -- it was very solid. Slam-dunk case was the way it was presented. But beyond that, I mean, to some extent that's a bit of a side issue because what we did was exactly the right thing to do. 06:06:15 The president said the other day if we had the decision to make over again, knowing what we know now, would we have done it, and the answer is absolutely, because remember what the circumstances were. You had Saddam Hussein who was a man who perpetrated two wars, started two wars, who produced and used weapons of mass destruction, a man who was, in fact, providing safe haven for terror, making $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers, provided sanctuary for Abu Nidal, for Palestinian Islamic jihad, a man who did have a relationship with terrorist organizations and who had, in fact, produced WMD in the past and used it. This was an evil man. And in fact, in the aftermath of 9/11, after we lost 3,000 Americans that morning, and we were faced with the prospect that terrorists would try to acquire those deadlier capabilities to use against us, that we could no longer sit back and tolerate or accept a situation where the United States just played defense, where we didn't go on offense and attempt to deal both with the terrorists themselves as well as the state sponsors of terror. Saddam qualified by every standard. We did exactly the right thing. The world is far safer with Saddam out of business. And Iraq will be a democracy, a government that has -- capable of defending its own interests, taking care of itself. We'll help fundamentally transform this part of the world because of what we have accomplished here, what the troops are doing here, and what the Iraqis themselves are doing. 06:07:39 MORAN: Let me shift gears. The president has now acknowledged authorizing and reauthorizing more than 30 times a program to spy on Americans without any warrant from any court. This is a huge change... CHENEY: I think that's a slight distortion of what the president said. The president said -- is that we will use all of our power and authority -- the decision we made after 9/11 -- to do everything we can to defend the country. That's our obligation. We take an oath of office to do that. 06:08: MORAN: That's not in dispute. CHENEY: And that when we have a situation where we have communication between someone inside the United States and an acknowledged Al Qaida or terrorist source outside the United States, that that's something we need to know. And he has authorized us to look at that. And it is, in fact, consistent with the constitution. It's been reviewed. It's reviewed every 45 days by the president himself, by the attorney general of the United States, by the president's council, by the director of CIA. It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law. It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11. We had two 9/11 terrorists in San Diego prior to the attack in contact with Al Qaida sources outside the United States. We didn't know it. The 9/11 Commission talks about it. If we'd had this capability, then we might well have been able to stop it. 06:08:59 MORAN: But, Mr. Vice President, this is a program that surveilles people inside the United States. The Constitution... CHENEY: Who are in touch with Al Qaida who are outside the United States. MORAN: Don't you have to have a court give permission for that in any other circumstance to eavesdrop on communications in America? CHENEY: Terry, these are communications that involve acknowledged or known terrorists -- dirty numbers, if you will. And in fact, it is consistent with the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief. It's consistent with the resolution that was passed by the Congress after 9/11. And it has been reviewed repeatedly by the Justice Department every single time it's been renewed, to make certain that it is, in fact, managed in a manner that's fully consistent with the Constitution and with our statutes. MORAN: But that's all the executive branch. The constitution call for a court, a coequal branch of government, as a check on the power of the executive to give a say-so before an American or someone in America is surveilled, or searched, or spied upon. CHENEY: This has been done, Terry, in a manner that is completely consistent with our obligations and requirements, I can assure you. That's one of the reasons we hold it and watch it so carefully. That's why it has to go the president every 30 days to 45 days, to make absolutely certain we are in compliance with all of the safeguards with respect to individual liberty, and that it is managed in a very conservative fashion, and it is signed up to by the attorney general of the United States and reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. So we spend a lot of time making certain that this is, in fact, safeguarded. And as I say, we've briefed Congress on it, just a few members, the leadership, on over a dozen occasions. MORAN: Let me take you up on that. Senator Graham of Florida, ex-Senator Graham, who was on the Intelligence Committee at the time this program began, suggested to us that when you briefed him, you misled him, you didn't tell him the full scope of the program. That's his feeling now that he sees it exposed. CHENEY: Well, that's not true. MORAN: He knew. CHENEY: He knew. I sat in my office with General Hayden, who was then the head of NSA, who's now the deputy director of the National Intelligence Directorate, and he was briefed as long as he was chairman of the committee or ranking member of the committee. MORAN: The president has said we do not torture, and Senator McCain proposed a measure in part to vindicate those values that would ban the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of any person in U.S. custody anywhere in the world. Why did he fight so hard against that? CHENEY: Well, we ultimately reached a compromise between the president and Senator McCain, and it was arrived at just last week. But what I -- excuse me. The position I took was one that was the position the administration had taken when we signaled to the Congress that we were prepared to veto a bill that went farther than we thought it should in terms of trying to restrict the prerogatives of the president, and... MORAN: How so, when it comes to cruel, inhuman -- what's the president's prerogative in the cruel treatment of prisoners? CHENEY: There's a definition that's based on prior Supreme Court decisions and prior arguments, and it has to do with the Fourth, Thirteenth, and -- three specific amendments to the Constitution. And the rule is whether or not it shocks the conscience. If it's something that shocks the conscience, the court has agreed that crosses over the line. Now, you can get into a debate about what shocks the conscience and what is cruel and inhuman, and to some extent, I suppose, that's in the eye of the beholder. But I believe, and we think it's important to remember, that we are in a war against a group of individuals and terrorist organizations that did, in fact, slaughter 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, that it's important for us to be able to have effective interrogation of these people when we capture them. And the debate is over the extent to which we are going to have legislation that restricts or limits that capability. Now, as I say, we've reached a compromise. The president signed on with the McCain amendment. We never had any problem with the McCain amendment. We had problems with trying to extend it as far as he did. But ultimately, as I say, a compromise was arrived at, and I support the compromise. MORAN: Should American interrogators be staging mock excursions, waterboarding prisoners? Is that cruel? CHENEY: I am not going to get into specifics here. You're getting into questions about sources and methods, and I don't talk about that, Terry. MORAN: As vice president of the United States, you can't tell the American people whether... CHENEY: I don't talk about... MORAN: ...or not we would interrogate... CHENEY: I can say that we, in fact, are consistent with the commitments of the United States that we don't engage in torture, and we don't. MORAN: Are you troubled at all that more than 100 people in U.S. custody have died, 26 of them now being investigated as criminal homicides, people beaten to death, suffocated to death, died of hypothermia in U.S. custody? CHENEY: No. I won't accept you numbers, Terry. But I guess one of the things I'm concerned about is that as we get farther and farther away from 9/11, and there have been no further attacks against the United States, there seems to be less and less concern about doing what's necessary in order to defend the country. I think, for example, the Patriot Act -- this week, the Patriot Act, a vital piece of legislation -- it was, in fact, passed in the aftermath of 9/11. It extended to our ability to operate with respect to the counterterrorist effort. It gave us authorities that were already used in other areas against drug traffickers and so forth that broke down that wall between law enforcement and intelligence that had prohibited cooperation (inaudible) it's been a very... MORAN: We're going to have to take a break. I'm sorry (inaudible). CHENEY: And what I'm concerned about, Terry, is that as we get farther and farther from 9/11, we've got -- we seem to have people less and less committed to doing everything that's necessary to defend the country. And I think about the Patriot Act that's been a vital piece of legislation that was passed in the aftermath of 9/11, gave us the authority to break down the wall between intelligence and law enforcement that was there previously, that gave us the authority to use against terrorists some of the same tools that are already authorized and used against drug traffickers, for example. The Patriot Act, up for renewal, was filibustered in the Senate this week by the Democrats and blocked from passage. As a result, parts of that are going to expire on December 31st. Somehow I think a lot of people have lost their sense of urgency out there. That's hard for me to do or for the president to do. We get up every morning, and the first thing we do is an intelligence brief, where we look at the threats to the United States. We do that six days a week. We're well aware that there are still terrorists out there who mean to do evil, that they're trying their best to get their hands on deadlier weapons, biological agents or nuclear weapons, to use against us. And we need to maintain the capability of this government to be able to defend the nation. And that means we have to take extraordinary measures, but we do do it in a manner that's consistent with the Constitution and consistent with our statutes. And when we needed statutory authority, as we did for the Patriot Act, we went and got it. Now, Congress, the Democrats, are trying to filibuster it. MORAN: Does the United States maintain secret prisons around the world? CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. MORAN: Secret prisons? CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. MORAN: Does the International Red Cross have access to everyone in U.S. custody, as we are obliged? CHENEY: Terry, with all due respect, I won't discuss intelligence matters. I shouldn't. MORAN: I'd like to put this personally, if I can. You're a grandfather. I'm a father. When we look at those girls and we think that the country we're about to pass to them is a country where the vice president can't say whether or not we have secret prisons around the world, whether waterboarding and mock executions is consistent with our values, and a country where the government is surveilling without the warrant of a court, is that the country we want to pass on to them? CHENEY: I want to pass on to them a country that is free, that is not plagued by terrorist attacks, doesn't see a repeat of the terrible events of 9/11 when we lost 3,000 of our people that morning to a handful of terrorists who had no justification at all for what they do. I can guarantee you that we do do as a government, as an administration, is to support and uphold the Constitution of United States, that we do, in fact, take extraordinary steps to make certain we maintain our constitutional obligations and responsibilities, which includes both defending the country as well as defending individual liberties and protecting the rights of all Americans. MORAN: But it's not the America we... CHENEY: Now, having said all of that -- well, you know, somehow we go through these cycles. After 9/11, we are berated for allegedly not connecting the dots -- you guys weren't tough enough, you weren't aggressive enough, you didn't follow up on all the leads. And now, you know, it's been four years. Gee, maybe it was a one-off event, maybe the terrorists out there just hit us accidently, maybe there's nothing for us to be concerned about. I know that's not true. And I think anybody who sits down and looks at it knows that we're engaged in a long struggle here that does, in fact, affect the lives of all Americans. And I want my kids to grow up in a strong, free, independent America where they are safe from the kinds of outrages that have been perpetrated not only in New York and Washington, but in Madrid, Casablanca, and Istanbul, and Bali, and Jakarta, all over the globe. And we're up against a very tough adversary, and under those circumstances we need to do everything we can to protect the American people. And that's got to be a prime concern for us, and it is. MORAN: Even if it's changing who we are? CHENEY: It's not changing who we are. We've had times in the past where we've had to go before and take steps to protect ourselves. The whole argument over military commissions -- you know, should the president be able to set up military commissions to try unlawful combatants, terrorists, who have committed murder or other outrageous acts against the American people. The precedent for that is FDR in World War II, who set up military commissions to try German spies that came into the United States to commit acts of terror. And they tried them, perfectly tried. It was a legal proceeding. And they were executed. Now, everybody acts as though a military commission established now is somehow a brand new development. No, it's not. It's a precedent based exactly on what was done in World War II by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. But we do everything we can, and I say successfully, to protect and defend our basic, fundamental constitutional liberties. That's part of who we are. That's part of what we have to do. MORAN: Another subject. When did you first hear the name Valerie Plame? CHENEY: Well, I'm going to respectfully decline to talk about that. There is a trial pending. I have been constrained for the last 2.5 years not talking about that case, because there was an investigation under way. And now with a trial pending, I think it would be inappropriate for me to say anything about it at all, so I have not said anything about it and won't. MORAN: Can you say, as vice president -- can you answer did you direct anyone to disclose her identity or to lie about... CHENEY: Terry, you can ask the question any way you want. Scooter Libby is a close friend of mine. He's one of the most able and talented people I know. He's entitled to the presumption of innocence, and from my perspective it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment, period. That's been my posture now for 2.5 years and will continue to be. MORAN: I'm going to try once more, because I'm not really asking about the criminal investigation. CHENEY: The answer will be the same, Terry. MORAN: I'm asking about the conduct of the vice president. And people have a right to know this. Did you direct anyone to disclose her name or to cover up disclosing her name? CHENEY: Terry, I have given you the answer. I will not say any more about it. There will be a time when I can discuss it, but not now. MORAN: Fair enough. You mentioned Scooter Libby is a close friend, and... CHENEY: He is. MORAN: ... he's worked with you for a long time. What do you make of what he's going through? CHENEY: Well, I'm sure it's very tough. But he's a good man. He's a patriot. And as I say, he's entitled to a presumption of innocence. And we'll leave it at that. MORAN: All right. Iran. The president of Iran has been making comments recently. He's gotten attention. He's called for Israel being wiped off the map, perhaps reconstructed somewhere in Europe. He's denied the Holocaust. What do you make of him? How dangerous is he? CHENEY: I don't know the man. I've never met him. I think his statements have been outrageous. I think he's probably done more to marshal world opinion against Iran than his predecessors have done for a long time. He strikes me as a very dangerous man, especially in light of the fact that the Iranians appear to be embarked upon a course of trying to develop nuclear weapons. I'm concerned about it. MORAN: How close do you think Iran is to developing nuclear weapons? CHENEY: Well, you can get various estimates, you know, but the actual estimates are clearly classified at this stage, but there's every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons, and we're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously, the Europeans do as well. The Israelis do. The European community, the E.U., the Brits, the French and the Germans have taken the lead in trying to negotiate a diplomatic solution. We support that effort and will continue to do so. We think there's no need for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. And they've been offered different options -- the possibility, for example, that the Russians would be responsible for providing them with fuel and take back the spent fuel, that they don't need to have enrichment capability themselves. Other nations have nuclear-power-generating capability and don't enrich their own uranium. They get it on the market. And the Iranians ought to be able to do the same. MORAN: Do you think that when you or the president -- the American government now talks about Iran and North Korea and its weapons of mass destruction ambitions and programs the world looks at us with a rightly skeptical eye, that our credibility has been damaged because of what happened here in this country, that there were no weapons of mass destruction? CHENEY: No. What there was in Iran -- in Iraq, again, remember, was a man who had produced and used weapons of mass destruction before, the universal view on the part of all the intelligence agencies worldwide that he was at it again. And what we found with the Duelfer report (inaudible) for example that while they didn't have stockpiles, they still clearly had the capability to produce chemical and biological agents, that he was expected as soon as sanctions were lifted to go back into business producing again. That's the testimony of Duelfer before the Congress. So there still was a WMD problem, if you will, in Iraq even though he may not have had stockpiles. I think one of the things I'm concerned about is that the United States is more concerned than anybody else appears to be with this problem of proliferation. We've sort of led the charge to try to deal with that. We found, for example, that other nations haven't been quite as eager, as enthusiastic as we are to try to cope with it. One of the most important things that came out of our operations in Iraq was that Muammar Quaddafi in Libya saw what we did here and surrendered his nuclear weapons development efforts. All of his weapons design, his centrifuges, his feed stock for the uranium enrichment process now are under the control of the United States, under lock and key in the United States. MORAN: He was on his way to doing that, though... CHENEY: No. MORAN: ... wasn't he? CHENEY: No, I don't believe so. I think what happened was when we invaded Iraq, he contacted Tony Blair and George Bush. He didn't call Kofi Annan. And five days after we dug Saddam out of his hole in Tikrit, then he went public and announced he was going to give it all up. I think he did it directly because he saw what the United States did in Iraq. Set that aside. The fact of the matter is we have to find a way as an international community to limit the spread of nuclear weapons technology, primarily because we don't want rogue states to acquire it, but also because of the very real danger that ultimately some of that may fall into the hands of non-state actors, of terrorists. And you try to do that through diplomacy, through international agreements, perhaps through the United Nations, but we've got to find a way to do it, because we do have the problem not only in North Korea but also in Iran, and it could well develop elsewhere, and as an international community we must come together and find some way to make certain that doesn't happen. MORAN: This has been a tough period for the administration -- the president's poll numbers, with the hurricane and the response of the federal government that was seen as wanting, and a lot of Americans seem angry with the administration right now. END

0545 CHENEY X81 05:57:32 TERRY MORAN CAMERA TERRY MORAN: So this is your first trip to Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein? DICK CHENEY: It is. MORAN: What surprised you today? What do you know about Iraq today that you didn't know yesterday? CHENEY: Well, I think, like most people who've looked at it, I've been tremendously impressed with what happened in the election just this past week. I mean, I really think that may be a seminal event in the history of Iraq, that it's such an important part of the process of building a democracy, a viable Iraq, an Iraq that can stand on its own, that the thing that strikes you when you come out is just the mood and the demeanor of the people you talk with -- speaking with Talabani and Jaafri, for example. I've met with both of them before, but they both, I think, were visibly relieved at how big the turnout was, that, in fact, the process is working, that there is strong support even in the Sunni areas for participation in the political process. MORAN: But you know, we've had elections before in this country, now, twice before this. There was that moment of hope after the January elections, with the amazing sights that that brought out, and those hopes have been dashed again and again. What makes you think this time it's going to be different? CHENEY: I disagree with the notion that hopes have been dashed. I don't think that's true. MORAN: Well, the violence has continued. CHENEY: Well, the violence has continued, but I think the key in terms of looking at the elections is that they've made every single milestone that's been set, every single one, from the time we turned over sovereignty in June of '04, to the first elections in January, then writing the constitution, getting the constitution ratified, and now national elections under that new constitution. They've had three elections this year. Each one's gotten better and stronger and more effective. I do think it's serving to undermine the legitimacy of the insurgency. I think it will make it increasingly difficult for the insurgents to be effective. We see it, for example, in the volume of tips that we get from the Iraqi people, intelligence information about where to find weapons caches, or who's responsible for some of the terrorist attacks. There's been a quantum leap over the course of the last year in terms of the number of intelligence reports coming in. The academy is doing better. The Iraqi security services are clearly much, much better now. There's a big change there over the last 18 months. I met today with some of the members and the leader of the 9th Mechanized Iraqi Division. These are men who've signed on to support the new government. And the benefit of having that election now is we're going to have a government that's a legitimate government of Iraq that nobody can claim lacks legitimacy. It's an Iraqi government elected by Iraqis under a constitution written by Iraqis. And so I think all of that is measurable progress. And while the level of violence has continued, I do believe that when we look back on this period of time, 2005 will have been the turning point when, in fact, we made sufficient progress both on the political front and the security front, so that we'll see that as the watershed year. MORAN: You talk about undermining the legitimacy of the resistance. Before the war you said Americans would be greeted as liberators here, and yet your own trip here today was undertaken in such secrecy that not even the prime minister of this country knew you were coming, and your movements around are in incredible secrecy and security. Do you ever think about how and why you got it wrong? 06:00:52 CHENEY: I don't think I got it wrong. I think the vast majority of the Iraqi people are grateful for what the United States did. I think they believe overwhelmingly that they're better off today than they were when Saddam Hussein ruled. I think the vast majority of them think of us as liberators. And I think your own polls show that, Terry. If you look at the poll that was done just recently by ABC, it shows a great deal of optimism, of hope, on the part of the Iraqi people, that their lives are better and going to get better in the future. So I really believe the notion that somehow the Iraqi people opposed what we did when we came in and toppled Saddam Hussein, or that a majority of them were against it, is just dead wrong. It's not true. I think a majority of them support it. MORAN: Well, if I may, that poll shows that half of Iraqis say the invasion should not have happened. That's what our poll showed. CHENEY: But it shows that the majority of them want us to stay and finish the job and get the job done. And I've had the experience just this week -- we met with 11 Iraqi voters in the Oval Office after they voted. These were Iraqis who voted in the United States because they're out of the country temporarily. It was a remarkably moving moment, and anecdotal evidence of how deeply they feel about the U.S. presence and about what we did for them. Many of them say look, a lot of us can't say it publicly, fearful still of saying anything to identify themselves with Americans, because they're still worried about the terrorists that are out there, or the remnants of the old regime that might come after them. There are still politicians running for office who have been assassinated. It's still a hostile environment made hostile by a relatively small part of the population. But their overwhelming sentiment was one of expressing gratitude for the president of the United States for what he had done to liberate Iraq and the fact that they're all now able to vote in a free election. One of them, as a matter of fact, a young woman, from Fallujah, who had served as an interpreter for the Marine Corps in Fallujah, who's back in the U.S. now, is enlisting in the Marine Corps so she can come back and serve in the United States Marine Corps as a Marine in Iraq. 06:02:48 MORAN: Let me take you back to something else you said before the war -- or actually not before the war, just last May. You said that the insurgency was in its last throes. Since you said the insurgency was in its last throes, hundreds of American G.I.s have been killed. Thousands of Iraqis have been (inaudible) and killed. And the lethality of the insurgency hasn't seemed to diminish at all. What did you mean by saying it was in its last throes? CHENEY: In fact, the number of attacks has declined. You can look at the level of attacks, for example, during the election period in January, the election period in October, the election period in December, and you'll see that there has been a decline in the number of incidents, attack incidents. The basic point, the one I've made already, is that I believe that the elections were the turning point. And we had that election in January, first free election in Iraq in decades, and that we will be able to look back from the perspective of time and see that 2005 was the turning point, was the watershed year, and that the establishment of a legitimate government in Iraq, which is what that political process is about, means the end of the insurgency, ultimately. It may take time. It may hang on for a while. But if you go back, there was a message we intercepted a couple of years ago from Zarqawi where he was, ineffective, communicating with bin Laden and his associates in Al Qaida, as I recall the story. But the specifics of it were that he was fearful that once a democracy was established in Iraq, he would have to look for another venue to operate in. He'd have to move on to some other locale. That's my point, that, in fact, the political process as it proceeds successfully -- and as I say, they've made every single milestone -- represents ultimately the end of the insurgency, because there will be a legitimate democratic government in Iraq, and I don't think the insurgents will be able to stand up to it. 06:04:46 MORAN: There is still a great debate in our country about how we got into this war. And many Americans -- most, according to some polls -- believe that you and the president misled the country into this way be deliberately exaggerating the threat from Saddam Hussein and deliberately suppressing the doubt and uncertainty that we now know existed in the intelligence community about his weapons of mass destruction program. You said in 2002 there is no doubt. But there was. Did you know it at the time? CHENEY: No, but, Terry, if you go back and look at the studies that have been -- look at the analysis that was done by the Robb-Silverman commission or by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Everybody believed in advance that he did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction. It turned out the intelligence was wrong. But all of the studies showed that at no time was there ever pressure brought to bear on the intelligence community, that we, in fact, reported what we received. The statements I made tracked almost perfectly with what was coming out of the intelligence community during that period of time. The director of the CIA, when asked by the president of the United States, in the Oval Office, how good is the intelligence on WMD, he said it's a slam-dunk case. That was the view of the intelligence community. There might have been people some place down in the bowels of the organization who didn't agree with it, but that was never communicated. MORAN: You never heard any doubt about these programs. CHENEY: No. Everybody -- it was very solid. Slam-dunk case was the way it was presented. But beyond that, I mean, to some extent that's a bit of a side issue because what we did was exactly the right thing to do. 06:06:15 The president said the other day if we had the decision to make over again, knowing what we know now, would we have done it, and the answer is absolutely, because remember what the circumstances were. You had Saddam Hussein who was a man who perpetrated two wars, started two wars, who produced and used weapons of mass destruction, a man who was, in fact, providing safe haven for terror, making $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers, provided sanctuary for Abu Nidal, for Palestinian Islamic jihad, a man who did have a relationship with terrorist organizations and who had, in fact, produced WMD in the past and used it. This was an evil man. And in fact, in the aftermath of 9/11, after we lost 3,000 Americans that morning, and we were faced with the prospect that terrorists would try to acquire those deadlier capabilities to use against us, that we could no longer sit back and tolerate or accept a situation where the United States just played defense, where we didn't go on offense and attempt to deal both with the terrorists themselves as well as the state sponsors of terror. Saddam qualified by every standard. We did exactly the right thing. The world is far safer with Saddam out of business. And Iraq will be a democracy, a government that has -- capable of defending its own interests, taking care of itself. We'll help fundamentally transform this part of the world because of what we have accomplished here, what the troops are doing here, and what the Iraqis themselves are doing. 06:07:39 MORAN: Let me shift gears. The president has now acknowledged authorizing and reauthorizing more than 30 times a program to spy on Americans without any warrant from any court. This is a huge change... CHENEY: I think that's a slight distortion of what the president said. The president said -- is that we will use all of our power and authority -- the decision we made after 9/11 -- to do everything we can to defend the country. That's our obligation. We take an oath of office to do that. 06:08: MORAN: That's not in dispute. CHENEY: And that when we have a situation where we have communication between someone inside the United States and an acknowledged Al Qaida or terrorist source outside the United States, that that's something we need to know. And he has authorized us to look at that. And it is, in fact, consistent with the constitution. It's been reviewed. It's reviewed every 45 days by the president himself, by the attorney general of the United States, by the president's council, by the director of CIA. It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law. It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11. We had two 9/11 terrorists in San Diego prior to the attack in contact with Al Qaida sources outside the United States. We didn't know it. The 9/11 Commission talks about it. If we'd had this capability, then we might well have been able to stop it. 06:08:59 MORAN: But, Mr. Vice President, this is a program that surveilles people inside the United States. The Constitution... CHENEY: Who are in touch with Al Qaida who are outside the United States. MORAN: Don't you have to have a court give permission for that in any other circumstance to eavesdrop on communications in America? CHENEY: Terry, these are communications that involve acknowledged or known terrorists -- dirty numbers, if you will. And in fact, it is consistent with the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief. It's consistent with the resolution that was passed by the Congress after 9/11. And it has been reviewed repeatedly by the Justice Department every single time it's been renewed, to make certain that it is, in fact, managed in a manner that's fully consistent with the Constitution and with our statutes. MORAN: But that's all the executive branch. The constitution call for a court, a coequal branch of government, as a check on the power of the executive to give a say-so before an American or someone in America is surveilled, or searched, or spied upon. CHENEY: This has been done, Terry, in a manner that is completely consistent with our obligations and requirements, I can assure you. That's one of the reasons we hold it and watch it so carefully. That's why it has to go the president every 30 days to 45 days, to make absolutely certain we are in compliance with all of the safeguards with respect to individual liberty, and that it is managed in a very conservative fashion, and it is signed up to by the attorney general of the United States and reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. So we spend a lot of time making certain that this is, in fact, safeguarded. And as I say, we've briefed Congress on it, just a few members, the leadership, on over a dozen occasions. MORAN: Let me take you up on that. Senator Graham of Florida, ex-Senator Graham, who was on the Intelligence Committee at the time this program began, suggested to us that when you briefed him, you misled him, you didn't tell him the full scope of the program. That's his feeling now that he sees it exposed. CHENEY: Well, that's not true. MORAN: He knew. CHENEY: He knew. I sat in my office with General Hayden, who was then the head of NSA, who's now the deputy director of the National Intelligence Directorate, and he was briefed as long as he was chairman of the committee or ranking member of the committee. MORAN: The president has said we do not torture, and Senator McCain proposed a measure in part to vindicate those values that would ban the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of any person in U.S. custody anywhere in the world. Why did he fight so hard against that? CHENEY: Well, we ultimately reached a compromise between the president and Senator McCain, and it was arrived at just last week. But what I -- excuse me. The position I took was one that was the position the administration had taken when we signaled to the Congress that we were prepared to veto a bill that went farther than we thought it should in terms of trying to restrict the prerogatives of the president, and... MORAN: How so, when it comes to cruel, inhuman -- what's the president's prerogative in the cruel treatment of prisoners? CHENEY: There's a definition that's based on prior Supreme Court decisions and prior arguments, and it has to do with the Fourth, Thirteenth, and -- three specific amendments to the Constitution. And the rule is whether or not it shocks the conscience. If it's something that shocks the conscience, the court has agreed that crosses over the line. Now, you can get into a debate about what shocks the conscience and what is cruel and inhuman, and to some extent, I suppose, that's in the eye of the beholder. But I believe, and we think it's important to remember, that we are in a war against a group of individuals and terrorist organizations that did, in fact, slaughter 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, that it's important for us to be able to have effective interrogation of these people when we capture them. And the debate is over the extent to which we are going to have legislation that restricts or limits that capability. Now, as I say, we've reached a compromise. The president signed on with the McCain amendment. We never had any problem with the McCain amendment. We had problems with trying to extend it as far as he did. But ultimately, as I say, a compromise was arrived at, and I support the compromise. MORAN: Should American interrogators be staging mock excursions, waterboarding prisoners? Is that cruel? CHENEY: I am not going to get into specifics here. You're getting into questions about sources and methods, and I don't talk about that, Terry. MORAN: As vice president of the United States, you can't tell the American people whether... CHENEY: I don't talk about... MORAN: ...or not we would interrogate... CHENEY: I can say that we, in fact, are consistent with the commitments of the United States that we don't engage in torture, and we don't. MORAN: Are you troubled at all that more than 100 people in U.S. custody have died, 26 of them now being investigated as criminal homicides, people beaten to death, suffocated to death, died of hypothermia in U.S. custody? CHENEY: No. I won't accept you numbers, Terry. But I guess one of the things I'm concerned about is that as we get farther and farther away from 9/11, and there have been no further attacks against the United States, there seems to be less and less concern about doing what's necessary in order to defend the country. I think, for example, the Patriot Act -- this week, the Patriot Act, a vital piece of legislation -- it was, in fact, passed in the aftermath of 9/11. It extended to our ability to operate with respect to the counterterrorist effort. It gave us authorities that were already used in other areas against drug traffickers and so forth that broke down that wall between law enforcement and intelligence that had prohibited cooperation (inaudible) it's been a very... MORAN: We're going to have to take a break. I'm sorry (inaudible). CHENEY: And what I'm concerned about, Terry, is that as we get farther and farther from 9/11, we've got -- we seem to have people less and less committed to doing everything that's necessary to defend the country. And I think about the Patriot Act that's been a vital piece of legislation that was passed in the aftermath of 9/11, gave us the authority to break down the wall between intelligence and law enforcement that was there previously, that gave us the authority to use against terrorists some of the same tools that are already authorized and used against drug traffickers, for example. The Patriot Act, up for renewal, was filibustered in the Senate this week by the Democrats and blocked from passage. As a result, parts of that are going to expire on December 31st. Somehow I think a lot of people have lost their sense of urgency out there. That's hard for me to do or for the president to do. We get up every morning, and the first thing we do is an intelligence brief, where we look at the threats to the United States. We do that six days a week. We're well aware that there are still terrorists out there who mean to do evil, that they're trying their best to get their hands on deadlier weapons, biological agents or nuclear weapons, to use against us. And we need to maintain the capability of this government to be able to defend the nation. And that means we have to take extraordinary measures, but we do do it in a manner that's consistent with the Constitution and consistent with our statutes. And when we needed statutory authority, as we did for the Patriot Act, we went and got it. Now, Congress, the Democrats, are trying to filibuster it. MORAN: Does the United States maintain secret prisons around the world? CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. MORAN: Secret prisons? CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. MORAN: Does the International Red Cross have access to everyone in U.S. custody, as we are obliged? CHENEY: Terry, with all due respect, I won't discuss intelligence matters. I shouldn't. MORAN: I'd like to put this personally, if I can. You're a grandfather. I'm a father. When we look at those girls and we think that the country we're about to pass to them is a country where the vice president can't say whether or not we have secret prisons around the world, whether waterboarding and mock executions is consistent with our values, and a country where the government is surveilling without the warrant of a court, is that the country we want to pass on to them? CHENEY: I want to pass on to them a country that is free, that is not plagued by terrorist attacks, doesn't see a repeat of the terrible events of 9/11 when we lost 3,000 of our people that morning to a handful of terrorists who had no justification at all for what they do. I can guarantee you that we do do as a government, as an administration, is to support and uphold the Constitution of United States, that we do, in fact, take extraordinary steps to make certain we maintain our constitutional obligations and responsibilities, which includes both defending the country as well as defending individual liberties and protecting the rights of all Americans. MORAN: But it's not the America we... CHENEY: Now, having said all of that -- well, you know, somehow we go through these cycles. After 9/11, we are berated for allegedly not connecting the dots -- you guys weren't tough enough, you weren't aggressive enough, you didn't follow up on all the leads. And now, you know, it's been four years. Gee, maybe it was a one-off event, maybe the terrorists out there just hit us accidently, maybe there's nothing for us to be concerned about. I know that's not true. And I think anybody who sits down and looks at it knows that we're engaged in a long struggle here that does, in fact, affect the lives of all Americans. And I want my kids to grow up in a strong, free, independent America where they are safe from the kinds of outrages that have been perpetrated not only in New York and Washington, but in Madrid, Casablanca, and Istanbul, and Bali, and Jakarta, all over the globe. And we're up against a very tough adversary, and under those circumstances we need to do everything we can to protect the American people. And that's got to be a prime concern for us, and it is. MORAN: Even if it's changing who we are? CHENEY: It's not changing who we are. We've had times in the past where we've had to go before and take steps to protect ourselves. The whole argument over military commissions -- you know, should the president be able to set up military commissions to try unlawful combatants, terrorists, who have committed murder or other outrageous acts against the American people. The precedent for that is FDR in World War II, who set up military commissions to try German spies that came into the United States to commit acts of terror. And they tried them, perfectly tried. It was a legal proceeding. And they were executed. Now, everybody acts as though a military commission established now is somehow a brand new development. No, it's not. It's a precedent based exactly on what was done in World War II by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. But we do everything we can, and I say successfully, to protect and defend our basic, fundamental constitutional liberties. That's part of who we are. That's part of what we have to do. MORAN: Another subject. When did you first hear the name Valerie Plame? CHENEY: Well, I'm going to respectfully decline to talk about that. There is a trial pending. I have been constrained for the last 2.5 years not talking about that case, because there was an investigation under way. And now with a trial pending, I think it would be inappropriate for me to say anything about it at all, so I have not said anything about it and won't. MORAN: Can you say, as vice president -- can you answer did you direct anyone to disclose her identity or to lie about... CHENEY: Terry, you can ask the question any way you want. Scooter Libby is a close friend of mine. He's one of the most able and talented people I know. He's entitled to the presumption of innocence, and from my perspective it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment, period. That's been my posture now for 2.5 years and will continue to be. MORAN: I'm going to try once more, because I'm not really asking about the criminal investigation. CHENEY: The answer will be the same, Terry. MORAN: I'm asking about the conduct of the vice president. And people have a right to know this. Did you direct anyone to disclose her name or to cover up disclosing her name? CHENEY: Terry, I have given you the answer. I will not say any more about it. There will be a time when I can discuss it, but not now. MORAN: Fair enough. You mentioned Scooter Libby is a close friend, and... CHENEY: He is. MORAN: ... he's worked with you for a long time. What do you make of what he's going through? CHENEY: Well, I'm sure it's very tough. But he's a good man. He's a patriot. And as I say, he's entitled to a presumption of innocence. And we'll leave it at that. MORAN: All right. Iran. The president of Iran has been making comments recently. He's gotten attention. He's called for Israel being wiped off the map, perhaps reconstructed somewhere in Europe. He's denied the Holocaust. What do you make of him? How dangerous is he? CHENEY: I don't know the man. I've never met him. I think his statements have been outrageous. I think he's probably done more to marshal world opinion against Iran than his predecessors have done for a long time. He strikes me as a very dangerous man, especially in light of the fact that the Iranians appear to be embarked upon a course of trying to develop nuclear weapons. I'm concerned about it. MORAN: How close do you think Iran is to developing nuclear weapons? CHENEY: Well, you can get various estimates, you know, but the actual estimates are clearly classified at this stage, but there's every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons, and we're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously, the Europeans do as well. The Israelis do. The European community, the E.U., the Brits, the French and the Germans have taken the lead in trying to negotiate a diplomatic solution. We support that effort and will continue to do so. We think there's no need for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. And they've been offered different options -- the possibility, for example, that the Russians would be responsible for providing them with fuel and take back the spent fuel, that they don't need to have enrichment capability themselves. Other nations have nuclear-power-generating capability and don't enrich their own uranium. They get it on the market. And the Iranians ought to be able to do the same. MORAN: Do you think that when you or the president -- the American government now talks about Iran and North Korea and its weapons of mass destruction ambitions and programs the world looks at us with a rightly skeptical eye, that our credibility has been damaged because of what happened here in this country, that there were no weapons of mass destruction? CHENEY: No. What there was in Iran -- in Iraq, again, remember, was a man who had produced and used weapons of mass destruction before, the universal view on the part of all the intelligence agencies worldwide that he was at it again. And what we found with the Duelfer report (inaudible) for example that while they didn't have stockpiles, they still clearly had the capability to produce chemical and biological agents, that he was expected as soon as sanctions were lifted to go back into business producing again. That's the testimony of Duelfer before the Congress. So there still was a WMD problem, if you will, in Iraq even though he may not have had stockpiles. I think one of the things I'm concerned about is that the United States is more concerned than anybody else appears to be with this problem of proliferation. We've sort of led the charge to try to deal with that. We found, for example, that other nations haven't been quite as eager, as enthusiastic as we are to try to cope with it. One of the most important things that came out of our operations in Iraq was that Muammar Quaddafi in Libya saw what we did here and surrendered his nuclear weapons development efforts. All of his weapons design, his centrifuges, his feed stock for the uranium enrichment process now are under the control of the United States, under lock and key in the United States. MORAN: He was on his way to doing that, though... CHENEY: No. MORAN: ... wasn't he? CHENEY: No, I don't believe so. I think what happened was when we invaded Iraq, he contacted Tony Blair and George Bush. He didn't call Kofi Annan. And five days after we dug Saddam out of his hole in Tikrit, then he went public and announced he was going to give it all up. I think he did it directly because he saw what the United States did in Iraq. Set that aside. The fact of the matter is we have to find a way as an international community to limit the spread of nuclear weapons technology, primarily because we don't want rogue states to acquire it, but also because of the very real danger that ultimately some of that may fall into the hands of non-state actors, of terrorists. And you try to do that through diplomacy, through international agreements, perhaps through the United Nations, but we've got to find a way to do it, because we do have the problem not only in North Korea but also in Iran, and it could well develop elsewhere, and as an international community we must come together and find some way to make certain that doesn't happen. MORAN: This has been a tough period for the administration -- the president's poll numbers, with the hurricane and the response of the federal government that was seen as wanting, and a lot of Americans seem angry with the administration right now. END

0545 CHENEY X81 05:57:32 TERRY MORAN CAMERA TERRY MORAN: So this is your first trip to Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein? DICK CHENEY: It is. MORAN: What surprised you today? What do you know about Iraq today that you didn't know yesterday? CHENEY: Well, I think, like most people who've looked at it, I've been tremendously impressed with what happened in the election just this past week. I mean, I really think that may be a seminal event in the history of Iraq, that it's such an important part of the process of building a democracy, a viable Iraq, an Iraq that can stand on its own, that the thing that strikes you when you come out is just the mood and the demeanor of the people you talk with -- speaking with Talabani and Jaafri, for example. I've met with both of them before, but they both, I think, were visibly relieved at how big the turnout was, that, in fact, the process is working, that there is strong support even in the Sunni areas for participation in the political process. MORAN: But you know, we've had elections before in this country, now, twice before this. There was that moment of hope after the January elections, with the amazing sights that that brought out, and those hopes have been dashed again and again. What makes you think this time it's going to be different? CHENEY: I disagree with the notion that hopes have been dashed. I don't think that's true. MORAN: Well, the violence has continued. CHENEY: Well, the violence has continued, but I think the key in terms of looking at the elections is that they've made every single milestone that's been set, every single one, from the time we turned over sovereignty in June of '04, to the first elections in January, then writing the constitution, getting the constitution ratified, and now national elections under that new constitution. They've had three elections this year. Each one's gotten better and stronger and more effective. I do think it's serving to undermine the legitimacy of the insurgency. I think it will make it increasingly difficult for the insurgents to be effective. We see it, for example, in the volume of tips that we get from the Iraqi people, intelligence information about where to find weapons caches, or who's responsible for some of the terrorist attacks. There's been a quantum leap over the course of the last year in terms of the number of intelligence reports coming in. The academy is doing better. The Iraqi security services are clearly much, much better now. There's a big change there over the last 18 months. I met today with some of the members and the leader of the 9th Mechanized Iraqi Division. These are men who've signed on to support the new government. And the benefit of having that election now is we're going to have a government that's a legitimate government of Iraq that nobody can claim lacks legitimacy. It's an Iraqi government elected by Iraqis under a constitution written by Iraqis. And so I think all of that is measurable progress. And while the level of violence has continued, I do believe that when we look back on this period of time, 2005 will have been the turning point when, in fact, we made sufficient progress both on the political front and the security front, so that we'll see that as the watershed year. MORAN: You talk about undermining the legitimacy of the resistance. Before the war you said Americans would be greeted as liberators here, and yet your own trip here today was undertaken in such secrecy that not even the prime minister of this country knew you were coming, and your movements around are in incredible secrecy and security. Do you ever think about how and why you got it wrong? 06:00:52 CHENEY: I don't think I got it wrong. I think the vast majority of the Iraqi people are grateful for what the United States did. I think they believe overwhelmingly that they're better off today than they were when Saddam Hussein ruled. I think the vast majority of them think of us as liberators. And I think your own polls show that, Terry. If you look at the poll that was done just recently by ABC, it shows a great deal of optimism, of hope, on the part of the Iraqi people, that their lives are better and going to get better in the future. So I really believe the notion that somehow the Iraqi people opposed what we did when we came in and toppled Saddam Hussein, or that a majority of them were against it, is just dead wrong. It's not true. I think a majority of them support it. MORAN: Well, if I may, that poll shows that half of Iraqis say the invasion should not have happened. That's what our poll showed. CHENEY: But it shows that the majority of them want us to stay and finish the job and get the job done. And I've had the experience just this week -- we met with 11 Iraqi voters in the Oval Office after they voted. These were Iraqis who voted in the United States because they're out of the country temporarily. It was a remarkably moving moment, and anecdotal evidence of how deeply they feel about the U.S. presence and about what we did for them. Many of them say look, a lot of us can't say it publicly, fearful still of saying anything to identify themselves with Americans, because they're still worried about the terrorists that are out there, or the remnants of the old regime that might come after them. There are still politicians running for office who have been assassinated. It's still a hostile environment made hostile by a relatively small part of the population. But their overwhelming sentiment was one of expressing gratitude for the president of the United States for what he had done to liberate Iraq and the fact that they're all now able to vote in a free election. One of them, as a matter of fact, a young woman, from Fallujah, who had served as an interpreter for the Marine Corps in Fallujah, who's back in the U.S. now, is enlisting in the Marine Corps so she can come back and serve in the United States Marine Corps as a Marine in Iraq. 06:02:48 MORAN: Let me take you back to something else you said before the war -- or actually not before the war, just last May. You said that the insurgency was in its last throes. Since you said the insurgency was in its last throes, hundreds of American G.I.s have been killed. Thousands of Iraqis have been (inaudible) and killed. And the lethality of the insurgency hasn't seemed to diminish at all. What did you mean by saying it was in its last throes? CHENEY: In fact, the number of attacks has declined. You can look at the level of attacks, for example, during the election period in January, the election period in October, the election period in December, and you'll see that there has been a decline in the number of incidents, attack incidents. The basic point, the one I've made already, is that I believe that the elections were the turning point. And we had that election in January, first free election in Iraq in decades, and that we will be able to look back from the perspective of time and see that 2005 was the turning point, was the watershed year, and that the establishment of a legitimate government in Iraq, which is what that political process is about, means the end of the insurgency, ultimately. It may take time. It may hang on for a while. But if you go back, there was a message we intercepted a couple of years ago from Zarqawi where he was, ineffective, communicating with bin Laden and his associates in Al Qaida, as I recall the story. But the specifics of it were that he was fearful that once a democracy was established in Iraq, he would have to look for another venue to operate in. He'd have to move on to some other locale. That's my point, that, in fact, the political process as it proceeds successfully -- and as I say, they've made every single milestone -- represents ultimately the end of the insurgency, because there will be a legitimate democratic government in Iraq, and I don't think the insurgents will be able to stand up to it. 06:04:46 MORAN: There is still a great debate in our country about how we got into this war. And many Americans -- most, according to some polls -- believe that you and the president misled the country into this way be deliberately exaggerating the threat from Saddam Hussein and deliberately suppressing the doubt and uncertainty that we now know existed in the intelligence community about his weapons of mass destruction program. You said in 2002 there is no doubt. But there was. Did you know it at the time? CHENEY: No, but, Terry, if you go back and look at the studies that have been -- look at the analysis that was done by the Robb-Silverman commission or by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Everybody believed in advance that he did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction. It turned out the intelligence was wrong. But all of the studies showed that at no time was there ever pressure brought to bear on the intelligence community, that we, in fact, reported what we received. The statements I made tracked almost perfectly with what was coming out of the intelligence community during that period of time. The director of the CIA, when asked by the president of the United States, in the Oval Office, how good is the intelligence on WMD, he said it's a slam-dunk case. That was the view of the intelligence community. There might have been people some place down in the bowels of the organization who didn't agree with it, but that was never communicated. MORAN: You never heard any doubt about these programs. CHENEY: No. Everybody -- it was very solid. Slam-dunk case was the way it was presented. But beyond that, I mean, to some extent that's a bit of a side issue because what we did was exactly the right thing to do. 06:06:15 The president said the other day if we had the decision to make over again, knowing what we know now, would we have done it, and the answer is absolutely, because remember what the circumstances were. You had Saddam Hussein who was a man who perpetrated two wars, started two wars, who produced and used weapons of mass destruction, a man who was, in fact, providing safe haven for terror, making $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers, provided sanctuary for Abu Nidal, for Palestinian Islamic jihad, a man who did have a relationship with terrorist organizations and who had, in fact, produced WMD in the past and used it. This was an evil man. And in fact, in the aftermath of 9/11, after we lost 3,000 Americans that morning, and we were faced with the prospect that terrorists would try to acquire those deadlier capabilities to use against us, that we could no longer sit back and tolerate or accept a situation where the United States just played defense, where we didn't go on offense and attempt to deal both with the terrorists themselves as well as the state sponsors of terror. Saddam qualified by every standard. We did exactly the right thing. The world is far safer with Saddam out of business. And Iraq will be a democracy, a government that has -- capable of defending its own interests, taking care of itself. We'll help fundamentally transform this part of the world because of what we have accomplished here, what the troops are doing here, and what the Iraqis themselves are doing. 06:07:39 MORAN: Let me shift gears. The president has now acknowledged authorizing and reauthorizing more than 30 times a program to spy on Americans without any warrant from any court. This is a huge change... CHENEY: I think that's a slight distortion of what the president said. The president said -- is that we will use all of our power and authority -- the decision we made after 9/11 -- to do everything we can to defend the country. That's our obligation. We take an oath of office to do that. 06:08: MORAN: That's not in dispute. CHENEY: And that when we have a situation where we have communication between someone inside the United States and an acknowledged Al Qaida or terrorist source outside the United States, that that's something we need to know. And he has authorized us to look at that. And it is, in fact, consistent with the constitution. It's been reviewed. It's reviewed every 45 days by the president himself, by the attorney general of the United States, by the president's council, by the director of CIA. It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law. It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11. We had two 9/11 terrorists in San Diego prior to the attack in contact with Al Qaida sources outside the United States. We didn't know it. The 9/11 Commission talks about it. If we'd had this capability, then we might well have been able to stop it. 06:08:59 MORAN: But, Mr. Vice President, this is a program that surveilles people inside the United States. The Constitution... CHENEY: Who are in touch with Al Qaida who are outside the United States. MORAN: Don't you have to have a court give permission for that in any other circumstance to eavesdrop on communications in America? CHENEY: Terry, these are communications that involve acknowledged or known terrorists -- dirty numbers, if you will. And in fact, it is consistent with the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief. It's consistent with the resolution that was passed by the Congress after 9/11. And it has been reviewed repeatedly by the Justice Department every single time it's been renewed, to make certain that it is, in fact, managed in a manner that's fully consistent with the Constitution and with our statutes. MORAN: But that's all the executive branch. The constitution call for a court, a coequal branch of government, as a check on the power of the executive to give a say-so before an American or someone in America is surveilled, or searched, or spied upon. CHENEY: This has been done, Terry, in a manner that is completely consistent with our obligations and requirements, I can assure you. That's one of the reasons we hold it and watch it so carefully. That's why it has to go the president every 30 days to 45 days, to make absolutely certain we are in compliance with all of the safeguards with respect to individual liberty, and that it is managed in a very conservative fashion, and it is signed up to by the attorney general of the United States and reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. So we spend a lot of time making certain that this is, in fact, safeguarded. And as I say, we've briefed Congress on it, just a few members, the leadership, on over a dozen occasions. MORAN: Let me take you up on that. Senator Graham of Florida, ex-Senator Graham, who was on the Intelligence Committee at the time this program began, suggested to us that when you briefed him, you misled him, you didn't tell him the full scope of the program. That's his feeling now that he sees it exposed. CHENEY: Well, that's not true. MORAN: He knew. CHENEY: He knew. I sat in my office with General Hayden, who was then the head of NSA, who's now the deputy director of the National Intelligence Directorate, and he was briefed as long as he was chairman of the committee or ranking member of the committee. MORAN: The president has said we do not torture, and Senator McCain proposed a measure in part to vindicate those values that would ban the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of any person in U.S. custody anywhere in the world. Why did he fight so hard against that? CHENEY: Well, we ultimately reached a compromise between the president and Senator McCain, and it was arrived at just last week. But what I -- excuse me. The position I took was one that was the position the administration had taken when we signaled to the Congress that we were prepared to veto a bill that went farther than we thought it should in terms of trying to restrict the prerogatives of the president, and... MORAN: How so, when it comes to cruel, inhuman -- what's the president's prerogative in the cruel treatment of prisoners? CHENEY: There's a definition that's based on prior Supreme Court decisions and prior arguments, and it has to do with the Fourth, Thirteenth, and -- three specific amendments to the Constitution. And the rule is whether or not it shocks the conscience. If it's something that shocks the conscience, the court has agreed that crosses over the line. Now, you can get into a debate about what shocks the conscience and what is cruel and inhuman, and to some extent, I suppose, that's in the eye of the beholder. But I believe, and we think it's important to remember, that we are in a war against a group of individuals and terrorist organizations that did, in fact, slaughter 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, that it's important for us to be able to have effective interrogation of these people when we capture them. And the debate is over the extent to which we are going to have legislation that restricts or limits that capability. Now, as I say, we've reached a compromise. The president signed on with the McCain amendment. We never had any problem with the McCain amendment. We had problems with trying to extend it as far as he did. But ultimately, as I say, a compromise was arrived at, and I support the compromise. MORAN: Should American interrogators be staging mock excursions, waterboarding prisoners? Is that cruel? CHENEY: I am not going to get into specifics here. You're getting into questions about sources and methods, and I don't talk about that, Terry. MORAN: As vice president of the United States, you can't tell the American people whether... CHENEY: I don't talk about... MORAN: ...or not we would interrogate... CHENEY: I can say that we, in fact, are consistent with the commitments of the United States that we don't engage in torture, and we don't. MORAN: Are you troubled at all that more than 100 people in U.S. custody have died, 26 of them now being investigated as criminal homicides, people beaten to death, suffocated to death, died of hypothermia in U.S. custody? CHENEY: No. I won't accept you numbers, Terry. But I guess one of the things I'm concerned about is that as we get farther and farther away from 9/11, and there have been no further attacks against the United States, there seems to be less and less concern about doing what's necessary in order to defend the country. I think, for example, the Patriot Act -- this week, the Patriot Act, a vital piece of legislation -- it was, in fact, passed in the aftermath of 9/11. It extended to our ability to operate with respect to the counterterrorist effort. It gave us authorities that were already used in other areas against drug traffickers and so forth that broke down that wall between law enforcement and intelligence that had prohibited cooperation (inaudible) it's been a very... MORAN: We're going to have to take a break. I'm sorry (inaudible). CHENEY: And what I'm concerned about, Terry, is that as we get farther and farther from 9/11, we've got -- we seem to have people less and less committed to doing everything that's necessary to defend the country. And I think about the Patriot Act that's been a vital piece of legislation that was passed in the aftermath of 9/11, gave us the authority to break down the wall between intelligence and law enforcement that was there previously, that gave us the authority to use against terrorists some of the same tools that are already authorized and used against drug traffickers, for example. The Patriot Act, up for renewal, was filibustered in the Senate this week by the Democrats and blocked from passage. As a result, parts of that are going to expire on December 31st. Somehow I think a lot of people have lost their sense of urgency out there. That's hard for me to do or for the president to do. We get up every morning, and the first thing we do is an intelligence brief, where we look at the threats to the United States. We do that six days a week. We're well aware that there are still terrorists out there who mean to do evil, that they're trying their best to get their hands on deadlier weapons, biological agents or nuclear weapons, to use against us. And we need to maintain the capability of this government to be able to defend the nation. And that means we have to take extraordinary measures, but we do do it in a manner that's consistent with the Constitution and consistent with our statutes. And when we needed statutory authority, as we did for the Patriot Act, we went and got it. Now, Congress, the Democrats, are trying to filibuster it. MORAN: Does the United States maintain secret prisons around the world? CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. MORAN: Secret prisons? CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. MORAN: Does the International Red Cross have access to everyone in U.S. custody, as we are obliged? CHENEY: Terry, with all due respect, I won't discuss intelligence matters. I shouldn't. MORAN: I'd like to put this personally, if I can. You're a grandfather. I'm a father. When we look at those girls and we think that the country we're about to pass to them is a country where the vice president can't say whether or not we have secret prisons around the world, whether waterboarding and mock executions is consistent with our values, and a country where the government is surveilling without the warrant of a court, is that the country we want to pass on to them? CHENEY: I want to pass on to them a country that is free, that is not plagued by terrorist attacks, doesn't see a repeat of the terrible events of 9/11 when we lost 3,000 of our people that morning to a handful of terrorists who had no justification at all for what they do. I can guarantee you that we do do as a government, as an administration, is to support and uphold the Constitution of United States, that we do, in fact, take extraordinary steps to make certain we maintain our constitutional obligations and responsibilities, which includes both defending the country as well as defending individual liberties and protecting the rights of all Americans. MORAN: But it's not the America we... CHENEY: Now, having said all of that -- well, you know, somehow we go through these cycles. After 9/11, we are berated for allegedly not connecting the dots -- you guys weren't tough enough, you weren't aggressive enough, you didn't follow up on all the leads. And now, you know, it's been four years. Gee, maybe it was a one-off event, maybe the terrorists out there just hit us accidently, maybe there's nothing for us to be concerned about. I know that's not true. And I think anybody who sits down and looks at it knows that we're engaged in a long struggle here that does, in fact, affect the lives of all Americans. And I want my kids to grow up in a strong, free, independent America where they are safe from the kinds of outrages that have been perpetrated not only in New York and Washington, but in Madrid, Casablanca, and Istanbul, and Bali, and Jakarta, all over the globe. And we're up against a very tough adversary, and under those circumstances we need to do everything we can to protect the American people. And that's got to be a prime concern for us, and it is. MORAN: Even if it's changing who we are? CHENEY: It's not changing who we are. We've had times in the past where we've had to go before and take steps to protect ourselves. The whole argument over military commissions -- you know, should the president be able to set up military commissions to try unlawful combatants, terrorists, who have committed murder or other outrageous acts against the American people. The precedent for that is FDR in World War II, who set up military commissions to try German spies that came into the United States to commit acts of terror. And they tried them, perfectly tried. It was a legal proceeding. And they were executed. Now, everybody acts as though a military commission established now is somehow a brand new development. No, it's not. It's a precedent based exactly on what was done in World War II by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. But we do everything we can, and I say successfully, to protect and defend our basic, fundamental constitutional liberties. That's part of who we are. That's part of what we have to do. MORAN: Another subject. When did you first hear the name Valerie Plame? CHENEY: Well, I'm going to respectfully decline to talk about that. There is a trial pending. I have been constrained for the last 2.5 years not talking about that case, because there was an investigation under way. And now with a trial pending, I think it would be inappropriate for me to say anything about it at all, so I have not said anything about it and won't. MORAN: Can you say, as vice president -- can you answer did you direct anyone to disclose her identity or to lie about... CHENEY: Terry, you can ask the question any way you want. Scooter Libby is a close friend of mine. He's one of the most able and talented people I know. He's entitled to the presumption of innocence, and from my perspective it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment, period. That's been my posture now for 2.5 years and will continue to be. MORAN: I'm going to try once more, because I'm not really asking about the criminal investigation. CHENEY: The answer will be the same, Terry. MORAN: I'm asking about the conduct of the vice president. And people have a right to know this. Did you direct anyone to disclose her name or to cover up disclosing her name? CHENEY: Terry, I have given you the answer. I will not say any more about it. There will be a time when I can discuss it, but not now. MORAN: Fair enough. You mentioned Scooter Libby is a close friend, and... CHENEY: He is. MORAN: ... he's worked with you for a long time. What do you make of what he's going through? CHENEY: Well, I'm sure it's very tough. But he's a good man. He's a patriot. And as I say, he's entitled to a presumption of innocence. And we'll leave it at that. MORAN: All right. Iran. The president of Iran has been making comments recently. He's gotten attention. He's called for Israel being wiped off the map, perhaps reconstructed somewhere in Europe. He's denied the Holocaust. What do you make of him? How dangerous is he? CHENEY: I don't know the man. I've never met him. I think his statements have been outrageous. I think he's probably done more to marshal world opinion against Iran than his predecessors have done for a long time. He strikes me as a very dangerous man, especially in light of the fact that the Iranians appear to be embarked upon a course of trying to develop nuclear weapons. I'm concerned about it. MORAN: How close do you think Iran is to developing nuclear weapons? CHENEY: Well, you can get various estimates, you know, but the actual estimates are clearly classified at this stage, but there's every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons, and we're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously, the Europeans do as well. The Israelis do. The European community, the E.U., the Brits, the French and the Germans have taken the lead in trying to negotiate a diplomatic solution. We support that effort and will continue to do so. We think there's no need for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. And they've been offered different options -- the possibility, for example, that the Russians would be responsible for providing them with fuel and take back the spent fuel, that they don't need to have enrichment capability themselves. Other nations have nuclear-power-generating capability and don't enrich their own uranium. They get it on the market. And the Iranians ought to be able to do the same. MORAN: Do you think that when you or the president -- the American government now talks about Iran and North Korea and its weapons of mass destruction ambitions and programs the world looks at us with a rightly skeptical eye, that our credibility has been damaged because of what happened here in this country, that there were no weapons of mass destruction? CHENEY: No. What there was in Iran -- in Iraq, again, remember, was a man who had produced and used weapons of mass destruction before, the universal view on the part of all the intelligence agencies worldwide that he was at it again. And what we found with the Duelfer report (inaudible) for example that while they didn't have stockpiles, they still clearly had the capability to produce chemical and biological agents, that he was expected as soon as sanctions were lifted to go back into business producing again. That's the testimony of Duelfer before the Congress. So there still was a WMD problem, if you will, in Iraq even though he may not have had stockpiles. I think one of the things I'm concerned about is that the United States is more concerned than anybody else appears to be with this problem of proliferation. We've sort of led the charge to try to deal with that. We found, for example, that other nations haven't been quite as eager, as enthusiastic as we are to try to cope with it. One of the most important things that came out of our operations in Iraq was that Muammar Quaddafi in Libya saw what we did here and surrendered his nuclear weapons development efforts. All of his weapons design, his centrifuges, his feed stock for the uranium enrichment process now are under the control of the United States, under lock and key in the United States. MORAN: He was on his way to doing that, though... CHENEY: No. MORAN: ... wasn't he? CHENEY: No, I don't believe so. I think what happened was when we invaded Iraq, he contacted Tony Blair and George Bush. He didn't call Kofi Annan. And five days after we dug Saddam out of his hole in Tikrit, then he went public and announced he was going to give it all up. I think he did it directly because he saw what the United States did in Iraq. Set that aside. The fact of the matter is we have to find a way as an international community to limit the spread of nuclear weapons technology, primarily because we don't want rogue states to acquire it, but also because of the very real danger that ultimately some of that may fall into the hands of non-state actors, of terrorists. And you try to do that through diplomacy, through international agreements, perhaps through the United Nations, but we've got to find a way to do it, because we do have the problem not only in North Korea but also in Iran, and it could well develop elsewhere, and as an international community we must come together and find some way to make certain that doesn't happen. MORAN: This has been a tough period for the administration -- the president's poll numbers, with the hurricane and the response of the federal government that was seen as wanting, and a lot of Americans seem angry with the administration right now. END

0545 CHENEY X81 05:57:32 TERRY MORAN CAMERA TERRY MORAN: So this is your first trip to Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein? DICK CHENEY: It is. MORAN: What surprised you today? What do you know about Iraq today that you didn't know yesterday? CHENEY: Well, I think, like most people who've looked at it, I've been tremendously impressed with what happened in the election just this past week. I mean, I really think that may be a seminal event in the history of Iraq, that it's such an important part of the process of building a democracy, a viable Iraq, an Iraq that can stand on its own, that the thing that strikes you when you come out is just the mood and the demeanor of the people you talk with -- speaking with Talabani and Jaafri, for example. I've met with both of them before, but they both, I think, were visibly relieved at how big the turnout was, that, in fact, the process is working, that there is strong support even in the Sunni areas for participation in the political process. MORAN: But you know, we've had elections before in this country, now, twice before this. There was that moment of hope after the January elections, with the amazing sights that that brought out, and those hopes have been dashed again and again. What makes you think this time it's going to be different? CHENEY: I disagree with the notion that hopes have been dashed. I don't think that's true. MORAN: Well, the violence has continued. CHENEY: Well, the violence has continued, but I think the key in terms of looking at the elections is that they've made every single milestone that's been set, every single one, from the time we turned over sovereignty in June of '04, to the first elections in January, then writing the constitution, getting the constitution ratified, and now national elections under that new constitution. They've had three elections this year. Each one's gotten better and stronger and more effective. I do think it's serving to undermine the legitimacy of the insurgency. I think it will make it increasingly difficult for the insurgents to be effective. We see it, for example, in the volume of tips that we get from the Iraqi people, intelligence information about where to find weapons caches, or who's responsible for some of the terrorist attacks. There's been a quantum leap over the course of the last year in terms of the number of intelligence reports coming in. The academy is doing better. The Iraqi security services are clearly much, much better now. There's a big change there over the last 18 months. I met today with some of the members and the leader of the 9th Mechanized Iraqi Division. These are men who've signed on to support the new government. And the benefit of having that election now is we're going to have a government that's a legitimate government of Iraq that nobody can claim lacks legitimacy. It's an Iraqi government elected by Iraqis under a constitution written by Iraqis. And so I think all of that is measurable progress. And while the level of violence has continued, I do believe that when we look back on this period of time, 2005 will have been the turning point when, in fact, we made sufficient progress both on the political front and the security front, so that we'll see that as the watershed year. MORAN: You talk about undermining the legitimacy of the resistance. Before the war you said Americans would be greeted as liberators here, and yet your own trip here today was undertaken in such secrecy that not even the prime minister of this country knew you were coming, and your movements around are in incredible secrecy and security. Do you ever think about how and why you got it wrong? 06:00:52 CHENEY: I don't think I got it wrong. I think the vast majority of the Iraqi people are grateful for what the United States did. I think they believe overwhelmingly that they're better off today than they were when Saddam Hussein ruled. I think the vast majority of them think of us as liberators. And I think your own polls show that, Terry. If you look at the poll that was done just recently by ABC, it shows a great deal of optimism, of hope, on the part of the Iraqi people, that their lives are better and going to get better in the future. So I really believe the notion that somehow the Iraqi people opposed what we did when we came in and toppled Saddam Hussein, or that a majority of them were against it, is just dead wrong. It's not true. I think a majority of them support it. MORAN: Well, if I may, that poll shows that half of Iraqis say the invasion should not have happened. That's what our poll showed. CHENEY: But it shows that the majority of them want us to stay and finish the job and get the job done. And I've had the experience just this week -- we met with 11 Iraqi voters in the Oval Office after they voted. These were Iraqis who voted in the United States because they're out of the country temporarily. It was a remarkably moving moment, and anecdotal evidence of how deeply they feel about the U.S. presence and about what we did for them. Many of them say look, a lot of us can't say it publicly, fearful still of saying anything to identify themselves with Americans, because they're still worried about the terrorists that are out there, or the remnants of the old regime that might come after them. There are still politicians running for office who have been assassinated. It's still a hostile environment made hostile by a relatively small part of the population. But their overwhelming sentiment was one of expressing gratitude for the president of the United States for what he had done to liberate Iraq and the fact that they're all now able to vote in a free election. One of them, as a matter of fact, a young woman, from Fallujah, who had served as an interpreter for the Marine Corps in Fallujah, who's back in the U.S. now, is enlisting in the Marine Corps so she can come back and serve in the United States Marine Corps as a Marine in Iraq. 06:02:48 MORAN: Let me take you back to something else you said before the war -- or actually not before the war, just last May. You said that the insurgency was in its last throes. Since you said the insurgency was in its last throes, hundreds of American G.I.s have been killed. Thousands of Iraqis have been (inaudible) and killed. And the lethality of the insurgency hasn't seemed to diminish at all. What did you mean by saying it was in its last throes? CHENEY: In fact, the number of attacks has declined. You can look at the level of attacks, for example, during the election period in January, the election period in October, the election period in December, and you'll see that there has been a decline in the number of incidents, attack incidents. The basic point, the one I've made already, is that I believe that the elections were the turning point. And we had that election in January, first free election in Iraq in decades, and that we will be able to look back from the perspective of time and see that 2005 was the turning point, was the watershed year, and that the establishment of a legitimate government in Iraq, which is what that political process is about, means the end of the insurgency, ultimately. It may take time. It may hang on for a while. But if you go back, there was a message we intercepted a couple of years ago from Zarqawi where he was, ineffective, communicating with bin Laden and his associates in Al Qaida, as I recall the story. But the specifics of it were that he was fearful that once a democracy was established in Iraq, he would have to look for another venue to operate in. He'd have to move on to some other locale. That's my point, that, in fact, the political process as it proceeds successfully -- and as I say, they've made every single milestone -- represents ultimately the end of the insurgency, because there will be a legitimate democratic government in Iraq, and I don't think the insurgents will be able to stand up to it. 06:04:46 MORAN: There is still a great debate in our country about how we got into this war. And many Americans -- most, according to some polls -- believe that you and the president misled the country into this way be deliberately exaggerating the threat from Saddam Hussein and deliberately suppressing the doubt and uncertainty that we now know existed in the intelligence community about his weapons of mass destruction program. You said in 2002 there is no doubt. But there was. Did you know it at the time? CHENEY: No, but, Terry, if you go back and look at the studies that have been -- look at the analysis that was done by the Robb-Silverman commission or by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Everybody believed in advance that he did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction. It turned out the intelligence was wrong. But all of the studies showed that at no time was there ever pressure brought to bear on the intelligence community, that we, in fact, reported what we received. The statements I made tracked almost perfectly with what was coming out of the intelligence community during that period of time. The director of the CIA, when asked by the president of the United States, in the Oval Office, how good is the intelligence on WMD, he said it's a slam-dunk case. That was the view of the intelligence community. There might have been people some place down in the bowels of the organization who didn't agree with it, but that was never communicated. MORAN: You never heard any doubt about these programs. CHENEY: No. Everybody -- it was very solid. Slam-dunk case was the way it was presented. But beyond that, I mean, to some extent that's a bit of a side issue because what we did was exactly the right thing to do. 06:06:15 The president said the other day if we had the decision to make over again, knowing what we know now, would we have done it, and the answer is absolutely, because remember what the circumstances were. You had Saddam Hussein who was a man who perpetrated two wars, started two wars, who produced and used weapons of mass destruction, a man who was, in fact, providing safe haven for terror, making $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers, provided sanctuary for Abu Nidal, for Palestinian Islamic jihad, a man who did have a relationship with terrorist organizations and who had, in fact, produced WMD in the past and used it. This was an evil man. And in fact, in the aftermath of 9/11, after we lost 3,000 Americans that morning, and we were faced with the prospect that terrorists would try to acquire those deadlier capabilities to use against us, that we could no longer sit back and tolerate or accept a situation where the United States just played defense, where we didn't go on offense and attempt to deal both with the terrorists themselves as well as the state sponsors of terror. Saddam qualified by every standard. We did exactly the right thing. The world is far safer with Saddam out of business. And Iraq will be a democracy, a government that has -- capable of defending its own interests, taking care of itself. We'll help fundamentally transform this part of the world because of what we have accomplished here, what the troops are doing here, and what the Iraqis themselves are doing. 06:07:39 MORAN: Let me shift gears. The president has now acknowledged authorizing and reauthorizing more than 30 times a program to spy on Americans without any warrant from any court. This is a huge change... CHENEY: I think that's a slight distortion of what the president said. The president said -- is that we will use all of our power and authority -- the decision we made after 9/11 -- to do everything we can to defend the country. That's our obligation. We take an oath of office to do that. 06:08: MORAN: That's not in dispute. CHENEY: And that when we have a situation where we have communication between someone inside the United States and an acknowledged Al Qaida or terrorist source outside the United States, that that's something we need to know. And he has authorized us to look at that. And it is, in fact, consistent with the constitution. It's been reviewed. It's reviewed every 45 days by the president himself, by the attorney general of the United States, by the president's council, by the director of CIA. It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law. It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11. We had two 9/11 terrorists in San Diego prior to the attack in contact with Al Qaida sources outside the United States. We didn't know it. The 9/11 Commission talks about it. If we'd had this capability, then we might well have been able to stop it. 06:08:59 MORAN: But, Mr. Vice President, this is a program that surveilles people inside the United States. The Constitution... CHENEY: Who are in touch with Al Qaida who are outside the United States. MORAN: Don't you have to have a court give permission for that in any other circumstance to eavesdrop on communications in America? CHENEY: Terry, these are communications that involve acknowledged or known terrorists -- dirty numbers, if you will. And in fact, it is consistent with the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief. It's consistent with the resolution that was passed by the Congress after 9/11. And it has been reviewed repeatedly by the Justice Department every single time it's been renewed, to make certain that it is, in fact, managed in a manner that's fully consistent with the Constitution and with our statutes. MORAN: But that's all the executive branch. The constitution call for a court, a coequal branch of government, as a check on the power of the executive to give a say-so before an American or someone in America is surveilled, or searched, or spied upon. CHENEY: This has been done, Terry, in a manner that is completely consistent with our obligations and requirements, I can assure you. That's one of the reasons we hold it and watch it so carefully. That's why it has to go the president every 30 days to 45 days, to make absolutely certain we are in compliance with all of the safeguards with respect to individual liberty, and that it is managed in a very conservative fashion, and it is signed up to by the attorney general of the United States and reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. So we spend a lot of time making certain that this is, in fact, safeguarded. And as I say, we've briefed Congress on it, just a few members, the leadership, on over a dozen occasions. MORAN: Let me take you up on that. Senator Graham of Florida, ex-Senator Graham, who was on the Intelligence Committee at the time this program began, suggested to us that when you briefed him, you misled him, you didn't tell him the full scope of the program. That's his feeling now that he sees it exposed. CHENEY: Well, that's not true. MORAN: He knew. CHENEY: He knew. I sat in my office with General Hayden, who was then the head of NSA, who's now the deputy director of the National Intelligence Directorate, and he was briefed as long as he was chairman of the committee or ranking member of the committee. MORAN: The president has said we do not torture, and Senator McCain proposed a measure in part to vindicate those values that would ban the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of any person in U.S. custody anywhere in the world. Why did he fight so hard against that? CHENEY: Well, we ultimately reached a compromise between the president and Senator McCain, and it was arrived at just last week. But what I -- excuse me. The position I took was one that was the position the administration had taken when we signaled to the Congress that we were prepared to veto a bill that went farther than we thought it should in terms of trying to restrict the prerogatives of the president, and... MORAN: How so, when it comes to cruel, inhuman -- what's the president's prerogative in the cruel treatment of prisoners? CHENEY: There's a definition that's based on prior Supreme Court decisions and prior arguments, and it has to do with the Fourth, Thirteenth, and -- three specific amendments to the Constitution. And the rule is whether or not it shocks the conscience. If it's something that shocks the conscience, the court has agreed that crosses over the line. Now, you can get into a debate about what shocks the conscience and what is cruel and inhuman, and to some extent, I suppose, that's in the eye of the beholder. But I believe, and we think it's important to remember, that we are in a war against a group of individuals and terrorist organizations that did, in fact, slaughter 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, that it's important for us to be able to have effective interrogation of these people when we capture them. And the debate is over the extent to which we are going to have legislation that restricts or limits that capability. Now, as I say, we've reached a compromise. The president signed on with the McCain amendment. We never had any problem with the McCain amendment. We had problems with trying to extend it as far as he did. But ultimately, as I say, a compromise was arrived at, and I support the compromise. MORAN: Should American interrogators be staging mock excursions, waterboarding prisoners? Is that cruel? CHENEY: I am not going to get into specifics here. You're getting into questions about sources and methods, and I don't talk about that, Terry. MORAN: As vice president of the United States, you can't tell the American people whether... CHENEY: I don't talk about... MORAN: ...or not we would interrogate... CHENEY: I can say that we, in fact, are consistent with the commitments of the United States that we don't engage in torture, and we don't. MORAN: Are you troubled at all that more than 100 people in U.S. custody have died, 26 of them now being investigated as criminal homicides, people beaten to death, suffocated to death, died of hypothermia in U.S. custody? CHENEY: No. I won't accept you numbers, Terry. But I guess one of the things I'm concerned about is that as we get farther and farther away from 9/11, and there have been no further attacks against the United States, there seems to be less and less concern about doing what's necessary in order to defend the country. I think, for example, the Patriot Act -- this week, the Patriot Act, a vital piece of legislation -- it was, in fact, passed in the aftermath of 9/11. It extended to our ability to operate with respect to the counterterrorist effort. It gave us authorities that were already used in other areas against drug traffickers and so forth that broke down that wall between law enforcement and intelligence that had prohibited cooperation (inaudible) it's been a very... MORAN: We're going to have to take a break. I'm sorry (inaudible). CHENEY: And what I'm concerned about, Terry, is that as we get farther and farther from 9/11, we've got -- we seem to have people less and less committed to doing everything that's necessary to defend the country. And I think about the Patriot Act that's been a vital piece of legislation that was passed in the aftermath of 9/11, gave us the authority to break down the wall between intelligence and law enforcement that was there previously, that gave us the authority to use against terrorists some of the same tools that are already authorized and used against drug traffickers, for example. The Patriot Act, up for renewal, was filibustered in the Senate this week by the Democrats and blocked from passage. As a result, parts of that are going to expire on December 31st. Somehow I think a lot of people have lost their sense of urgency out there. That's hard for me to do or for the president to do. We get up every morning, and the first thing we do is an intelligence brief, where we look at the threats to the United States. We do that six days a week. We're well aware that there are still terrorists out there who mean to do evil, that they're trying their best to get their hands on deadlier weapons, biological agents or nuclear weapons, to use against us. And we need to maintain the capability of this government to be able to defend the nation. And that means we have to take extraordinary measures, but we do do it in a manner that's consistent with the Constitution and consistent with our statutes. And when we needed statutory authority, as we did for the Patriot Act, we went and got it. Now, Congress, the Democrats, are trying to filibuster it. MORAN: Does the United States maintain secret prisons around the world? CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. MORAN: Secret prisons? CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. MORAN: Does the International Red Cross have access to everyone in U.S. custody, as we are obliged? CHENEY: Terry, with all due respect, I won't discuss intelligence matters. I shouldn't. MORAN: I'd like to put this personally, if I can. You're a grandfather. I'm a father. When we look at those girls and we think that the country we're about to pass to them is a country where the vice president can't say whether or not we have secret prisons around the world, whether waterboarding and mock executions is consistent with our values, and a country where the government is surveilling without the warrant of a court, is that the country we want to pass on to them? CHENEY: I want to pass on to them a country that is free, that is not plagued by terrorist attacks, doesn't see a repeat of the terrible events of 9/11 when we lost 3,000 of our people that morning to a handful of terrorists who had no justification at all for what they do. I can guarantee you that we do do as a government, as an administration, is to support and uphold the Constitution of United States, that we do, in fact, take extraordinary steps to make certain we maintain our constitutional obligations and responsibilities, which includes both defending the country as well as defending individual liberties and protecting the rights of all Americans. MORAN: But it's not the America we... CHENEY: Now, having said all of that -- well, you know, somehow we go through these cycles. After 9/11, we are berated for allegedly not connecting the dots -- you guys weren't tough enough, you weren't aggressive enough, you didn't follow up on all the leads. And now, you know, it's been four years. Gee, maybe it was a one-off event, maybe the terrorists out there just hit us accidently, maybe there's nothing for us to be concerned about. I know that's not true. And I think anybody who sits down and looks at it knows that we're engaged in a long struggle here that does, in fact, affect the lives of all Americans. And I want my kids to grow up in a strong, free, independent America where they are safe from the kinds of outrages that have been perpetrated not only in New York and Washington, but in Madrid, Casablanca, and Istanbul, and Bali, and Jakarta, all over the globe. And we're up against a very tough adversary, and under those circumstances we need to do everything we can to protect the American people. And that's got to be a prime concern for us, and it is. MORAN: Even if it's changing who we are? CHENEY: It's not changing who we are. We've had times in the past where we've had to go before and take steps to protect ourselves. The whole argument over military commissions -- you know, should the president be able to set up military commissions to try unlawful combatants, terrorists, who have committed murder or other outrageous acts against the American people. The precedent for that is FDR in World War II, who set up military commissions to try German spies that came into the United States to commit acts of terror. And they tried them, perfectly tried. It was a legal proceeding. And they were executed. Now, everybody acts as though a military commission established now is somehow a brand new development. No, it's not. It's a precedent based exactly on what was done in World War II by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. But we do everything we can, and I say successfully, to protect and defend our basic, fundamental constitutional liberties. That's part of who we are. That's part of what we have to do. MORAN: Another subject. When did you first hear the name Valerie Plame? CHENEY: Well, I'm going to respectfully decline to talk about that. There is a trial pending. I have been constrained for the last 2.5 years not talking about that case, because there was an investigation under way. And now with a trial pending, I think it would be inappropriate for me to say anything about it at all, so I have not said anything about it and won't. MORAN: Can you say, as vice president -- can you answer did you direct anyone to disclose her identity or to lie about... CHENEY: Terry, you can ask the question any way you want. Scooter Libby is a close friend of mine. He's one of the most able and talented people I know. He's entitled to the presumption of innocence, and from my perspective it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment, period. That's been my posture now for 2.5 years and will continue to be. MORAN: I'm going to try once more, because I'm not really asking about the criminal investigation. CHENEY: The answer will be the same, Terry. MORAN: I'm asking about the conduct of the vice president. And people have a right to know this. Did you direct anyone to disclose her name or to cover up disclosing her name? CHENEY: Terry, I have given you the answer. I will not say any more about it. There will be a time when I can discuss it, but not now. MORAN: Fair enough. You mentioned Scooter Libby is a close friend, and... CHENEY: He is. MORAN: ... he's worked with you for a long time. What do you make of what he's going through? CHENEY: Well, I'm sure it's very tough. But he's a good man. He's a patriot. And as I say, he's entitled to a presumption of innocence. And we'll leave it at that. MORAN: All right. Iran. The president of Iran has been making comments recently. He's gotten attention. He's called for Israel being wiped off the map, perhaps reconstructed somewhere in Europe. He's denied the Holocaust. What do you make of him? How dangerous is he? CHENEY: I don't know the man. I've never met him. I think his statements have been outrageous. I think he's probably done more to marshal world opinion against Iran than his predecessors have done for a long time. He strikes me as a very dangerous man, especially in light of the fact that the Iranians appear to be embarked upon a course of trying to develop nuclear weapons. I'm concerned about it. MORAN: How close do you think Iran is to developing nuclear weapons? CHENEY: Well, you can get various estimates, you know, but the actual estimates are clearly classified at this stage, but there's every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons, and we're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously, the Europeans do as well. The Israelis do. The European community, the E.U., the Brits, the French and the Germans have taken the lead in trying to negotiate a diplomatic solution. We support that effort and will continue to do so. We think there's no need for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. And they've been offered different options -- the possibility, for example, that the Russians would be responsible for providing them with fuel and take back the spent fuel, that they don't need to have enrichment capability themselves. Other nations have nuclear-power-generating capability and don't enrich their own uranium. They get it on the market. And the Iranians ought to be able to do the same. MORAN: Do you think that when you or the president -- the American government now talks about Iran and North Korea and its weapons of mass destruction ambitions and programs the world looks at us with a rightly skeptical eye, that our credibility has been damaged because of what happened here in this country, that there were no weapons of mass destruction? CHENEY: No. What there was in Iran -- in Iraq, again, remember, was a man who had produced and used weapons of mass destruction before, the universal view on the part of all the intelligence agencies worldwide that he was at it again. And what we found with the Duelfer report (inaudible) for example that while they didn't have stockpiles, they still clearly had the capability to produce chemical and biological agents, that he was expected as soon as sanctions were lifted to go back into business producing again. That's the testimony of Duelfer before the Congress. So there still was a WMD problem, if you will, in Iraq even though he may not have had stockpiles. I think one of the things I'm concerned about is that the United States is more concerned than anybody else appears to be with this problem of proliferation. We've sort of led the charge to try to deal with that. We found, for example, that other nations haven't been quite as eager, as enthusiastic as we are to try to cope with it. One of the most important things that came out of our operations in Iraq was that Muammar Quaddafi in Libya saw what we did here and surrendered his nuclear weapons development efforts. All of his weapons design, his centrifuges, his feed stock for the uranium enrichment process now are under the control of the United States, under lock and key in the United States. MORAN: He was on his way to doing that, though... CHENEY: No. MORAN: ... wasn't he? CHENEY: No, I don't believe so. I think what happened was when we invaded Iraq, he contacted Tony Blair and George Bush. He didn't call Kofi Annan. And five days after we dug Saddam out of his hole in Tikrit, then he went public and announced he was going to give it all up. I think he did it directly because he saw what the United States did in Iraq. Set that aside. The fact of the matter is we have to find a way as an international community to limit the spread of nuclear weapons technology, primarily because we don't want rogue states to acquire it, but also because of the very real danger that ultimately some of that may fall into the hands of non-state actors, of terrorists. And you try to do that through diplomacy, through international agreements, perhaps through the United Nations, but we've got to find a way to do it, because we do have the problem not only in North Korea but also in Iran, and it could well develop elsewhere, and as an international community we must come together and find some way to make certain that doesn't happen. MORAN: This has been a tough period for the administration -- the president's poll numbers, with the hurricane and the response of the federal government that was seen as wanting, and a lot of Americans seem angry with the administration right now. END

0545 CHENEY X81 05:57:32 TERRY MORAN CAMERA TERRY MORAN: So this is your first trip to Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein? DICK CHENEY: It is. MORAN: What surprised you today? What do you know about Iraq today that you didn't know yesterday? CHENEY: Well, I think, like most people who've looked at it, I've been tremendously impressed with what happened in the election just this past week. I mean, I really think that may be a seminal event in the history of Iraq, that it's such an important part of the process of building a democracy, a viable Iraq, an Iraq that can stand on its own, that the thing that strikes you when you come out is just the mood and the demeanor of the people you talk with -- speaking with Talabani and Jaafri, for example. I've met with both of them before, but they both, I think, were visibly relieved at how big the turnout was, that, in fact, the process is working, that there is strong support even in the Sunni areas for participation in the political process. MORAN: But you know, we've had elections before in this country, now, twice before this. There was that moment of hope after the January elections, with the amazing sights that that brought out, and those hopes have been dashed again and again. What makes you think this time it's going to be different? CHENEY: I disagree with the notion that hopes have been dashed. I don't think that's true. MORAN: Well, the violence has continued. CHENEY: Well, the violence has continued, but I think the key in terms of looking at the elections is that they've made every single milestone that's been set, every single one, from the time we turned over sovereignty in June of '04, to the first elections in January, then writing the constitution, getting the constitution ratified, and now national elections under that new constitution. They've had three elections this year. Each one's gotten better and stronger and more effective. I do think it's serving to undermine the legitimacy of the insurgency. I think it will make it increasingly difficult for the insurgents to be effective. We see it, for example, in the volume of tips that we get from the Iraqi people, intelligence information about where to find weapons caches, or who's responsible for some of the terrorist attacks. There's been a quantum leap over the course of the last year in terms of the number of intelligence reports coming in. The academy is doing better. The Iraqi security services are clearly much, much better now. There's a big change there over the last 18 months. I met today with some of the members and the leader of the 9th Mechanized Iraqi Division. These are men who've signed on to support the new government. And the benefit of having that election now is we're going to have a government that's a legitimate government of Iraq that nobody can claim lacks legitimacy. It's an Iraqi government elected by Iraqis under a constitution written by Iraqis. And so I think all of that is measurable progress. And while the level of violence has continued, I do believe that when we look back on this period of time, 2005 will have been the turning point when, in fact, we made sufficient progress both on the political front and the security front, so that we'll see that as the watershed year. MORAN: You talk about undermining the legitimacy of the resistance. Before the war you said Americans would be greeted as liberators here, and yet your own trip here today was undertaken in such secrecy that not even the prime minister of this country knew you were coming, and your movements around are in incredible secrecy and security. Do you ever think about how and why you got it wrong? 06:00:52 CHENEY: I don't think I got it wrong. I think the vast majority of the Iraqi people are grateful for what the United States did. I think they believe overwhelmingly that they're better off today than they were when Saddam Hussein ruled. I think the vast majority of them think of us as liberators. And I think your own polls show that, Terry. If you look at the poll that was done just recently by ABC, it shows a great deal of optimism, of hope, on the part of the Iraqi people, that their lives are better and going to get better in the future. So I really believe the notion that somehow the Iraqi people opposed what we did when we came in and toppled Saddam Hussein, or that a majority of them were against it, is just dead wrong. It's not true. I think a majority of them support it. MORAN: Well, if I may, that poll shows that half of Iraqis say the invasion should not have happened. That's what our poll showed. CHENEY: But it shows that the majority of them want us to stay and finish the job and get the job done. And I've had the experience just this week -- we met with 11 Iraqi voters in the Oval Office after they voted. These were Iraqis who voted in the United States because they're out of the country temporarily. It was a remarkably moving moment, and anecdotal evidence of how deeply they feel about the U.S. presence and about what we did for them. Many of them say look, a lot of us can't say it publicly, fearful still of saying anything to identify themselves with Americans, because they're still worried about the terrorists that are out there, or the remnants of the old regime that might come after them. There are still politicians running for office who have been assassinated. It's still a hostile environment made hostile by a relatively small part of the population. But their overwhelming sentiment was one of expressing gratitude for the president of the United States for what he had done to liberate Iraq and the fact that they're all now able to vote in a free election. One of them, as a matter of fact, a young woman, from Fallujah, who had served as an interpreter for the Marine Corps in Fallujah, who's back in the U.S. now, is enlisting in the Marine Corps so she can come back and serve in the United States Marine Corps as a Marine in Iraq. 06:02:48 MORAN: Let me take you back to something else you said before the war -- or actually not before the war, just last May. You said that the insurgency was in its last throes. Since you said the insurgency was in its last throes, hundreds of American G.I.s have been killed. Thousands of Iraqis have been (inaudible) and killed. And the lethality of the insurgency hasn't seemed to diminish at all. What did you mean by saying it was in its last throes? CHENEY: In fact, the number of attacks has declined. You can look at the level of attacks, for example, during the election period in January, the election period in October, the election period in December, and you'll see that there has been a decline in the number of incidents, attack incidents. The basic point, the one I've made already, is that I believe that the elections were the turning point. And we had that election in January, first free election in Iraq in decades, and that we will be able to look back from the perspective of time and see that 2005 was the turning point, was the watershed year, and that the establishment of a legitimate government in Iraq, which is what that political process is about, means the end of the insurgency, ultimately. It may take time. It may hang on for a while. But if you go back, there was a message we intercepted a couple of years ago from Zarqawi where he was, ineffective, communicating with bin Laden and his associates in Al Qaida, as I recall the story. But the specifics of it were that he was fearful that once a democracy was established in Iraq, he would have to look for another venue to operate in. He'd have to move on to some other locale. That's my point, that, in fact, the political process as it proceeds successfully -- and as I say, they've made every single milestone -- represents ultimately the end of the insurgency, because there will be a legitimate democratic government in Iraq, and I don't think the insurgents will be able to stand up to it. 06:04:46 MORAN: There is still a great debate in our country about how we got into this war. And many Americans -- most, according to some polls -- believe that you and the president misled the country into this way be deliberately exaggerating the threat from Saddam Hussein and deliberately suppressing the doubt and uncertainty that we now know existed in the intelligence community about his weapons of mass destruction program. You said in 2002 there is no doubt. But there was. Did you know it at the time? CHENEY: No, but, Terry, if you go back and look at the studies that have been -- look at the analysis that was done by the Robb-Silverman commission or by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Everybody believed in advance that he did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction. It turned out the intelligence was wrong. But all of the studies showed that at no time was there ever pressure brought to bear on the intelligence community, that we, in fact, reported what we received. The statements I made tracked almost perfectly with what was coming out of the intelligence community during that period of time. The director of the CIA, when asked by the president of the United States, in the Oval Office, how good is the intelligence on WMD, he said it's a slam-dunk case. That was the view of the intelligence community. There might have been people some place down in the bowels of the organization who didn't agree with it, but that was never communicated. MORAN: You never heard any doubt about these programs. CHENEY: No. Everybody -- it was very solid. Slam-dunk case was the way it was presented. But beyond that, I mean, to some extent that's a bit of a side issue because what we did was exactly the right thing to do. 06:06:15 The president said the other day if we had the decision to make over again, knowing what we know now, would we have done it, and the answer is absolutely, because remember what the circumstances were. You had Saddam Hussein who was a man who perpetrated two wars, started two wars, who produced and used weapons of mass destruction, a man who was, in fact, providing safe haven for terror, making $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers, provided sanctuary for Abu Nidal, for Palestinian Islamic jihad, a man who did have a relationship with terrorist organizations and who had, in fact, produced WMD in the past and used it. This was an evil man. And in fact, in the aftermath of 9/11, after we lost 3,000 Americans that morning, and we were faced with the prospect that terrorists would try to acquire those deadlier capabilities to use against us, that we could no longer sit back and tolerate or accept a situation where the United States just played defense, where we didn't go on offense and attempt to deal both with the terrorists themselves as well as the state sponsors of terror. Saddam qualified by every standard. We did exactly the right thing. The world is far safer with Saddam out of business. And Iraq will be a democracy, a government that has -- capable of defending its own interests, taking care of itself. We'll help fundamentally transform this part of the world because of what we have accomplished here, what the troops are doing here, and what the Iraqis themselves are doing. 06:07:39 MORAN: Let me shift gears. The president has now acknowledged authorizing and reauthorizing more than 30 times a program to spy on Americans without any warrant from any court. This is a huge change... CHENEY: I think that's a slight distortion of what the president said. The president said -- is that we will use all of our power and authority -- the decision we made after 9/11 -- to do everything we can to defend the country. That's our obligation. We take an oath of office to do that. 06:08: MORAN: That's not in dispute. CHENEY: And that when we have a situation where we have communication between someone inside the United States and an acknowledged Al Qaida or terrorist source outside the United States, that that's something we need to know. And he has authorized us to look at that. And it is, in fact, consistent with the constitution. It's been reviewed. It's reviewed every 45 days by the president himself, by the attorney general of the United States, by the president's council, by the director of CIA. It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law. It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11. We had two 9/11 terrorists in San Diego prior to the attack in contact with Al Qaida sources outside the United States. We didn't know it. The 9/11 Commission talks about it. If we'd had this capability, then we might well have been able to stop it. 06:08:59 MORAN: But, Mr. Vice President, this is a program that surveilles people inside the United States. The Constitution... CHENEY: Who are in touch with Al Qaida who are outside the United States. MORAN: Don't you have to have a court give permission for that in any other circumstance to eavesdrop on communications in America? CHENEY: Terry, these are communications that involve acknowledged or known terrorists -- dirty numbers, if you will. And in fact, it is consistent with the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief. It's consistent with the resolution that was passed by the Congress after 9/11. And it has been reviewed repeatedly by the Justice Department every single time it's been renewed, to make certain that it is, in fact, managed in a manner that's fully consistent with the Constitution and with our statutes. MORAN: But that's all the executive branch. The constitution call for a court, a coequal branch of government, as a check on the power of the executive to give a say-so before an American or someone in America is surveilled, or searched, or spied upon. CHENEY: This has been done, Terry, in a manner that is completely consistent with our obligations and requirements, I can assure you. That's one of the reasons we hold it and watch it so carefully. That's why it has to go the president every 30 days to 45 days, to make absolutely certain we are in compliance with all of the safeguards with respect to individual liberty, and that it is managed in a very conservative fashion, and it is signed up to by the attorney general of the United States and reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. So we spend a lot of time making certain that this is, in fact, safeguarded. And as I say, we've briefed Congress on it, just a few members, the leadership, on over a dozen occasions. MORAN: Let me take you up on that. Senator Graham of Florida, ex-Senator Graham, who was on the Intelligence Committee at the time this program began, suggested to us that when you briefed him, you misled him, you didn't tell him the full scope of the program. That's his feeling now that he sees it exposed. CHENEY: Well, that's not true. MORAN: He knew. CHENEY: He knew. I sat in my office with General Hayden, who was then the head of NSA, who's now the deputy director of the National Intelligence Directorate, and he was briefed as long as he was chairman of the committee or ranking member of the committee. MORAN: The president has said we do not torture, and Senator McCain proposed a measure in part to vindicate those values that would ban the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of any person in U.S. custody anywhere in the world. Why did he fight so hard against that? CHENEY: Well, we ultimately reached a compromise between the president and Senator McCain, and it was arrived at just last week. But what I -- excuse me. The position I took was one that was the position the administration had taken when we signaled to the Congress that we were prepared to veto a bill that went farther than we thought it should in terms of trying to restrict the prerogatives of the president, and... MORAN: How so, when it comes to cruel, inhuman -- what's the president's prerogative in the cruel treatment of prisoners? CHENEY: There's a definition that's based on prior Supreme Court decisions and prior arguments, and it has to do with the Fourth, Thirteenth, and -- three specific amendments to the Constitution. And the rule is whether or not it shocks the conscience. If it's something that shocks the conscience, the court has agreed that crosses over the line. Now, you can get into a debate about what shocks the conscience and what is cruel and inhuman, and to some extent, I suppose, that's in the eye of the beholder. But I believe, and we think it's important to remember, that we are in a war against a group of individuals and terrorist organizations that did, in fact, slaughter 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, that it's important for us to be able to have effective interrogation of these people when we capture them. And the debate is over the extent to which we are going to have legislation that restricts or limits that capability. Now, as I say, we've reached a compromise. The president signed on with the McCain amendment. We never had any problem with the McCain amendment. We had problems with trying to extend it as far as he did. But ultimately, as I say, a compromise was arrived at, and I support the compromise. MORAN: Should American interrogators be staging mock excursions, waterboarding prisoners? Is that cruel? CHENEY: I am not going to get into specifics here. You're getting into questions about sources and methods, and I don't talk about that, Terry. MORAN: As vice president of the United States, you can't tell the American people whether... CHENEY: I don't talk about... MORAN: ...or not we would interrogate... CHENEY: I can say that we, in fact, are consistent with the commitments of the United States that we don't engage in torture, and we don't. MORAN: Are you troubled at all that more than 100 people in U.S. custody have died, 26 of them now being investigated as criminal homicides, people beaten to death, suffocated to death, died of hypothermia in U.S. custody? CHENEY: No. I won't accept you numbers, Terry. But I guess one of the things I'm concerned about is that as we get farther and farther away from 9/11, and there have been no further attacks against the United States, there seems to be less and less concern about doing what's necessary in order to defend the country. I think, for example, the Patriot Act -- this week, the Patriot Act, a vital piece of legislation -- it was, in fact, passed in the aftermath of 9/11. It extended to our ability to operate with respect to the counterterrorist effort. It gave us authorities that were already used in other areas against drug traffickers and so forth that broke down that wall between law enforcement and intelligence that had prohibited cooperation (inaudible) it's been a very... MORAN: We're going to have to take a break. I'm sorry (inaudible). CHENEY: And what I'm concerned about, Terry, is that as we get farther and farther from 9/11, we've got -- we seem to have people less and less committed to doing everything that's necessary to defend the country. And I think about the Patriot Act that's been a vital piece of legislation that was passed in the aftermath of 9/11, gave us the authority to break down the wall between intelligence and law enforcement that was there previously, that gave us the authority to use against terrorists some of the same tools that are already authorized and used against drug traffickers, for example. The Patriot Act, up for renewal, was filibustered in the Senate this week by the Democrats and blocked from passage. As a result, parts of that are going to expire on December 31st. Somehow I think a lot of people have lost their sense of urgency out there. That's hard for me to do or for the president to do. We get up every morning, and the first thing we do is an intelligence brief, where we look at the threats to the United States. We do that six days a week. We're well aware that there are still terrorists out there who mean to do evil, that they're trying their best to get their hands on deadlier weapons, biological agents or nuclear weapons, to use against us. And we need to maintain the capability of this government to be able to defend the nation. And that means we have to take extraordinary measures, but we do do it in a manner that's consistent with the Constitution and consistent with our statutes. And when we needed statutory authority, as we did for the Patriot Act, we went and got it. Now, Congress, the Democrats, are trying to filibuster it. MORAN: Does the United States maintain secret prisons around the world? CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. MORAN: Secret prisons? CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. MORAN: Does the International Red Cross have access to everyone in U.S. custody, as we are obliged? CHENEY: Terry, with all due respect, I won't discuss intelligence matters. I shouldn't. MORAN: I'd like to put this personally, if I can. You're a grandfather. I'm a father. When we look at those girls and we think that the country we're about to pass to them is a country where the vice president can't say whether or not we have secret prisons around the world, whether waterboarding and mock executions is consistent with our values, and a country where the government is surveilling without the warrant of a court, is that the country we want to pass on to them? CHENEY: I want to pass on to them a country that is free, that is not plagued by terrorist attacks, doesn't see a repeat of the terrible events of 9/11 when we lost 3,000 of our people that morning to a handful of terrorists who had no justification at all for what they do. I can guarantee you that we do do as a government, as an administration, is to support and uphold the Constitution of United States, that we do, in fact, take extraordinary steps to make certain we maintain our constitutional obligations and responsibilities, which includes both defending the country as well as defending individual liberties and protecting the rights of all Americans. MORAN: But it's not the America we... CHENEY: Now, having said all of that -- well, you know, somehow we go through these cycles. After 9/11, we are berated for allegedly not connecting the dots -- you guys weren't tough enough, you weren't aggressive enough, you didn't follow up on all the leads. And now, you know, it's been four years. Gee, maybe it was a one-off event, maybe the terrorists out there just hit us accidently, maybe there's nothing for us to be concerned about. I know that's not true. And I think anybody who sits down and looks at it knows that we're engaged in a long struggle here that does, in fact, affect the lives of all Americans. And I want my kids to grow up in a strong, free, independent America where they are safe from the kinds of outrages that have been perpetrated not only in New York and Washington, but in Madrid, Casablanca, and Istanbul, and Bali, and Jakarta, all over the globe. And we're up against a very tough adversary, and under those circumstances we need to do everything we can to protect the American people. And that's got to be a prime concern for us, and it is. MORAN: Even if it's changing who we are? CHENEY: It's not changing who we are. We've had times in the past where we've had to go before and take steps to protect ourselves. The whole argument over military commissions -- you know, should the president be able to set up military commissions to try unlawful combatants, terrorists, who have committed murder or other outrageous acts against the American people. The precedent for that is FDR in World War II, who set up military commissions to try German spies that came into the United States to commit acts of terror. And they tried them, perfectly tried. It was a legal proceeding. And they were executed. Now, everybody acts as though a military commission established now is somehow a brand new development. No, it's not. It's a precedent based exactly on what was done in World War II by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. But we do everything we can, and I say successfully, to protect and defend our basic, fundamental constitutional liberties. That's part of who we are. That's part of what we have to do. MORAN: Another subject. When did you first hear the name Valerie Plame? CHENEY: Well, I'm going to respectfully decline to talk about that. There is a trial pending. I have been constrained for the last 2.5 years not talking about that case, because there was an investigation under way. And now with a trial pending, I think it would be inappropriate for me to say anything about it at all, so I have not said anything about it and won't. MORAN: Can you say, as vice president -- can you answer did you direct anyone to disclose her identity or to lie about... CHENEY: Terry, you can ask the question any way you want. Scooter Libby is a close friend of mine. He's one of the most able and talented people I know. He's entitled to the presumption of innocence, and from my perspective it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment, period. That's been my posture now for 2.5 years and will continue to be. MORAN: I'm going to try once more, because I'm not really asking about the criminal investigation. CHENEY: The answer will be the same, Terry. MORAN: I'm asking about the conduct of the vice president. And people have a right to know this. Did you direct anyone to disclose her name or to cover up disclosing her name? CHENEY: Terry, I have given you the answer. I will not say any more about it. There will be a time when I can discuss it, but not now. MORAN: Fair enough. You mentioned Scooter Libby is a close friend, and... CHENEY: He is. MORAN: ... he's worked with you for a long time. What do you make of what he's going through? CHENEY: Well, I'm sure it's very tough. But he's a good man. He's a patriot. And as I say, he's entitled to a presumption of innocence. And we'll leave it at that. MORAN: All right. Iran. The president of Iran has been making comments recently. He's gotten attention. He's called for Israel being wiped off the map, perhaps reconstructed somewhere in Europe. He's denied the Holocaust. What do you make of him? How dangerous is he? CHENEY: I don't know the man. I've never met him. I think his statements have been outrageous. I think he's probably done more to marshal world opinion against Iran than his predecessors have done for a long time. He strikes me as a very dangerous man, especially in light of the fact that the Iranians appear to be embarked upon a course of trying to develop nuclear weapons. I'm concerned about it. MORAN: How close do you think Iran is to developing nuclear weapons? CHENEY: Well, you can get various estimates, you know, but the actual estimates are clearly classified at this stage, but there's every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons, and we're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously, the Europeans do as well. The Israelis do. The European community, the E.U., the Brits, the French and the Germans have taken the lead in trying to negotiate a diplomatic solution. We support that effort and will continue to do so. We think there's no need for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. And they've been offered different options -- the possibility, for example, that the Russians would be responsible for providing them with fuel and take back the spent fuel, that they don't need to have enrichment capability themselves. Other nations have nuclear-power-generating capability and don't enrich their own uranium. They get it on the market. And the Iranians ought to be able to do the same. MORAN: Do you think that when you or the president -- the American government now talks about Iran and North Korea and its weapons of mass destruction ambitions and programs the world looks at us with a rightly skeptical eye, that our credibility has been damaged because of what happened here in this country, that there were no weapons of mass destruction? CHENEY: No. What there was in Iran -- in Iraq, again, remember, was a man who had produced and used weapons of mass destruction before, the universal view on the part of all the intelligence agencies worldwide that he was at it again. And what we found with the Duelfer report (inaudible) for example that while they didn't have stockpiles, they still clearly had the capability to produce chemical and biological agents, that he was expected as soon as sanctions were lifted to go back into business producing again. That's the testimony of Duelfer before the Congress. So there still was a WMD problem, if you will, in Iraq even though he may not have had stockpiles. I think one of the things I'm concerned about is that the United States is more concerned than anybody else appears to be with this problem of proliferation. We've sort of led the charge to try to deal with that. We found, for example, that other nations haven't been quite as eager, as enthusiastic as we are to try to cope with it. One of the most important things that came out of our operations in Iraq was that Muammar Quaddafi in Libya saw what we did here and surrendered his nuclear weapons development efforts. All of his weapons design, his centrifuges, his feed stock for the uranium enrichment process now are under the control of the United States, under lock and key in the United States. MORAN: He was on his way to doing that, though... CHENEY: No. MORAN: ... wasn't he? CHENEY: No, I don't believe so. I think what happened was when we invaded Iraq, he contacted Tony Blair and George Bush. He didn't call Kofi Annan. And five days after we dug Saddam out of his hole in Tikrit, then he went public and announced he was going to give it all up. I think he did it directly because he saw what the United States did in Iraq. Set that aside. The fact of the matter is we have to find a way as an international community to limit the spread of nuclear weapons technology, primarily because we don't want rogue states to acquire it, but also because of the very real danger that ultimately some of that may fall into the hands of non-state actors, of terrorists. And you try to do that through diplomacy, through international agreements, perhaps through the United Nations, but we've got to find a way to do it, because we do have the problem not only in North Korea but also in Iran, and it could well develop elsewhere, and as an international community we must come together and find some way to make certain that doesn't happen. MORAN: This has been a tough period for the administration -- the president's poll numbers, with the hurricane and the response of the federal government that was seen as wanting, and a lot of Americans seem angry with the administration right now. END

0545 CHENEY X81 05:57:32 TERRY MORAN CAMERA TERRY MORAN: So this is your first trip to Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein? DICK CHENEY: It is. MORAN: What surprised you today? What do you know about Iraq today that you didn't know yesterday? CHENEY: Well, I think, like most people who've looked at it, I've been tremendously impressed with what happened in the election just this past week. I mean, I really think that may be a seminal event in the history of Iraq, that it's such an important part of the process of building a democracy, a viable Iraq, an Iraq that can stand on its own, that the thing that strikes you when you come out is just the mood and the demeanor of the people you talk with -- speaking with Talabani and Jaafri, for example. I've met with both of them before, but they both, I think, were visibly relieved at how big the turnout was, that, in fact, the process is working, that there is strong support even in the Sunni areas for participation in the political process. MORAN: But you know, we've had elections before in this country, now, twice before this. There was that moment of hope after the January elections, with the amazing sights that that brought out, and those hopes have been dashed again and again. What makes you think this time it's going to be different? CHENEY: I disagree with the notion that hopes have been dashed. I don't think that's true. MORAN: Well, the violence has continued. CHENEY: Well, the violence has continued, but I think the key in terms of looking at the elections is that they've made every single milestone that's been set, every single one, from the time we turned over sovereignty in June of '04, to the first elections in January, then writing the constitution, getting the constitution ratified, and now national elections under that new constitution. They've had three elections this year. Each one's gotten better and stronger and more effective. I do think it's serving to undermine the legitimacy of the insurgency. I think it will make it increasingly difficult for the insurgents to be effective. We see it, for example, in the volume of tips that we get from the Iraqi people, intelligence information about where to find weapons caches, or who's responsible for some of the terrorist attacks. There's been a quantum leap over the course of the last year in terms of the number of intelligence reports coming in. The academy is doing better. The Iraqi security services are clearly much, much better now. There's a big change there over the last 18 months. I met today with some of the members and the leader of the 9th Mechanized Iraqi Division. These are men who've signed on to support the new government. And the benefit of having that election now is we're going to have a government that's a legitimate government of Iraq that nobody can claim lacks legitimacy. It's an Iraqi government elected by Iraqis under a constitution written by Iraqis. And so I think all of that is measurable progress. And while the level of violence has continued, I do believe that when we look back on this period of time, 2005 will have been the turning point when, in fact, we made sufficient progress both on the political front and the security front, so that we'll see that as the watershed year. MORAN: You talk about undermining the legitimacy of the resistance. Before the war you said Americans would be greeted as liberators here, and yet your own trip here today was undertaken in such secrecy that not even the prime minister of this country knew you were coming, and your movements around are in incredible secrecy and security. Do you ever think about how and why you got it wrong? 06:00:52 CHENEY: I don't think I got it wrong. I think the vast majority of the Iraqi people are grateful for what the United States did. I think they believe overwhelmingly that they're better off today than they were when Saddam Hussein ruled. I think the vast majority of them think of us as liberators. And I think your own polls show that, Terry. If you look at the poll that was done just recently by ABC, it shows a great deal of optimism, of hope, on the part of the Iraqi people, that their lives are better and going to get better in the future. So I really believe the notion that somehow the Iraqi people opposed what we did when we came in and toppled Saddam Hussein, or that a majority of them were against it, is just dead wrong. It's not true. I think a majority of them support it. MORAN: Well, if I may, that poll shows that half of Iraqis say the invasion should not have happened. That's what our poll showed. CHENEY: But it shows that the majority of them want us to stay and finish the job and get the job done. And I've had the experience just this week -- we met with 11 Iraqi voters in the Oval Office after they voted. These were Iraqis who voted in the United States because they're out of the country temporarily. It was a remarkably moving moment, and anecdotal evidence of how deeply they feel about the U.S. presence and about what we did for them. Many of them say look, a lot of us can't say it publicly, fearful still of saying anything to identify themselves with Americans, because they're still worried about the terrorists that are out there, or the remnants of the old regime that might come after them. There are still politicians running for office who have been assassinated. It's still a hostile environment made hostile by a relatively small part of the population. But their overwhelming sentiment was one of expressing gratitude for the president of the United States for what he had done to liberate Iraq and the fact that they're all now able to vote in a free election. One of them, as a matter of fact, a young woman, from Fallujah, who had served as an interpreter for the Marine Corps in Fallujah, who's back in the U.S. now, is enlisting in the Marine Corps so she can come back and serve in the United States Marine Corps as a Marine in Iraq. 06:02:48 MORAN: Let me take you back to something else you said before the war -- or actually not before the war, just last May. You said that the insurgency was in its last throes. Since you said the insurgency was in its last throes, hundreds of American G.I.s have been killed. Thousands of Iraqis have been (inaudible) and killed. And the lethality of the insurgency hasn't seemed to diminish at all. What did you mean by saying it was in its last throes? CHENEY: In fact, the number of attacks has declined. You can look at the level of attacks, for example, during the election period in January, the election period in October, the election period in December, and you'll see that there has been a decline in the number of incidents, attack incidents. The basic point, the one I've made already, is that I believe that the elections were the turning point. And we had that election in January, first free election in Iraq in decades, and that we will be able to look back from the perspective of time and see that 2005 was the turning point, was the watershed year, and that the establishment of a legitimate government in Iraq, which is what that political process is about, means the end of the insurgency, ultimately. It may take time. It may hang on for a while. But if you go back, there was a message we intercepted a couple of years ago from Zarqawi where he was, ineffective, communicating with bin Laden and his associates in Al Qaida, as I recall the story. But the specifics of it were that he was fearful that once a democracy was established in Iraq, he would have to look for another venue to operate in. He'd have to move on to some other locale. That's my point, that, in fact, the political process as it proceeds successfully -- and as I say, they've made every single milestone -- represents ultimately the end of the insurgency, because there will be a legitimate democratic government in Iraq, and I don't think the insurgents will be able to stand up to it. 06:04:46 MORAN: There is still a great debate in our country about how we got into this war. And many Americans -- most, according to some polls -- believe that you and the president misled the country into this way be deliberately exaggerating the threat from Saddam Hussein and deliberately suppressing the doubt and uncertainty that we now know existed in the intelligence community about his weapons of mass destruction program. You said in 2002 there is no doubt. But there was. Did you know it at the time? CHENEY: No, but, Terry, if you go back and look at the studies that have been -- look at the analysis that was done by the Robb-Silverman commission or by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Everybody believed in advance that he did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction. It turned out the intelligence was wrong. But all of the studies showed that at no time was there ever pressure brought to bear on the intelligence community, that we, in fact, reported what we received. The statements I made tracked almost perfectly with what was coming out of the intelligence community during that period of time. The director of the CIA, when asked by the president of the United States, in the Oval Office, how good is the intelligence on WMD, he said it's a slam-dunk case. That was the view of the intelligence community. There might have been people some place down in the bowels of the organization who didn't agree with it, but that was never communicated. MORAN: You never heard any doubt about these programs. CHENEY: No. Everybody -- it was very solid. Slam-dunk case was the way it was presented. But beyond that, I mean, to some extent that's a bit of a side issue because what we did was exactly the right thing to do. 06:06:15 The president said the other day if we had the decision to make over again, knowing what we know now, would we have done it, and the answer is absolutely, because remember what the circumstances were. You had Saddam Hussein who was a man who perpetrated two wars, started two wars, who produced and used weapons of mass destruction, a man who was, in fact, providing safe haven for terror, making $25,000 payments to the families of suicide bombers, provided sanctuary for Abu Nidal, for Palestinian Islamic jihad, a man who did have a relationship with terrorist organizations and who had, in fact, produced WMD in the past and used it. This was an evil man. And in fact, in the aftermath of 9/11, after we lost 3,000 Americans that morning, and we were faced with the prospect that terrorists would try to acquire those deadlier capabilities to use against us, that we could no longer sit back and tolerate or accept a situation where the United States just played defense, where we didn't go on offense and attempt to deal both with the terrorists themselves as well as the state sponsors of terror. Saddam qualified by every standard. We did exactly the right thing. The world is far safer with Saddam out of business. And Iraq will be a democracy, a government that has -- capable of defending its own interests, taking care of itself. We'll help fundamentally transform this part of the world because of what we have accomplished here, what the troops are doing here, and what the Iraqis themselves are doing. 06:07:39 MORAN: Let me shift gears. The president has now acknowledged authorizing and reauthorizing more than 30 times a program to spy on Americans without any warrant from any court. This is a huge change... CHENEY: I think that's a slight distortion of what the president said. The president said -- is that we will use all of our power and authority -- the decision we made after 9/11 -- to do everything we can to defend the country. That's our obligation. We take an oath of office to do that. 06:08: MORAN: That's not in dispute. CHENEY: And that when we have a situation where we have communication between someone inside the United States and an acknowledged Al Qaida or terrorist source outside the United States, that that's something we need to know. And he has authorized us to look at that. And it is, in fact, consistent with the constitution. It's been reviewed. It's reviewed every 45 days by the president himself, by the attorney general of the United States, by the president's council, by the director of CIA. It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law. It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11. We had two 9/11 terrorists in San Diego prior to the attack in contact with Al Qaida sources outside the United States. We didn't know it. The 9/11 Commission talks about it. If we'd had this capability, then we might well have been able to stop it. 06:08:59 MORAN: But, Mr. Vice President, this is a program that surveilles people inside the United States. The Constitution... CHENEY: Who are in touch with Al Qaida who are outside the United States. MORAN: Don't you have to have a court give permission for that in any other circumstance to eavesdrop on communications in America? CHENEY: Terry, these are communications that involve acknowledged or known terrorists -- dirty numbers, if you will. And in fact, it is consistent with the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief. It's consistent with the resolution that was passed by the Congress after 9/11. And it has been reviewed repeatedly by the Justice Department every single time it's been renewed, to make certain that it is, in fact, managed in a manner that's fully consistent with the Constitution and with our statutes. MORAN: But that's all the executive branch. The constitution call for a court, a coequal branch of government, as a check on the power of the executive to give a say-so before an American or someone in America is surveilled, or searched, or spied upon. CHENEY: This has been done, Terry, in a manner that is completely consistent with our obligations and requirements, I can assure you. That's one of the reasons we hold it and watch it so carefully. That's why it has to go the president every 30 days to 45 days, to make absolutely certain we are in compliance with all of the safeguards with respect to individual liberty, and that it is managed in a very conservative fashion, and it is signed up to by the attorney general of the United States and reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. So we spend a lot of time making certain that this is, in fact, safeguarded. And as I say, we've briefed Congress on it, just a few members, the leadership, on over a dozen occasions. MORAN: Let me take you up on that. Senator Graham of Florida, ex-Senator Graham, who was on the Intelligence Committee at the time this program began, suggested to us that when you briefed him, you misled him, you didn't tell him the full scope of the program. That's his feeling now that he sees it exposed. CHENEY: Well, that's not true. MORAN: He knew. CHENEY: He knew. I sat in my office with General Hayden, who was then the head of NSA, who's now the deputy director of the National Intelligence Directorate, and he was briefed as long as he was chairman of the committee or ranking member of the committee. MORAN: The president has said we do not torture, and Senator McCain proposed a measure in part to vindicate those values that would ban the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of any person in U.S. custody anywhere in the world. Why did he fight so hard against that? CHENEY: Well, we ultimately reached a compromise between the president and Senator McCain, and it was arrived at just last week. But what I -- excuse me. The position I took was one that was the position the administration had taken when we signaled to the Congress that we were prepared to veto a bill that went farther than we thought it should in terms of trying to restrict the prerogatives of the president, and... MORAN: How so, when it comes to cruel, inhuman -- what's the president's prerogative in the cruel treatment of prisoners? CHENEY: There's a definition that's based on prior Supreme Court decisions and prior arguments, and it has to do with the Fourth, Thirteenth, and -- three specific amendments to the Constitution. And the rule is whether or not it shocks the conscience. If it's something that shocks the conscience, the court has agreed that crosses over the line. Now, you can get into a debate about what shocks the conscience and what is cruel and inhuman, and to some extent, I suppose, that's in the eye of the beholder. But I believe, and we think it's important to remember, that we are in a war against a group of individuals and terrorist organizations that did, in fact, slaughter 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, that it's important for us to be able to have effective interrogation of these people when we capture them. And the debate is over the extent to which we are going to have legislation that restricts or limits that capability. Now, as I say, we've reached a compromise. The president signed on with the McCain amendment. We never had any problem with the McCain amendment. We had problems with trying to extend it as far as he did. But ultimately, as I say, a compromise was arrived at, and I support the compromise. MORAN: Should American interrogators be staging mock excursions, waterboarding prisoners? Is that cruel? CHENEY: I am not going to get into specifics here. You're getting into questions about sources and methods, and I don't talk about that, Terry. MORAN: As vice president of the United States, you can't tell the American people whether... CHENEY: I don't talk about... MORAN: ...or not we would interrogate... CHENEY: I can say that we, in fact, are consistent with the commitments of the United States that we don't engage in torture, and we don't. MORAN: Are you troubled at all that more than 100 people in U.S. custody have died, 26 of them now being investigated as criminal homicides, people beaten to death, suffocated to death, died of hypothermia in U.S. custody? CHENEY: No. I won't accept you numbers, Terry. But I guess one of the things I'm concerned about is that as we get farther and farther away from 9/11, and there have been no further attacks against the United States, there seems to be less and less concern about doing what's necessary in order to defend the country. I think, for example, the Patriot Act -- this week, the Patriot Act, a vital piece of legislation -- it was, in fact, passed in the aftermath of 9/11. It extended to our ability to operate with respect to the counterterrorist effort. It gave us authorities that were already used in other areas against drug traffickers and so forth that broke down that wall between law enforcement and intelligence that had prohibited cooperation (inaudible) it's been a very... MORAN: We're going to have to take a break. I'm sorry (inaudible). CHENEY: And what I'm concerned about, Terry, is that as we get farther and farther from 9/11, we've got -- we seem to have people less and less committed to doing everything that's necessary to defend the country. And I think about the Patriot Act that's been a vital piece of legislation that was passed in the aftermath of 9/11, gave us the authority to break down the wall between intelligence and law enforcement that was there previously, that gave us the authority to use against terrorists some of the same tools that are already authorized and used against drug traffickers, for example. The Patriot Act, up for renewal, was filibustered in the Senate this week by the Democrats and blocked from passage. As a result, parts of that are going to expire on December 31st. Somehow I think a lot of people have lost their sense of urgency out there. That's hard for me to do or for the president to do. We get up every morning, and the first thing we do is an intelligence brief, where we look at the threats to the United States. We do that six days a week. We're well aware that there are still terrorists out there who mean to do evil, that they're trying their best to get their hands on deadlier weapons, biological agents or nuclear weapons, to use against us. And we need to maintain the capability of this government to be able to defend the nation. And that means we have to take extraordinary measures, but we do do it in a manner that's consistent with the Constitution and consistent with our statutes. And when we needed statutory authority, as we did for the Patriot Act, we went and got it. Now, Congress, the Democrats, are trying to filibuster it. MORAN: Does the United States maintain secret prisons around the world? CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. MORAN: Secret prisons? CHENEY: I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters. MORAN: Does the International Red Cross have access to everyone in U.S. custody, as we are obliged? CHENEY: Terry, with all due respect, I won't discuss intelligence matters. I shouldn't. MORAN: I'd like to put this personally, if I can. You're a grandfather. I'm a father. When we look at those girls and we think that the country we're about to pass to them is a country where the vice president can't say whether or not we have secret prisons around the world, whether waterboarding and mock executions is consistent with our values, and a country where the government is surveilling without the warrant of a court, is that the country we want to pass on to them? CHENEY: I want to pass on to them a country that is free, that is not plagued by terrorist attacks, doesn't see a repeat of the terrible events of 9/11 when we lost 3,000 of our people that morning to a handful of terrorists who had no justification at all for what they do. I can guarantee you that we do do as a government, as an administration, is to support and uphold the Constitution of United States, that we do, in fact, take extraordinary steps to make certain we maintain our constitutional obligations and responsibilities, which includes both defending the country as well as defending individual liberties and protecting the rights of all Americans. MORAN: But it's not the America we... CHENEY: Now, having said all of that -- well, you know, somehow we go through these cycles. After 9/11, we are berated for allegedly not connecting the dots -- you guys weren't tough enough, you weren't aggressive enough, you didn't follow up on all the leads. And now, you know, it's been four years. Gee, maybe it was a one-off event, maybe the terrorists out there just hit us accidently, maybe there's nothing for us to be concerned about. I know that's not true. And I think anybody who sits down and looks at it knows that we're engaged in a long struggle here that does, in fact, affect the lives of all Americans. And I want my kids to grow up in a strong, free, independent America where they are safe from the kinds of outrages that have been perpetrated not only in New York and Washington, but in Madrid, Casablanca, and Istanbul, and Bali, and Jakarta, all over the globe. And we're up against a very tough adversary, and under those circumstances we need to do everything we can to protect the American people. And that's got to be a prime concern for us, and it is. MORAN: Even if it's changing who we are? CHENEY: It's not changing who we are. We've had times in the past where we've had to go before and take steps to protect ourselves. The whole argument over military commissions -- you know, should the president be able to set up military commissions to try unlawful combatants, terrorists, who have committed murder or other outrageous acts against the American people. The precedent for that is FDR in World War II, who set up military commissions to try German spies that came into the United States to commit acts of terror. And they tried them, perfectly tried. It was a legal proceeding. And they were executed. Now, everybody acts as though a military commission established now is somehow a brand new development. No, it's not. It's a precedent based exactly on what was done in World War II by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. But we do everything we can, and I say successfully, to protect and defend our basic, fundamental constitutional liberties. That's part of who we are. That's part of what we have to do. MORAN: Another subject. When did you first hear the name Valerie Plame? CHENEY: Well, I'm going to respectfully decline to talk about that. There is a trial pending. I have been constrained for the last 2.5 years not talking about that case, because there was an investigation under way. And now with a trial pending, I think it would be inappropriate for me to say anything about it at all, so I have not said anything about it and won't. MORAN: Can you say, as vice president -- can you answer did you direct anyone to disclose her identity or to lie about... CHENEY: Terry, you can ask the question any way you want. Scooter Libby is a close friend of mine. He's one of the most able and talented people I know. He's entitled to the presumption of innocence, and from my perspective it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment, period. That's been my posture now for 2.5 years and will continue to be. MORAN: I'm going to try once more, because I'm not really asking about the criminal investigation. CHENEY: The answer will be the same, Terry. MORAN: I'm asking about the conduct of the vice president. And people have a right to know this. Did you direct anyone to disclose her name or to cover up disclosing her name? CHENEY: Terry, I have given you the answer. I will not say any more about it. There will be a time when I can discuss it, but not now. MORAN: Fair enough. You mentioned Scooter Libby is a close friend, and... CHENEY: He is. MORAN: ... he's worked with you for a long time. What do you make of what he's going through? CHENEY: Well, I'm sure it's very tough. But he's a good man. He's a patriot. And as I say, he's entitled to a presumption of innocence. And we'll leave it at that. MORAN: All right. Iran. The president of Iran has been making comments recently. He's gotten attention. He's called for Israel being wiped off the map, perhaps reconstructed somewhere in Europe. He's denied the Holocaust. What do you make of him? How dangerous is he? CHENEY: I don't know the man. I've never met him. I think his statements have been outrageous. I think he's probably done more to marshal world opinion against Iran than his predecessors have done for a long time. He strikes me as a very dangerous man, especially in light of the fact that the Iranians appear to be embarked upon a course of trying to develop nuclear weapons. I'm concerned about it. MORAN: How close do you think Iran is to developing nuclear weapons? CHENEY: Well, you can get various estimates, you know, but the actual estimates are clearly classified at this stage, but there's every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons, and we're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously, the Europeans do as well. The Israelis do. The European community, the E.U., the Brits, the French and the Germans have taken the lead in trying to negotiate a diplomatic solution. We support that effort and will continue to do so. We think there's no need for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. And they've been offered different options -- the possibility, for example, that the Russians would be responsible for providing them with fuel and take back the spent fuel, that they don't need to have enrichment capability themselves. Other nations have nuclear-power-generating capability and don't enrich their own uranium. They get it on the market. And the Iranians ought to be able to do the same. MORAN: Do you think that when you or the president -- the American government now talks about Iran and North Korea and its weapons of mass destruction ambitions and programs the world looks at us with a rightly skeptical eye, that our credibility has been damaged because of what happened here in this country, that there were no weapons of mass destruction? CHENEY: No. What there was in Iran -- in Iraq, again, remember, was a man who had produced and used weapons of mass destruction before, the universal view on the part of all the intelligence agencies worldwide that he was at it again. And what we found with the Duelfer report (inaudible) for example that while they didn't have stockpiles, they still clearly had the capability to produce chemical and biological agents, that he was expected as soon as sanctions were lifted to go back into business producing again. That's the testimony of Duelfer before the Congress. So there still was a WMD problem, if you will, in Iraq even though he may not have had stockpiles. I think one of the things I'm concerned about is that the United States is more concerned than anybody else appears to be with this problem of proliferation. We've sort of led the charge to try to deal with that. We found, for example, that other nations haven't been quite as eager, as enthusiastic as we are to try to cope with it. One of the most important things that came out of our operations in Iraq was that Muammar Quaddafi in Libya saw what we did here and surrendered his nuclear weapons development efforts. All of his weapons design, his centrifuges, his feed stock for the uranium enrichment process now are under the control of the United States, under lock and key in the United States. MORAN: He was on his way to doing that, though... CHENEY: No. MORAN: ... wasn't he? CHENEY: No, I don't believe so. I think what happened was when we invaded Iraq, he contacted Tony Blair and George Bush. He didn't call Kofi Annan. And five days after we dug Saddam out of his hole in Tikrit, then he went public and announced he was going to give it all up. I think he did it directly because he saw what the United States did in Iraq. Set that aside. The fact of the matter is we have to find a way as an international community to limit the spread of nuclear weapons technology, primarily because we don't want rogue states to acquire it, but also because of the very real danger that ultimately some of that may fall into the hands of non-state actors, of terrorists. And you try to do that through diplomacy, through international agreements, perhaps through the United Nations, but we've got to find a way to do it, because we do have the problem not only in North Korea but also in Iran, and it could well develop elsewhere, and as an international community we must come together and find some way to make certain that doesn't happen. MORAN: This has been a tough period for the administration -- the president's poll numbers, with the hurricane and the response of the federal government that was seen as wanting, and a lot of Americans seem angry with the administration right now. END

PENTAGON BRIEFING ON THE BUDGET PART TWO - Briefing by Maj. Gen. McGhee and Barbara Bonessa from the Pentagon on the ARMY Fiscal 2012 Budget Proposal. Briefing by Rear Adm. Mulloy from the Pentagon on the NAVY Fiscal 2012 Budget Proposal ---- XDCAM Log supplied by Nancy_Hiegel_Feb 15 2011 2:08PM---- DOD News Briefing by Maj. Gen. McGhee and Barbara Bonessa from the Pentagon on the Fiscal 2012 Budget Proposal STAFF: Ladies and gentlemen, Major General Phillip McGhee, director of the Army budget; Ms. Barbara Bonessa, deputy director of the Army budget. Would you please hold your questions until after the presentation. GEN. MCGHEE: Well, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Army's rollout presentation of our FY '12 budget. The agenda we're going to follow includes our budget priorities, an overview of our base and overseas contingency operations request, some detail of all of our appropriations. We are going to touch on Army efficiencies, and then have a few comments on the impact of a continuing resolution, and then take questions. Now, before we go into the details of the budget itself, I'd like to begin with the Army's FY '12 budget priorities. And the priorities that you see in this chart are synched with and fully support the Army themes and our four imperatives of sustain, repair, reset and transform. The Army's leadership's highest priority is caring for our people -- that is, our soldiers, our families and our civilian workforce -- all with the goal of restoring balance across the Army; continuing to build resiliency to sustain our all-volunteer force. We're obviously continuing to focus on maintaining our combat edge by training and equipping soldiers and units for the current fight; but at the same time, reconstituting and modernizing the force for the next contingency. And you're going to see throughout the budget request the resources to continue the transformation of the generating force, maintaining our facilities and our installations, and development of new and advanced technologies; all while trying to find efficiencies to make use of our dollars. We'll go ahead to the next chart, and we'll dive straight into the budget. The Army's FY '12 budget is represented by these two pie charts. The top one is the base request of $144.9 billion, and the bottom, smaller pie chart is for the overseas contingency operations, or OCO, of about $71.1 billion. Our base budget request is only slightly larger than the FY '11 request, which was 143.2 (billion dollars). And that's basically factoring in inflation. There's also a 30-percent decrease in the FY '12 OCO request of 71.1 billion (dollars), as compared to our FY '11 request of 102.1 billion (dollars). And this decrease is the result of the termination of Operation New Dawn in Iraq at the end of December 2011. And so all the following charts you're going to see outline the appropriations that make up the base budget and the OCO request itself. As I mentioned earlier, our base budget request is 144.9 (billion dollars), and outlined here is a summary of the appropriations that make up that request. As you can see, the military personnel account is the largest component of the Army budget, at $60.5 billion; followed by operations and maintenance, at $45.2 billion. Our resource development and acquisition, and our military construction and our family housing appropriations make up the other 31.8 billion (dollars) and the 4.9 billion (dollars), respectively. You're going to see some of these pass-through accounts, including chem demil and a Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund, that are executed by other than Army organizations, but they're accounted for by the Army. So what we'll do now is just review the individual appropriations that comprise the Army's budget. Our first appropriation, the military personnel appropriation, comprises the largest portion of the Army budget. In fact, it accounts for 42 percent of the base budget request. Caring for soldiers and sustaining the quality of our all-volunteer force are the top priorities of the Army leadership. So in addition to caring for our soldiers, the military personnel budget of $60.6 billion also achieves our manning objectives. The budget request fully funds a total end strength of 1.1 million soldiers across all three components. And within our OCO request, we're going to discuss additional funding for 22,000 temporary end strength increases, or TESI account. The growth in the military personnel appropriation is primarily due to the increases in military basic pay, allowances for housing and subsistence. We'll go ahead and move on to the operations and maintenance overview. The operations and maintenance appropriation provides for the day-to-day operations of our units and our installations, the training of our personnel, maintenance of all of our equipment and the Army-wide support services. So for FY '12, the Army's O&M request of 45 billion (dollars) is approximately a billion dollars more than it was for FY '11. And that's due primarily to more forces at a home station and are available for training. Within O&M, there's $900 million for recruiting, advertising and initial training for the all-volunteer force. And the budget also funds the Army readiness to include a revised combined arms training strategy that focuses and shifts training from major combat operations to full-spectrum operations. So funding will support 24 rotations to the combined arms training centers for all of our brigade combat teams and 33 war-fighting exercises for our multi-functional and our functional support brigades. Within our force structure, O&M provides the funding for 73 brigade combat teams, 98 multi-functional support brigades such as your fire brigades and your sustainment brigades, and 133 functional support brigades such as your military police and your signal brigades. Funding for weapons of mass destruction civil support teams and the homeland response force units that support the FEMA regions are included in the Army National Guard request. In addition, the Army Reserve request continues to rebalance the force structure itself. We are sustaining the force through the Army family programs, and we fund those at $1.7 billion in FY '12. We continue to fund these programs that will build resilience and mitigate stress for both our soldiers and our families, including the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program and the campaign for health promotion, risk reduction and suicide prevention. We also fund facilities and infrastructure maintenance and have included increases for municipal services to support a larger force that's now at home station. Enabling the force -- the Enterprise Network initiative is another priority of the Army, focused on standardized information technologies and an enterprise approach for financial and logistics systems across the Army. That includes the general fund enterprise business system, a global combat support system and a logistics modernization program. Next, we'll go ahead and move into our investment appropriations. Our FY '12 procurement program will emphasize capabilities that will network the force, deter and defeat hybrid threats, and protect and empower soldiers. And our equipment modernization is along four lines of effort: modernization, sustainment, mitigation and fielding. Overall in procurement, you'll see a modest increase in our request for FY '11, FY '12. And this $800 million increase is primarily reflected in our aviation nonprocurement appropriation. So we'll now look at each appropriation -- procurement appropriation separately. And we will start with the aircraft. You'll note that our FY '12 aircraft procurement request is probably approximately a billion dollars higher than the FY '11 request. And this is mainly due to program ramp-ups in Gray Eagle, the Apache, and the Enhanced Medium-Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System programs. Our FY '12 request continues to modernize and provide new capabilities to our utility, our cargo and our attack helicopter fleets. We also provide funding for the procurement of 36 MQ-1 Gray Eagle UAVs, which will provide us with a dedicated reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition unmanned aerial platform. Additionally, the budget request provides for the procurement of 18 Enhanced Medium-Altitude Reconnaissance Surveillance Systems, or the EMARSS, which will provide our BCTs with a multi-sensor intelligence-collection capability. It also provides funding for 39 of our UH-72 Lakota light utility aircraft, which will provide organic general aviation support to both our active and our reserve formations. Now, with the termination of the armed reconnaissance helicopter program, we're now going to keep the Kiowa Warrior in the fleet longer. And as such, we are filling some upgrades to address both the safety and obsolescence issues. And we are procuring long-lead components for both the cockpit and the sensor update program. Our next category is our missile and ammunition procurement. Our FY '12 request is lower than our FY '11 request due to the termination of the Surface-Launched Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air missile, SLAMRAAM, and a Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System, NLOS-LS programs. Once again, the majority of our missile procurement is dedicated to our Patriot PAC 3 program. And in FY '12, we're going to procure 88 missiles. Additionally, we're going to begin initial production facilitation for the missile segment enhancement. And that's the PAC 3 follow-on. Now, with the decision to cancel the SLAMRAAM system, it has become necessary for a Service-Life Extension Program, or SLEP, and upgrade to the Stinger missile. And this program replaces the aging components of the Stinger and the upgrade to enhance lethality in the range. On the tactical side, we continue to procure the Javelin, the TOW and the Hellfire missiles and the guided-missile launch rocket systems to maintain or establish war reserve requirements. In our ammunition accounts, our appropriations, we continue to fully fund our critical training ammunition requirements. There are some limited quantities of select war reserve ammunition, and we do modernize our protection-based facilities. In our weapons and tracked combat vehicles, our request represents a modest increase of about 200 million over the FY '11 request. Our focus in the weapons and in the track combat vehicles is on achieving a two-variant standard Abrams tank as well as a two-variant Bradley Fighting Vehicle that, combined with the Stryker will round out the Army's dominant heavy combat maneuver platforms. We are buying 100 Stryker NBC reconnaissance vehicles and funding improvement of survivability by providing the slat armor protection, Common Ballistics Shield, Blue Force Tracking and driver enhancements and mine protection kits. We will upgrade 21 of our older Abrams tanks to the M1A2 SEP Version 2 configuration, and we are going to continue to provide engine improvements and systems training devices to the M1A1. This budget request will also keep the essential capability of the armor facility at a sustainable level. And finally, we're going to procure 108 Bradley situational awareness kits required for the modulation BCT, and these kits will improve lethalities, survivability and sustainment of the M2 fleet. We'll go ahead and move now to other procurement, starting with our tactical wheeled vehicles, our major modernization program, and the request includes procuring almost 2,400 truck and trailer variants in the family of medium tactical vehicles, and almost 8,000 multiple truck and trailer variants in the family of heavy tactical vehicles. Our in-service modification program will convert 481 MRAPs to the route clearance configuration and by upgrading the fuel tanks with ballistic protection and sensor activity fire suppressant. This request also provides $162 million to recapitalize up-armored humvees coming out of theater. In our support equipment category, we're going to continue to fund the tactical bridging systems, the nonstandard training devices and our net warrior. In our communications and digitalization, our major effort is to integrate our systems to provide our warfighters timely and more relevant information. Our goal is the seamless connectivity regardless of the echelon, the location or their mission, and to achieve it, the Army's going to build upon the current baseline of network architecture. So we're going to start with the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical, or WIN-T, which is the backbone for the Army's information modernization program. It's going to be fielded in three increments. Increment 1, networking at-the-halt, is almost complete and fielded to our BCTs, and it will provide the reach-back capabilities for all of our battle command posts. Increment 2, on-the-move, will be fielded next, and Increment 3 is still in development. Within the Joint Tactical Radio program, we are producing or procuring 471 ground mobile radios that will provide us with a scalable, on-the-move network architecture that connects the soldier to the network. We're also going to fund the tactical surveillance equipment, which includes three variants of the night vision thermal weapons sites, a multifunctional line of sight target acquisition common sensor suite, which will provide our warfighters with real-time target detection, recognition and identification capability 24 hours a day in all weather conditions. The Research, Development, Test and Evaluation lines is -- in our strategy is twofold. First, we're going to continue development in support of the current force, and then we're going to pursue technologies to enable the future force. Our FY '12 budget request is about 600 million (dollars) less than our FY '11 request of 10.3 billion (dollars), but that is primarily due to the cancellation of the unmanned ground sensors and the NLOS-LS. In the area of development, our budget provides funding for the combat vehicle modernization program, which will include the ground combat vehicles, the Stryker, the army multipurpose vehicle, our Bradleys and our Abrams. In this program, we're going to emphasize space, weight and power shortfalls, and we will focus on soldier protection, soldier capacity and full-spectrum operation support. We're also looking at improvements to our networks, specifically Warfighter Information Network Tactical and key aviation and intelligence and air defense programs, including the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Evaluated Net Sensor System, or JLENS, and the Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense System. In FY '12, the Army is requesting more than $2.3 billion for science and technology programs, with the two largest investments in the areas of force protection and base -- basic research. Our other major investment is in the area of facilities. The FY '12 military construction request supports facility needs for both the active, the Guard and our reserve forces. The 1-billion (dollar) decrease in the FY '12 request as compared to the FY '11 request is primarily due down -- due to the ramp-down from growing the Army. We are almost complete. Supporting the Army family's covenant, the Army family housing program provides a quality living experience for Army families. So our request includes construction funding for some new housing, renovation of existing housing, the maintenance of our Army-owned housing and the oversight of over 88,000 homes that we've privatized through the residential communities initiative. The Army is on track to meet the BRAC law by the 15th of September 2011. And the FY '12 will be the first year we submit a budget request for post-implementation BRAC 2005 activities. So the FY '12 request at 300 million (dollars) will provide for caretaker operations and environmental-restoration functions at all the remaining BRAC properties. Now, this concludes our base program appropriations overview. But before I turn it over to Ms. Bonessa to cover down on the overseas contingency operation request, I would like to briefly discuss our efficiency efforts in FY '12. Our DOD efficiency initiatives are enabling the Army to maintain our forces and our force structure in FY '12, able to sustain an Army at war. It does build soldier and family resiliency, and it does help build our full-spectrum readiness and strategic flexibility. As you know, there was a $29.3-billion -- identified as efficiencies for the Army from FY '12 through FY '16. Two-point-seven billion (dollars) of that was laid into the FY '12 program. So the first efficiencies we found were in the reorganization and better business practices, including the reduction of a number of installation-management commands, regional headquarters from six to four, and the consolidation of our e-mail infrastructure and our data centers Army-wide. The second areas involve program reductions and terminations that include several redundant programs, most notably NLOS-LS, our SLAMRAAM and our Scorpion land mine. And the final area included is deferring some low-priority MILCON projects, mainly some ranges in a few of our smaller facilities. The Army did reinvest the savings from these programs in order to enhance current readiness and capabilities including our -- upgrading our combat vehicles, accelerating the procurement of the Gray Eagle unmanned aerial system to a maximum production rate. We also developed future capabilities by investing in the unmanned ground vehicle, and we are accelerating the fielding of the Joint Tactical Radial system. So at this point I'll turn it over to Ms. Bonessa, and we'll go ahead and walk through the OCO request. MS. BONESSA: Okay. Thank you, General McGhee. Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, this is the third year since 2010 that we have submitted the overseas contingency operations request concurrent with the president's budget rather than as a follow-on supplemental appropriations request later in the fiscal year. That creates some significant challenges with regard to trying to project our requirements into the future. So what you see -- what we're about to present to you is our best estimates of what we will require for fiscal year '12, based on guidance provided by the Joint Staff and by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Of the $117 almost 118 billion requested by DOD, 71 billion (dollars), or 61 percent of that is for the Army. That's for the accounts that we manage within the Army, our appropriations, as well as those for which we're the financial management executive agent. That would be the Afghanistan infrastructure fund, a new account, the Afghanistan security forces fund, and the joint IED defeat fund. As General McGhee mentioned, this request is 30 percent lower than our $102-billion request of last year, which is due primarily to the planned drawdown from Iraq to be completed at the end of this fiscal year. For the MILPERS and O&M accounts especially, the single major cost driver is the size of the deployed force. And the assumptions that we have built this -- and I would mention that they are budgetary force-planning assumptions -- that we have built this estimate on include 64,000 in Afghanistan at a steady state, as described by Mr. Hale during the OSD press conference, 64(,000) of the 98(,000) in theater; an average, because of the rapid drawdown, in -- over a three-month period in Iraq, it's an average of only 3,500, and then we have about 13,000 that are in surrounding countries providing support. That's primarily in Kuwait, of course. I would also add that for many areas to include some common logistics, base-camp support, we're the executive agent to provide support for all U.S. deployed forces. So we actually support all 98,000 in Afghanistan, again, for general common functions such as base camp support. If you turn to the military personnel request, this account, this request is also down by 30 percent from FY '11. It provides for those incremental requirements in the military pay area. First off, the active component temporary end strength increase of 22,000 that you're familiar with, that is the strength that we are at right now. We will decline to an end strength of about 14,600 at the end of this fiscal year, beginning in March of 2012. And we will expect to completely off-ramp the temporary end strength increase by the end of '13. The bulk of this request, almost $5 billion, supports those incremental pay requirements for full-time pay and allowances for approximately 50,000 Reserve component personnel on active duty. You can see the Guard and Reserve split on the chart. About $1.2 billion for subsistence-in-kind for all military forces in theater. And there's about $700 million for additional training days while still in Reserve component status for our National Guard and USAR soldiers who are working to complete certification of as many possible pre-deployment tasks as possible before they go into their 12-month mobilization. Turning to the O&M accounts this, by far, is the major portion of our request; it's almost 90 percent and it covers the full range of operational and support requirements for an army -- a force at war, everything from pre-deployment training, transportation to, from and within theater, force protection in theater, equipment maintenance, logistics, and as I mentioned earlier, base camp support for all deployed U.S. forces. There is $500 million in this account for the training and operational tempo portion of the Guard and Reserve requirements in advance of mobilization. And then, finally, there's about $4 billion in this account for reset of our equipment returning from Iraq and from Afghanistan. In the RDA account, of the total $2.2 billion request, about half, $1.1 billion of dollars -- $1.1 billion of that request is for force protection, including battle command and ISR capabilities, counter-fire and counter-mortar radars and individual soldier protection equipment as well. Most of the balance of this account is to replace equipment that is either lost or beyond economic repair and also to replenish munitions that were expended in theater. In the interest of time, the next two charts provide the systems and the quantities that are included in those requests, the first three appropriations, aircraft, missiles and ammunition. Just give you a moment to look at those. And I will certainly be happy to take any of your questions later on. And the second chart in this section includes our weapons and tracked combat vehicles, other procurement Army and research development and test and evaluation requirements. I would mention that of the other procurement, the significant investment of over 800 million (dollars) in electronic equipment reflects our significant investment in the ISR capabilities to include persistent surveillance that Mr. Hale referred to earlier as being so key and such an insatiable demand from our theater commanders. As we close out this portion of our briefing, I would make only brief comments on the continuing resolution; it would be very hard to top what Secretary Gates and Secretary Hale said. We are also extremely concerned about moving into almost halfway through the fiscal year without our full appropriations. We are cautiously encouraged by the bill that was referred to the rules committee by the House on Friday evening. While there are still some dollar challenges there, one of the most important things that can happen is the certainty of having our money in hand and being able to move out on our execution without the constraints of operating under the uncertainty of a continuing resolution, as well as the work that lies ahead to prepare for fiscal year '12. In closing, the FY '12 base budget request supports the priorities of taking care of people and investing in our transformation, our modernization of the force and our OCO request provides for the operational and first-protection requirements of a deployed force. With that, we both thank you for being here today. We welcome your questions. And we do have the -- and the Army leadership team from Army Budget is all here to help us respond to any of your questions. STAFF: Ladies and gentlemen, we have about 10 minutes for your questions. Please. Q: Yes. Two quick questions. Does this budget anticipate that the two brigades in Europe will be brought back to the United States? MS. BONESSA: I can take that. Q: Okay. MS. BONESSA: In accordance with SecDef guidance, the force structure for Europe is still being assessed at the Defense level. And we will -- we will await the outcome of that. Q: And in layman's terms, the -- there's a big increase in spending for communications. That goes -- how -- can you say in layman's terms how that will affect the soldiers deployed? MS. BONESSA: In the OCO -- in the OCO request? Q: No, in the budget request. MS. BONESSA: In the base request. So it's soldiers' deploying maybe. GEN. MCGHEE: Well, and this is about networking the force. This is about networking the soldier to the -- to his equipment, to his -- to his vehicles, to his -- to his aircraft. It is -- when a soldier's on the ground, everything and no matter where he is at or she is at, they are networked and they can see; so they have situational awareness of everything that's going around them to the left and the right of them. And so this is about networking that soldier. Q: (Off mic) -- the Army is still buying a joint high-speed vessel in FY '12. Does this mean that the talks with the Navy about transferring ships are off the table, or is the Army still thinking about transferring its fleets to the Navy? MS. BONESSA: I'll take that one. The dialogue between the chief of Naval Operations, the chief of staff of the Army and obviously the secretary of Defense leadership are still ongoing with regard to potential transfer of the - what would be two joint high-speed vessels. Q: So is the Army still buying one? MS. BONESSA: It's still in our budget. Yes. We know when we'll buy it. STAFF: Would you please announce your name and your organization for the record, please? (Off mic.) Q: John Doyle with Combat Systems. Can you give us some specifics on procurement for unmanned ground systems, particularly unmanned ground vehicles, EOD and IED disposal? MS. BONESSA: David -- I want to ask if our director of investment, who I'm hopeful is -- (inaudible) -- do you have a list of the key systems involved? STAFF: I can get a list..(Off mic). MS. BONESSA: Okay. And we'll get that to you very shortly if you'll just -- STAFF: In the back. Q: Thank you. Sandra Erwin with National Defense. General, you said one of the initiatives for efficiency reinvestment is to accelerate Joint Tactical Radio. Can you say what is the request for '12 for joint -- for the entire Joint Tactical Radio System program? And when are you going to start -- (off mic) -- plan? GEN. MCGHEE: (Inaudible) -- numbers, specific numbers. STAFF: The requester amount for JTRS is almost three-quarters of a billion dollars. Q: And the schedule? STAFF: I can get you the schedule. I don't -- I don't have the schedule handy. Q: But it's being accelerated by how much time? (Inaudible) Q: Thank you. STAFF: Tony. Q: Tony Capaccio with Bloomberg News. On efficiencies, you've got $2.7 billion in 0 -- '12 of your $29 billion total. Can one of your colleagues sort of give us the numbers for the Futures Years Defense Plan? And how confident are you, as you go beyond '12, that these numbers will withstand scrutiny and are not totally smoke and mirrors at this point? GEN. MCGHEE: Well, we have laid in the $29.3 billion across the -- across the FYDP. We have -- in conjunction with OSC, we have walked through each and every one of those programs. It is to ensure that we can execute it; to ensure that we are not going to break anything within the Army; that we will cause no harm to the Army. So the 29.3 billion (dollars) that we found in efficiencies we -- for the most part we took out of the -- out of the generating force and we moved it into the operating force. So we bought back readiness; we bought back capability in those -- in those particular areas. So this is a fully executable program for us. Q: (Off mic.) Do you have the dollar figures for those, can you get those -- (off mic)? GEN. MCGHEE: Absolutely. Q: It'll be helpful to know the stream of dollars. Thank you. Q: (Off mic) -- the Army. Considering that the GCV is not considered a new START program, is the Army willing -- is it a high priority enough for the Army to keep its schedule in tact in the face of a CR? MS. BONESSA: In the event of a full-year CR, because the dollars are sort of right in RDA, but they're in all the wrong places, be it at base or OCO misalignment, or in a cross-appropriations misalignment, we would have to simply sequence everything by priority and make that decision. There are, I believe, three technology development contracts that are pending for this spring. So we are cautiously optimistic that with a bill, we will be able to move out with those on a timely basis. Failure to do so could delay the first production vehicle. STAFF: (Off mic.) Q: Kate Brannen again, Defense News. Could you talk a little bit about the OSD's decision to end the MEADS program in 2013 and what this means for the Army's budget in the out years? How much savings does it free up? And in the decision it said that more money could therefore be directed to counter-rocket and -mortar systems. Is that based on what the Army sees as -- sees as a growing threat? If you could comment, thanks. GEN. MCGHEE: Well, I will try -- answer all three at the -- and at one, it's -- one, we fully support the OSD's decision to cancel the -- to cancel the program. We do have dollars in the FY '12 program for the -- for that system. It would be our intent at some point that we would use dollars to go ahead and upgrade our current missile systems, to include the Patriot, this -- the Stinger, as I talked about earlier, so just to go and upgrade the systems that we currently have and provide more capability and capacity for them. STAFF: We have time to take one more question. Q: Sir, you mentioned -- you singled out JLENS as you were talking about the R&D. Is there any change in that program, or is that program going ahead as planned? MS. BONESSA: No change. GEN. MCGHEE: No change. No change in that program. STAFF: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to wrap it up now, the Army presentation. Thank you for coming. MS. BONESSA: Thank you all. GEN. MCGHEE: Thank you. Briefing by Rear Adm. Mulloy from the Pentagon on the Fiscal 2012 Budget Proposal LT. COURTNEY HOLSEN: Good afternoon. I'm Lieutenant Courtney Holsen, public affairs officer for Rear Admiral Joe Mulloy, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for budget. He will be briefing the fiscal year 2012 budget for the Department of the Navy. Following the briefing, if you have any questions, please let me know. With that, I'd like to introduce Rear Admiral Joe Mulloy. ADM. MULLOY: Thank you, Courtney. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And it's good to see you all again. It's amazing how fast the year goes by when you're having fun as the Department of Navy budget officer. Today I'm here to talk about how we mesh within the strategy Secretary Gates and Hale laid out for the FY '12 and the five-year expense plan after that. You heard in great detail about how they view the emphasis from the secretary and the president on focus. And I want to relay that into how the Marine Corps, Navy and the Secretariat see that. In addition to the leadership points, the secretary of the Navy has given us four imperatives as we develop this budget and support our joint force and global forces. The first one was to take care of our sailors, Marines, our civilians and their families. First -- or secondly was to treat energy as a strategic national resource. Third was to create acquisition excellence. And I think you see -- I think you'll see a lot of that, as we talked about efficiencies in our investment programs. And last is to heat-optimize our unmanned systems. And once again, a significant investment made in unmanned systems across the board. And you can see in the pictures, a snapshot around our Navy-Marine Corps chain. So where is your Navy and Marine Corps today? They're out and about. We are engaged in winning our current wars we're in. We're currently involved in maintaining peace and involved in peacekeeping and training around the world. And we are currently enabling commerce to the tune of -- the domestic product of the United States greatly depends upon commerce around the world; your Navy and Marine Corps team ensures safety and security of that around the world. There are over 50,000 Navy personnel deployed or forward-based, and over 30,000 Marines. We currently have eight aircraft carriers -- and I -- I'll correct that with eight; as of yesterday, the George Washington pulled in. But to put that in context. There's only 10 aircraft carriers currently in the Navy. Two are in major maintenance. One is in a three-year refueling overhaul. One we are -- one we are dry-docking. And all other eight were underway. So this idea of our ships are busy and underway, training, and many of them were forward-deployed; others were getting ready to go or come back from deployments. So we currently have, once again, 57 percent of our ships underway from homeport and 40 percent deployed. So maintain the same op tempo with those 50,000 sailors that we have since 2001. Our Marines also are actively engaged, with over 24,000 -- correction: 22,000 in Afghanistan. That number fluctuates subtly up and down. But we maintain that presence through up into approximately 2014. And I'll factor that later on for some discussion of our Marine Corps manpower. And the Marines are also further engaged around the world. And the two snapshots you see are F-18s operating in the Arabian Sea and then the Marines are launching in the Gulf of Thailand, once again focusing where Secretary of Defense said the Marines maintain key amphibious capabilities using the equipment and the techniques developed with our Navy as they launch from the USS Denver off the -- in the Gulf of Thailand. A budget brief wouldn't be complete without a bar graph in dollars. FY '12 is $161.4 billion, and there's $15 billion of OCO [overseas contingency operations] on top of that. You heard the discussion about what is this budget and what do the numbers mean. And for the Navy, this has surely been a time where we have been able to purchase more than what we had last year with dollars that are the same. This is actually a .9-percent decrease in real terms from '11 to '12 and the Navy stays flatter with the FYDP, it is a negative-point-one percent real over the FYDP. So we have been able to churn through our $35 billion in efficiencies and find the things we need and do our part to be able to maintain the Department of Defense's part within this whole architecture you heard about, savings for the country. The other thing I'd like to highlight before I move on to the other slides is the continuing resolution. You heard about the impact of the department. This slide is the build. We'll show you where we stand in the Navy. We're down $5.7 billion. The largest single piece of that is in Navy operation and maintenance, at 4.6 (billion dollars). But significant impacts on our procurement, both Navy and Marine Corps accounts. I'll have individual slides in the major areas of budget, but to step you around to the big parts and what we call our moneybags slide, these five sections: first is multi-personnel in the upper left. And I'll rotate counter-clockwise. This account continues to support the 325,000 Navy, 202,000 Marines. There's a 1.6-percent pay raise. We'll appropriate adjustments of 3.6 percent for BAH, or housing allowances for the Navy, and 4.2 percent for the Marine Corps, in addition to the funds of retirement accrual with an increase of 4.9 percent. Matter of fact, this is 2.7 percent growth after adjusting for -- I'll talk about in OCO -- or our individual account moved in. So this is the second year at the lowest it's been in over 6 years in terms of growth. We are, you know, working with the group to try to maintain and pay our people appropriately; at the same time, try to realize we have to use every dollar wisely. O&M is $37.9 billion. I'll have a detailed slide. That fully funds the operations of the Navy and Marine Corps, our maintenance and our bases. Infrastructure, a significant drop. You'll see two factors -- we talked about that -- is grow the force, which is the Marine Corps buildup on to -- not only for the 20,000-troop growth, but also the infrastructure age in the Marine Corps is rapidly dropping back down to levels where the Marines are maintaining future development of forces. And there's also a rephasing of Guam for about $3(00) or $400 million. And I'll talk more about that later. There's research and development. This account is actually up. Last year was a nadir for us in the Navy. Two -- once again, two countervailing positions. We have growth of research and development in new areas, and I'll talk about that in terms of U-class and some other areas. We also have transitional procurement. But this has really been a slight increase from last year, based upon these new things coming. And last is procurement. This is down from last year about $800 million. Really two factors. A significant one is modifications in aircraft, with the Joint Strike Fighter, and the other one our savings from the efficiencies. You will actually see with aircraft, except for the Joint Strike Fighter, and even total number of (inaudible) in the Marine Corps go up in '12, number of ships go up, but our dollars spent go down. And it's really basing upon price and saving in a number of areas and then also the reduction to the Joint Strike Fighter. So how did we get here? The Navy in this process, which was started back in May with a speech from the secretary of Defense in 8 May -- in 8 May out in the Eisenhower Library. He then came and gave leadership briefs on 24 May, and 4 June there was a letter to the services: "You will find efficiencies." So as many realize, we were already well into the program budgeting. But as the secretary of Defense and Secretary Hale indicated, we were already on a second year of trying to find efficiencies, trying to use wisely. He just more focused us on that. So we had already done a lot of programming to find plans to be able to purchase the things you wanted to buy. The understanding of keeping that 50 ships, perhaps grow more, keep airplanes -- this was even greater just to go across the board. In both services the secretariat teams were established. And internally, the Navy generated over 1,600 individual efficiencies; some as small as $200,000 for cutting contract in one area, some as large as $2.9 billion in LCS pricing. So across the board, we're 1,600 issues in over 2,000 lines in the Navy budget. And then we -- as we plotted them and assembled them through leadership meetings throughout June into July as we developed the budget, we would put them in what we call the -- (inaudible) -- process lines of operation. So first it was buying smarter. Those were areas where we saved money. Clearly, the F-18 multiyear was $852 million. Once again, procurement comes down, but the reason is we're not paying as much for the same airplanes. E-2D. With the permission of Congress, we're going to have a multiyear starting out in '13 to -- as we ramp into production of that important electronic aircraft. The DDG-51s. Once we get up to two a year, we're planning in '13 for a multiyear. We have reduced total ownership cost through strategic sourcing. Many Navy people buy around. By sourcing through Admiral Mike Lyden at Navy Supply Command, what we're able to find is if people can find a better price locally they can, but there's a step to go all-Navy general purchasing. We think we can save over $257 million with strategic sourcing. Marine Corps looked at Marine Corps equipment and saved over $900 million with various efficiencies. So the bottom line, buying smarter is dollars -- to terminate some items, but largely buy smarter. Streamlining organization, there's been a lot of discussion of that. That gets to the emotional part of, hey, we eliminated Submarine Squadron 8 in Norfolk, but we're keeping the submarines there; we eliminated Second Fleet, but we're merging half of the personnel and the leadership team within FF -- the Fleet Forces Command down there. Taking a little bit of a risk in how we manage training day to day, but realizing it's a different world out there in the post-Cold world era for that. Other areas we're smaller on. But a couple other bigger ones in there. A significant one for Navy and Marine Corps team was reorganizing our maritime pre-positioned squadrons. Currently we have three pre-position squadrons: Guam, Diego Garcia and the Mediterranean. We pay full operating status to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year to have these ships ready to go. They were developed to have equipment ready for Marines to meet up back in the period of the Cold War. We have made modifications over time to them for use and use them some for theater -- pardon me, theater security cooperation, but we'd never actually studied a true business case of what supports our combatant commanders and what could actually go forward in supporting war. Well, we're going to shift it to two full operating squadrons, but we're also merging with three of the Bob Hope LMRS, large, medium-speed roll-on/roll-off ships as a center point beyond the TAKRs. We'll have two full operating squadrons and one in what's called reduced operating status back in the United States. That last squadron will be ready to be broken out for exercises or for wartime needs. So we have demonstrated, working with TRANSCOM and the Joint Staff, that we can get all the equipment forward in the time necessary for all the time-phased deployments -- the TPFFDs -- but we can still save over $300 million over the FYDP once again by our streamlining organizations and operations. And last is energy. As you know, Secretary Mabus is leading the charge for the secretary of Defense on energy, and the Navy's out and about. I'll show you where we saved over $2.3 billion and reinvesting it. Once again, it's a key strategic point for us, and through a number of areas we found savings. Military personnel. The Navy is just about done with its drawdown. We've drawn down over 60,000 personnel since 2001, and we're finally hitting a position now at about 325(,000) plus or minus a thousand personnel, and the Navy will stay stabilized. The Marine Corps is finishing and continuing out (inaudible). And I think it's pretty clear that on a conditions-based plan, that if the drawdown in Afghanistan stays on track, the Marines will commence a drawdown and to a recently just-announced number of 186,800. That is the planned end strength under their future -- the Future Force Structure Review Group plan. Now, that still has to be greatly delineated with all the equipment and other portions, but there's been a discussion about that. The plan number, once again, conditions-based. Civilian personnel. The secretary asked us to take a hard look to freeze growth, and we have complied with that. However, on follow-up, he has agreed with certain areas where the Navy and the Marine Corps have some necessary growth. Forces in our acquisition workforce: Working carefully with Dr. [Ashton] Carter [Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L], numbers are delineated to where we could actually have the people. Once again, these are all co-dependent. The buying smarter, all those multi-years, all those savings are dependent upon some of this. We need to use our various insourcing tools. The Department of the Navy throughout various rounds of efficiencies have reduced contractor savings to about $3 billion. There are some cases that we've shown where we need to insource some people to make that happen. We are staffing our revolving funds to maintain equipment. Joint basing looks like a growth to the Navy of 479 people, but in reality it's transfers from the Army and the Air Force. We pick up a number of large bases. That was authorized by the secretary. And lastly was our cyber initiatives for 10th Fleet and NextGen when the Navy and the Marine Corps take ownership of our computer system. So each one of those ended up being a very slight growth. About 2 1/2 percent on our total civilian personnel. Readiness -- talk about O&M. This is a key operation for us. Once again, it is leverage between our OCO, as we talked about operations, and then our base dollars. On the top, we're operating at 4520. This'll be the last year at 4520. Next year, the Navy and the base will be 5124. That was part of an '11 OCO-to-base decision. This is the last year 4520, but this brings us up to 5824 to support the full level of operations around the world. Flying hours: We're 2520 in the base, and then we're 2320 with flying hours forward. There is a slight reduction in here in terms of -- you'll see some efficiencies later on in terms of operations, and also the OCO is down with fewer Marine hours actually estimated flying forward. Marine Corps once again is a little down OCO. The level of troops are the same, but the amount of shipping going on -- because largely they've completed their shipments to Afghanistan, now we're rotating people. The Marines continue to maintain most of their equipment forward, and very little comes back. That's how they do it to save money and keep the troops engaged. There's also a reflected drawdown in -- slightly for Iraq, because they're largely out. Ship depot maintenance, aircraft and base support, we've maintained with a balance at a risk down there: ship maintenance at 94 percent; aircraft, 94 (percent); and the base models are split between Navy and Marine Corps. Okay, shipbuilding. This is a good-news story. Last year, when we rolled out 50 ships in 10 years, people said very good. The secretary, the commandant and the CNO went to the appropriations committees, both of them, and they were both told -- all three were told: We're very impressed with this, but the proof is in keeping it maintained for another year, as I was sitting there behind them. And I'll come back and say is, given the efficiencies and then what the CNO did with that money and what the secretary did was enhancement to the ships. We've bought a total of five more ships across that could have made some structurally important changes. We've slowly embraced and did -- dual-bought buying the LCS, and I told you we generate significant savings from that. We also brought the MLP in '15 up to be able to balance the workload and complete one MLP for each of the (inaudible). We then also then brought forward a TAGOS ship, which is important for antisubmarine warfare, for the secretary of the Navy, Defense and Pacific Area Commander. We filled in another DDG, which is important for BMD and fleet operations. We then also brought forward the TOX from '17, brought it forward, put in research and development money, and can commence on recapitalizing our fleet. Two purposes: One of them is we're aging; and two is, it'll also double bottom construction, which gets us going on -- compliant with long-term maritime laws. So, across the board, an impressive change for our shipbuilding command. Aviation. Aviation is a series of pluses and minus. The big change, obviously, is Joint Strike Fighter. The Marine variant was put on a two-year probation period. The Navy variant -- or actually, that was Naval variant, the Charlie, only was affected by two aircraft, and that was more by the sequencing at the plant, to maintain the build rate that Dr. Carter, secretary of Defense and Admiral Venlet had laid out. So a total change of 67 aircraft to the Charlie; 65 of the B variant. However, we laid in 41 more F-18s, to be able to continue to fill those important carrier decks. We also added an E-2D and we added two more P-8s at the beginning and seven more at the end of the FYDP and another -- other aircraft. Significant changes were also made in the unmanned areas. We added 26 of the VTUAV Fire Scout and Fire Scout Plus, an enhanced version of it, as we once again try to embrace -- or continue to embrace the unmanned vehicles. Next slide. Weapons. This overall continues to be a balanced investment of Navy and Marine Corps weapons. All the weapons are being bought at MSR or achieve MSR by the end of the future year defense plan. Big change in the standard missile. SM-2 was terminated as an efficiency. We had what we needed there. We wanted to focus on the SM-6, which is built in a similar part of the Raytheon plant. There was a rephasing due to completing where we stood in contracting, the money in the program as -- and also as reviewed by Defense Acquisition Board and validated. We're now on a ramp to complete the SM-6 and we'll quickly get above -- we don't have an MSR yet, but we'll quickly buy up and rate. And this is an important step ahead for us. The rolling airframe missile, the quantities drop, but that really reflects us shifting a little bit of money to RDT&E and then procuring the Block II which is a significant upgrade for us. The other changes are all just adjustment for price -- slight adjustment for price and maintained, similar to some of the earlier one where I had the Marine Corps helicopters as buying to budget on some of these. But largely across the board, we've added weapons or just trimmed minor amounts. Marine Corps procurement. This is a new slide for all of you from in the past. The real purpose of developing this with the Marines was to focus on PMC, procurement Marine Corps is not just wheeled and tracked vehicles. And in fact, a significant part of the money as in many other areas and a significant part of the enhancement that the Marines bought with their efficiency money was in this -- two things. One, their dwell home station equipment, the portions that maintain better -- for their radars, better computer gear. Some of the logistics and maintenance and some of the transport of equipment, some of the gear that you lose to onload and offload, not particularly sexy, but really important. The Marines spend an incredible amount of time developing very detailed budgets for small items because they're experts at detailed planning and pulling this together. But I really want to highlight there's a lot more to this budget. And the big thing is electronics and their distributed operation, they're investing a significant amount to be able to maintain the same ability they have forward as they engage -- as they come out of Iraq and Afghanistan, to be able to maintain that ability for a young company captain, you know, a young officer to be able to run 138 people. He's gone from several radios and a truck to 242 radios and computers and two trucks, to be able to have a span that jumps from his one mile, if his battalion leads three miles, to now 70 miles on the 210 miles that a battalion commander leads the Marine Corps. To be able to do that, he's got to be able to connect all those platoons together. Significant change, and you can see the kind of money the Marine Corps is putting into that, to be able to emphasize their world and their importance as that middleweight fighter the secretary of Defense and the commandant and the SECNAV want out there. R&D. Modified this slide also to kind of break things and turn it around. You can see the drop, I said '07 -- '11 was the low year. It appears even lower based upon '10 has a large amount of congressional adds, '11 is the PB '11 so there aren't any. And very likely we'll see where '11 goes. Once again, I'll talk more on the CR as we get the closure. But in '12, we actually start a slight growth and what's happening here is joint strike fighter's flat. We have investments in the NextGen jammer and the 53 going up; we have P8 coming down. In the shipbuilding, Ohio replacement ramps up dramatically as we start to close in on that ship, and I think it was an earlier question. It's a little over $1 billion, stepping up over 400 million (dollars) from 600 million (dollars) in '11. LCS, we're maintaining RDT&E to continue testing. DDG-1000 will continue some dollars for testing and development software. And then the Virginia class is also maintained there. Unmanned -- significant step. We have the BAMs (ph) continues to be building aircraft and supporting development of that. And UCAS is out flying. That was at 47, that picture we had, took off a week and a half ago and that ramps up, though, into UCLASS. And so you can see the first dollars for that. That was a POM '13 when I spoke last year. Navy with efficiency went from '13 and put $120 million in efficiency dollars into '12 so we can get to a squadron or on a carrier by '18 and actually be deploying with a squadron of the follow-on UCLASS. And then all our other miscellaneous projects right here, you can see, as once again we're stepping up in various areas. Military construction of family housing. Significant changes here as we've completed -- largely, we'll complete BRAC this year. The Navy's on - Navy and Marine Corps are on track to complete our BRAC portion of it. What is really see here is a drop of about a -- 1 billion, $100 million in grow the force for the Marine Corps as we complete a large amount of that, and about a $300 million rephasing to later in the FYDP. As we continue analyzing, as the State Department and the Department of Defense work with the government of Japan, we really see is that the money we have invested already appropriated for Guam and the Japanese dollars are required -- not dollars now, but a phasing later in the FYDP as we finalize what will happen as we move through EIS and completion, what will the plans be. So it's not really a walking away from Guam so much as phasing the dollars away to where we think we really need it later. Family housing. We have completed extensive PPV. There are no PPV projects in this budget, but we include 110 -- $1 million for overseas improvements to houses and the family housing operations budget maintains 15,000 quarters for Navy and Marines around the world. Energy investment. Once again, the secretary of the Navy has made this a hallmark for the second year and we've now invested another $2 1/2 billion to bring over $4 billion from when we started this path last year in this budget. Significant steps ahead as we've tested and operated various vehicles. What you have there is the Green Hornet. You have a -- an NECC combat vessel driving 40 -- greater than 40 knots on an algae fuel basis. The Marine Corps at Twentynine Palms down here, basically, making the base almost self-sufficient and Makin Island, which is a gas turbine electropulsion-sailing ship. But that's just simple -- those are simple examples of the things going on across the board in terms of advanced metering, better steam plants, cleaning engines, larger propulsion designs, stern flaps on ships. We invested 2.3 million -- billion (dollars). We've already taken out 2.3 billion (dollars). Typically, you have to wait years to get dollars back. In this case, we're already aggressively taking the savings out from that. And those -- these are minimal, based upon the price of fuel. Everyone knows fuel's going up at potentially 3 to 6 percent in the last six months. So these savings really understate what we think we may get. But you know, that's the point we have for the fuel we took right now. Overseas contingency. This is down to $15 billion for a number of reasons. It still supports our troops forward. We're very happy with this ability to support the Marines and Navy forward. It does reflect over $700 million of OCO to base. So it looks -- we asked for less in there, so it's OCO to base. We have about $400 million in terms of shipment, that we no longer have to ship quite as much, because not as much people are in Iraq. We have 4,000 Navy, 98 Marines. We have less in terms of combat support in Iraq. About $600 million of Marine Corps surge that was done, necessary for moving to Iraq, is gone. There's $300 million less in ammo use, in terms of actual expenditure. We're still flying and supporting. And there's about $200 million less in Marine Corps flying. So across the board, we are still supporting forward. It's just the actual cost this year reflects a little bit less across the board in all those areas. Continuing resolution. As Mr. Hale said, it's a crisis on the secretary's doorstep, and it's a crisis for the Navy, really in two parts. I mentioned $4.6 billion in operation and maintenance. A number of you have seen we've have already gone out with letters from our fleet commanders to cancel five ship evals if we don't have the money. We're cancelling up to -- through into April 19 base projects. We've already cancelled nine mil con projects for the Navy or Marine Corps, and that number will be 14 by the end of February. By -- it'll be up to 19 by 4 March, at the end of the CR. So across the board, we're cancelling items. The O&M is significant for us. It's a significant chunk of money. The procurement accounts -- it looks like it's less of an impact, but in reality, the difficulties are -- one example is ship construction, Navy. We're down by $1.8 billion. I can't buy everything. But since ship construction is all line item-controlled, I'm really $6 billion out of aligned. I have money to buy an LPD I'm not going to buy. I don't have authority or money to buy other ships. I'm capped off on paying for the refueling of an aircraft carrier. I'm capped off on buying the final installment of the CVN, you know, -78. So there's a number of items. The Marine Corps in procurement -- they have $536 million short, but they're really almost $900 million out of line items to buy the right items. So a significant issue -- if this continues, the problems I have in O&M are tremendous, and pain and pressure on sailors, family and Marines. The pressure on my investment accounts will become almost mind-boggling in terms of putting the money in the right holes. That will continue to then swamp us in terms of the workload of -- we're going to try to have to get by in O&M, and then we're going to have to -- to move the pieces around will be amazing. That's really where I'm at on that one. And lastly, I said in mil con, we can't do anything. It's all an authority-based item. It's in a different part of the law. There's 89 projects. None of them will start until we get some kind of relief from Congress. So I'll be moving to questions in a moment, but I have some -- three key take-aways I want you take from this is that we have four imperatives the secretary of the Navy has charged us with, and we feel we've embraced all them in terms of our sailors, our energy, our acquisition excellence, and our unmanned systems. Your maritime forces, your Navy/Marine Corps team, are out and about, as I indicated, at incredible levels, not just in the combat zone, around the world. And then in reform, the Navy came up with $35 billion, the single largest chunk, in terms of efficiency, so the Department of Defense were able to invest most of that money to buy the things you saw here. So for further information, I'll have the site here, but I'd like to go ahead and open up to questions. Yes, sir, right here, in the blue shirt. Q: What is -- what is the JSF STOVL program going to have to do to get off probation, exactly? ADM. MULLOY: You know, I don't -- I -- there has not been an established set of metrics. It's going to have to produce and test, and we're already seeing is -- that it's flying at Pax River. So I'm going to have to go back to Admiral Venlet, probably, and his public affairs office, to get you a criteria. We've been told -- is that it's going to have to demonstrate the producibility and the operability to be able to finish the ones you're building, test-fly them and get back on a test plan. So that's really the structure of it. Any -- Q: One follow-up. (Off mic) -- involved? I mean, does it have to lower the cost of -- ADM. MULLOY: There are no other price changes. The budget supports the number of aircraft we bought. The assumption, I guess, in that would be -- is, if it kept going up, that would be a negative. We have laid in the best estimated cost, and those are the adjustments in terms of the Navy losing aircraft in '11 and then in '10 adjustments. I told you the '12 was a significant part with the Joint Strike Fighter. So the money's gone. They're not getting like $500 million an airplane to build them. They've been brought down to what the expected buy rate is. But I anticipate there's bound to be a -- there's bound to be a weight issue, a price issue and a performance issue, and the actual criteria I don't have. Yes, ma'am, in the back. Q: Yes. Can you explain the different shipbuilding procurement amounts that we see in different charts? We have 15.5 in one chart, 14.1 in another chart, and the DOD press release has 19.9 billion (dollars) for shipbuilding. So can you explain why there's -- what are you counting under those three different charts? ADM. MULLOY: Okay. On my slide number 10, this is the actual shipbuilding account. So that's what I'm talking about. There are components that have -- Q: (Off mic) -- says 15.5 for ships. ADM. MULLOY: Well, that's the actual total. What's above -- this is shipbuilding, and then we have what's called below the line, which pays for refueling and oceanographic ships. And then there's also an Army ship that they may be clumping in there. I believe OSD has a different number because they clump other items, either maintenance or other things we're doing. I'm just talking total shipbuilding account. Q: Then the DOD release is not accurate, 19.9 billion (dollars) for ships. ADM. MULLOY: Well, OSD has got different numbers, and we'll have to go back and try to figure that one out. I'm looking at my actual SCN account, which is, in '12, is 15.516 billion (dollars). And that's made of two parts: 14.1, which we call above the line, which is warfighting ships; and then below the line, you have -- I pay for the LCACs, the Marines that drive ashore in the little turbo-lift ship. We pay for outfitting and delivery. We're paying for ship-to-shore connectors, buying new ones, oceanographic ships and refueling overhauls. So that's the difference between 14.1 and 15.5. The Navy shipbuilding is $15 billion, $516 million -- $516 million. Okay, ma'am? Q: Thank you. ADM. MULLOY: Yes, sir. Q: Next Generation Jammer. Are you actually putting more money into Next Generation Jammer, or is that just because you move into the procurement phase and -- ADM. MULLOY: We're actually in R&D throughout most of the FYDP. It ramps down to procurement at the end. We actually moved money to do it. We're into, I believe, four AMD contracts. So we actually move money into that as part of the efficiency enhancements to accelerate it forward in the FYDP, to go from four to two to one by the end of the FYDP. Q: Alright now, does the fact of the -- either the EA-18 and F/A-18 purchases going up or the F-35 purchases going down affect NGJ? ADM. MULLOY: No, because the Next -- well, first off, the F-18s -- the Gs did not change. We're procuring Gs for the 10 airwings plus the four ground squadrons. So the number of Gs that will get the replacement for the ALQ-99 are just there. And the EA-6Bs that have them now, the F-18s who carry ALQ-99s, they'll be replaced by jammers. So there's no change. And right now the F-35 is proposed as possibly a jamming variant, but that has not been developed. So they're really on two different tracks. The jammer is just you produce something for the Navy's Gs and for the EA-86Bs that are left by the time it gets produced. Because remember, the Marines operate EA-6Bs (out till '19 ?). Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. Q: Two questions. One is on the Navy piece of Conventional Prompt Global Strike. I'm wondering at what level CTM is funded -- (off mic) -- if you have a request for that piece of it FY '12. And then on a different program, SSBN(X) the Ohio class replacement - is that program now in Milestone A, and if so, when we will hear about -- (off mic)? ADM. MULLOY: Oh, for the SSBN(X)? Okay. First off, your first question was on CTM? Q: Yes. ADM. MULLOY: Yeah. There's zero dollars in the '12 budget. It was 10 in '11, and it was just marked in the recent House version of the bill that came out that was on Friday night, they marked the 10 million (dollars) out. So there's zero in '12 and out for conventional Trident. There is one 1 billion -- I think it was 16 million -- for SSBN(X). It went through a DAB in December. It is authorized to proceed on in -- I guess it was pre-Milestone-A activities. So I'm not sure when the next DAB is for a while, but it is now authorized to start spending up to that. The initial plan is for -- as indicated, was for 16 tubes, a new design reactor plant, similar antennas and design to the Trident and the Virginia class submarine, same -- no advanced torpedo room. Basically it would be an SSBN version improved, using Virginia-class technology, but -- (inaudible) -- improve in terms of stealth. So I think you'll see more of it coming out, but the bottom line is we're going to rapidly develop on three lines here also, is you have the naval reactors portion develop the engine room, you'll have the weapons position under SP, where they're already starting to build tubes out in -- I was out in California about a month ago at the Northrop Grumman plant, and there was one of the four tubes. There -- four contractors are building tubes that will be shipped to Electric Boat and assembled into a tube pack. They will not go on the first submarine, but the idea is how do you build and weld, because it's a different design submarine. We're not going to -- to save money to build the construction of it -- remember, the idea is -- the -- there's actually $50 million for design affordability in this budget starting in '12, '13, '14 to be able to -- (inaudible) -- Virginia. So this submarine will not have -- build the missile compartment, cut holes and drop tubes in. You're going to build tubes in four-packs that are fitted to hull pieces that will then be added into the cylinders that are assembled. So the idea is I can assemble in pieces and build -- once again, there's -- it's -- Electric Boat, I think it's 821 or -- they have a place where they save money in Quonset versus the yard, versus in the water. It's a -- dramatic savings happen when you build at Quonset. And then there's even more savings on land level. This ship will have the same idea but even more so than a Virginia class to take that correction. So these dollars now are building all these places for the future plant, the future thing. And then the last one is what we call HME, Hull Mechanical Electrical. There will be money over in PO Subs to finish out the design in terms of how to be wired, how to be designed, what option generators. There's a lot of things like that that have not actually come in. We know general specs. It must be able to take care of a crew and have oxygen, but the specifics of the power and weight and layout of all that will now happen as a result of this money being in the '12 budget. We can rapidly move down that path. Q: Just a follow up on PTM -- are you saying the PTM is dead, that that is not part of -- (inaudible) -- right now or -- ADM. MULLOY: It is -- it is not funded in this budget. Q: That's -- ADM. MULLOY: That's all -- that's all I'll say right now. Q: Okay. ADM. MULLOY: You'll have to talk to OSD policy about any future plans for it. Q: Thank you. ADM. MULLOY: Sir, in the middle right there. Q: Yeah, the terminations cost -- I'm not -- don't find any money for the new amphibious vehicle, R&D -- anything in this? ADM. MULLOY: Yeah, this budget has over the FYDP $508 million for the new amphibious vehicle. And a little over a billion dollars of the savings was put in to maintain the double AVs. Termination costs are expected to come out of the FY '11 money, estimated right now, I think, at about $185 million, but I could follow up -- you know, around $185 million right now. The specifics are still being laid out between the Marine Corps and the company and the land -- the Land Systems. So I really defer you to talk to the PO at Land Systems. But that will be funded out of '11. There is no money in -- (inaudible) - '12 and out. It's all invested in other areas. Q: (Off mic) -- R&D, there's a contract issued for doing research on the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile. I don't find any R&D money in here. ADM. MULLOY: Long Range Anti-Ship Missile -- LRASM, you mean? Q: Yes. ADM. MULLOY: There is -- there is some small money in a program, but there is not actually -- that is still in final testing. There is not a separate program element created for that. But there is money between the Navy and ONR. And I believe -- is DARPA in that? I'm not sure. I'll have to get back to you on that one. But there is -- there was a LRASM A and B still being studied. But that's more a small amount of money now. But it's not actually crafted over. We still maintain Tomahawk right now as a long-range land attack through the FYDP. But we have not converted to either a ship or a land version yet for a replacement for those. Yes, sir, in the front. Q: So much of your future year's defense planning here depends on the efficiency savings coming to fruition. ADM. MULLOY: Right. Q: Of the $35 billion, how -- forgive me if you've already said this -- but how much is in '12 versus down the line? Can you give a readout? ADM. MULLOY: Yeah, let me see here. Q: And how do you know this is -- and I asked this of the Army -- how do you know this isn't blue smoke and mirrors, really squishy, and it's going to come to fruition? ADM. MULLOY: Well, part of this is -- I'll try to be a little more -- because I -- Mr. Hale, I think, mentioned earlier was, ask the services. I feel pretty comfortable, having absorbed this process through June, July and the debates back and forth that the Navy and Marine Corps has really wrung out a lot of these items. Now, as I said, there's 1,600 -- 60 or 79 items in the budget. So we will -- and I was at a meeting with the DCMO for the Navy how between the FM and DCMO we're going to track each one of these, how do they convert over. Some are terminations and cuts. They're fairly straightforward. You asked about what it is. In the Navy budget, our overheard cuts were 4,302,000,000 (dollars) in '12. Q: (Off mic.) ADM. MULLOY: Four point three billion dollars in Navy and Marine Corps efficiencies in '12. And additionally, there was another -- some of these also were booked by OSD, which brings us up to 5.2 billion (dollars) efficiencies in the Navy. But some of those were booked by OSD to pay their bills and stuff. So there's a difference -- why I show what Navy and OSD has, but it's all Navy -- (inaudible). So what does that mean is there are a lot of these I can -- (inaudible) -- on. We know we're going to take the ships out. We already have a plan. These ships -- the TKR, the -- you know, SGT Button is in Guam and will come back. And it will either be -- come in overhaul -- (inaudible) -- or it's going to be one of the guys that's going to be in San Diego. So a lot of these are pre-positioned and planned and thought through. Now, strategic savings -- a best estimate of our model. But some of these came up -- and I'll give you a good example that was rejected: voice over IP. That was proposed in June. We're going to save hundreds of millions of dollars doing voice over IP. You hear about it all around the world. Navy's already doing that. I currently speak in voice over IP. If you call me -- I talked to a couple of you on the phone the other day -- it was on VOIP. So there was an estimate that in San Diego if we did computers and we did it to a thousand people, then therefore we'd save x dollars. So if we did it to 500,000 people in the Navy, therefore we'd save 500 times that thousand, right? Well, it turned out when they calculated the savings it exceeded the entire phone bill for the Department of the Navy. So needless to say, I didn't book VOIP. So for the 1,600 lines in there, there's hundreds that were either put away as, hey, we'll study it in the future, we can't quantify it. Because a lot of people said, if I can save money on that -- And we said, how would you do it? I don't know, but there's money there. Well, we have to book it now. But some will be, you know, under evaluation. But we have a team set up to go back and do it. LT. HOLSEN: We have time for one more question. Q: (Off mic) -- I mean, 3.5 -- 4 point -- ADM. MULLOY: Well, the largest year is '16. I mean, remember, the goals set by the secretary of defense were 2, 3, 5, 8, 10. So there's a -- and a feeling of, as anyone imagines, when you start to ramp something, you have to take longer to get there. But end of the FYDP is 9.8 billion (dollars) for the Navy in '16, 9.8 billion (dollars). Yes, sir, in the red tie. Q: How soon do you think you can get the new amphibious vehicle? The Marines have talked about doing it in much -- a much faster time frame than eight to 10 years. What's realistic? ADM. MULLOY: As a budget officer, I have to tell you, I don't know, because I'm not an expert. I do know that they have spent, you know, 14 years so far developing it. So I expect there would be an -- a real acceleration on that. I'll ask Carol is there any date right now expected from the Marine Corps? ADM. MULLOY: Okay. I (inaudible) 2024 from the financial director from the Marine Corps, and I think that's what you'll have to go with. Now, that's in IOC. I expect they'll have vehicles much sooner than that. you know, example: the EFV has been in development a long time. The last few versions, we just saw testing. We're actually operating pretty well. But it really ends up being -- the total cost of the program was just too much. The $3 billion is a sunk cost. The secretary of defense understands that. It's econ 101. It doesn't matter what you spent in the past; it's what you're going to spend in the future. And $12 billion was too much money. So I think they're going to find a way there. But there's an awful lot of lessons learned that will be informed for this new vehicle. So I feel confident they can take it and convert much faster to a vehicle they want. Think we got one more over here. Sir. Q: I've got a quick question with the energy investment savings. I'm wondering how you can project so far down the road if so much of it would be dependent on the cost of -- (inaudible) -- ADM. MULLOY: Well, what you do is you have to -- (inaudible) -- because there's a -- it's somewhat of an -- (inaudible) -- process. We get a fuel price set by OSD and DLA, and so that's one item. And so all I have is, I base it on that fuel price. So I would save a little bit less if it went down -- I'd save a lot more. So these are -- these -- I view as minimal. So what they're really based on is 3 percent savings on LPDs because they have stern flaps; 5 percent because I fly more simulator hours. On the bases, I just know on energy use, some cases, compliance with the law, if I have advanced metering, I know what I'm going to get. So it's the price of a kilowatt estimated at that year. Q: Cost of fuel or alternative fuel is not factored into these? ADM. MULLOY: Right, well, it's not. But right now none of these depend upon the -- you know, shifts -- none of these depend upon shifting everyone to a cheaper alternative fuel. It is all based upon fuel. And one of the -- I know there was a RAND study recently, and I'm not going to go into a lot of specifics, but the idea was, alternative fuels are very, very expensive now. But when you looked at where they could be, they could be lower. We'll still operate on the best estimate for the -- for the price of fuel in that year, set by OSD, whatever the mix may be. But we're not paying -- this is not -- budget's not based upon some astronomical amount for alternative fuel. It's really upon getting there. So these energy ones, I feel very comfortable that those are laid in based upon earmarks of kilowatts we're going to save and fuel savings that we'll achieve through actual quantifiable changes, and for the best estimate of fuel that year. Yes, ma'am. I think I've got like one more minute. Q: I have a quick question -- I have a question about the auditing. I know during a recent HASC hearing, committee members were very upset that DOD isn't auditable yet and questioned how you could go forward with efficiencies in the budget. I was wondering, is -- DOD -- is the Navy and Marine Corps going to be audited by 2011? And what sort of funding have you put into the budget to enable you guys to reach that milestone? ADM. MULLOY: There is FYDP dollars in the tune of -- Mary Kay, what is the FYDP money? It's a couple million dollars a year? Yeah, about two or three million dollars a year for auditability. The Marines actually just went through an audit, detailed process, tremendous number of lessons learned. The Navy's going forward. Our E-2D program is an example for ERP , for Secretary Hale, that every part of the E-2D, because it'll be from -- it's currently operating, it just landed on an aircraft carrier. So we're going to do that from AP -- from RDT&E through O&M for an audit and show that we can do it. I'd really say that there's two different things here. One is to book efficiencies and understand how much we -- we save in what we do. The auditability goes back to being -- is an accountant checking on the receipts. I mean, we really do know -- report back to Treasury what we're spending. There's a different level here that I think we can do the efficiencies independent of that. But we are supportive. The vice chief of Navy and the FM just sent out a memo to every Navy budget-submitting officer, all our three- and four-stars, on supporting the FYDP program. You know, we are achieving that. The Navy will not be in an auditable shape in FY '11, but the Navy's making steps down that path to proceed there, and we're taking tremendous lessons learned from the Marines who just completed their audit. Q: (Off mic) -- money next year than you would have in FY '11 to -- (inaudible) -- audit ready? ADM. MULLOY: No. We are -- we are keeping that program. That was independent of the efficiencies enhancements. We didn't take any money out, so there wasn't a tremendous amount added to it. Because it's really -- it doesn't generate -- it will, hopefully, in the end, make it clearer for decision making. But we couldn't -- that's one of the ones like VOIP. I could trace giving Admiral -- Mr. Dennis Taitano an (inaudible) of a dollar and a savings for that. So we didn't cut it. And we're going to support it as we go ahead. But I couldn't go ahead and put more money in and then take money out. And that's really what we're looking for inclusive. Yes, sir. Q: There were -- there were two 30-year plans that have been sent to Congress in conjunction with the budget, the 30-year shipbuilding plan and, more recently, the 30-year aviation plan. Do you -- what is the status of those two plans? Are -- is there any report that's being -- ADM. MULLOY: For the 30-year aviation plan, the Department of the Air Force and Navy provide input. OSD will send that to the Hill. There is no 30-year shipbuilding plan, as required into a law that was committed with the QDR. But it -- so there isn't one this year. All I can say is we added five ships more than we had last year. So it's got to be moving along, and a few just came forward. But there is no 30-year plan or won't be one this year. I appreciate you all very much. Thank you all very much. ---------------------------------------------------------------