force protection, emergency response measures in support of those to provide medical care to those who serve. ..

what we saw and found and concluded with respect to the last perpetrator and as the chairman has noted, the remainder of it, the details are restricted at which that is available to you. we did not -- because there was already under way -- looking to the intelligence aspects the was assigned to a different and review and directed in terms of interfering with it. we did not because it is under control of military justice authorities looking to the criminal aspects of this matter. again, we were instructed not to interfere with that, and similarly, the fbi has had a separate review going forward to look into the sharing of information portions that had to do with them.

nonetheless our mandate was widespread. it was directed towards having us look to find gaps and deficiencies as the secretary mentioned in policies, procedures, practices by the department of defense and the services across the board. with respect to the alleged perpetrator, you will note that the -- we state openly in chapter 1 of several military officers did not apply policies to the alleged perpetrator. we also recommended that finding in similar findings reflected in the genex be referred to the secretary of the army for review as to responsibility, accountability and such other action as he shall deem appropriate.

he has done so. the referral has been made. the army has to review under way now. before i turn this over to admiral clark to fill in some details with respect to the review and the report that you have, three observations i think are important to point out. first, what we learned is that this is never enough preparation. there is never too much preparation. authorities at fort hood had already anticipated a possible mass casualties sent as reflected in their emergency response plans and their response on that day showed that preparation. two minutes and 40 seconds after the 9/11 call was received,

first responders were on the scene of the shooting and by first responders i refer specifically to members of the fort hood security team. a minute and a half after their arrival, the assailant was incapacitated. two minutes and 50 seconds later, two ambulances and an incident command vehicle from the post hospital alive and began to provide life-saving health care. with that response, lives were saved. and yet, 13 people died, scores more were wounded. we can prepare better. we must plan with greater attention, and we must make the efforts and look around the corners of our future and anticipate the next potential defense in order to deflect it.

secondly, we need to pay attention to today's hazards. the fact is that we need to understand the forces that cause an individual to radicalize, to commit violent acts, and thereby, to make us vulnerable from within. and third, there is much in this report that is about violence violence by a service member against his or her colleagues. the effort is to detect the indicators that one might commit acts of violence. to catalog them, to make them available for the persons who need to know what are the indicators and where have the indicators been noted?

and then to prepare ourselves to act when that evidence is before us. to make it available to our commanders so that they can act and to be clear about their authority. one further note has been pointed out. we were asked to do this review within 45 days. the secretary clearly had in mind that there would be follow-on review of what we would come up with. for that reason, although we have cast our net widely, there were also boundaries, simply in terms of what the 129 or so souls committed to our leadership could accomplish. and this you will find there is space left for the follow-on refused often our recommendations in terms of the need to pay closer attention and closer review that.

mr. chairman and mr. ranking member and members of the committee, this is how we structure it ourselves and now if i may turn to admiral clark for how we structure the board report. >> we welcome you at the hearing. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman mr. mckeon, it is a privilege to be here again today to take this opportunity to talk up the review that secretary western and myself have for co-led. i know you have questions. let me talk about the first, the principal message is this: there are many policies -- dozens of policies about force protection. we've built lots of barriers since 9/11. that said, existing policies are not optimized for the internal

threat, and the threat that we saw and we missed to fort hood incident was evolving and slide the barriers. second, let's talk about iding employees. it is a difficult challenge the reality is that there is insufficient knowledge and guidance to identify individuals. guidance concerning the work place violence and the potential for self radicalization or radicalization in general while secretary west indicated its insufficient. and the key here is we focus on violent of any kind. what we found was a lack of clarity for comprehensive indicators, which then limit the commanders for the supervisors ability to recognize these potential threats. and so it doesn't matter if we are looking at somebody who might be inclined to hurt

themselves, and by the way the secretary defense had that specifically in our terms of reference, incidence of suicide or criminal and gang behavior or somebody at the king suppressed activity in doctrine or family violence or the evolving threats like radicalization, identifying the key indicators is critical to focusing the force on threat. so our focus was on violence that comes from any kind of behavior. but that's what we found especially was that policies on internal threat or an adequate. prohibited be fierce and actions need to be addressed in our report says specifically such guidance exists but it's incomplete for the day in which we live. let me talk briefly give out

information sharing. the secretary defense indicated friday in his reaction to our review that we saw a requirement to create the ability to adapt rapidly in the changing security environment which exists today, anticipating the new threats, bringing a wide and continuously evolving range of tools, techniques and programs and to play. robust information sharing is absolutely critical. along with that the command and control system to convert information into real decisions and real actions that require active information gathering, and we must remove the barriers, all of the barriers, information sharing is a key element allowing decision makers to connect the dots. we've got to get the information, the syndicators to the appropriate levels of

command. and let me speak briefly about the response that we saw at fort hood because the secretary asked us to address an emergency response. as secretary west has indicated, we were impressed with what we saw at fort hood. ladies and gentlemen, i served for 37 years. secretary west and i went down on the second day after the formation of our team. what i saw was the best after-action report i have ever seen in my life, with the kind of candor that was impressive. lots of good news. the base personnel were prepared. they were trained. they took appropriate action. their action was prompted. as the secretary indicated, the response to the active shooter was impressive. there were courageous acts.

the first responders, local law enforcement personnel, the dod civilians, health care providers, all of their actions prevented greater loss. that said, we still believe it can be done better. we've got to focus on better tools for commanders, focus on violence prevention. in whatever form it exists, we must adapt in the gulf to the rapid change. we must understand that this is not -- there is no single point solution here. change is going to continue at a rapid pace. we have to share information so the right people can connect the dots and exercise against the most stressing and pressing scenarios to make sure the we have a right. so we were impressed with what we saw at fort hood both military and civilians on base as well as those in the community who were key players

in the outcome of november 5th. and all those reminds the greatness of our people. the strength of the nation and resilience and character of our people on this point, and the rest of the team, our hearts go out to the families of those that were lost and those that were wounded in this incident. and the thrust of our activity, of our effort has been to do everything we know how to do, to help the secretary of defense put the spotlight on those immediate areas that need to be addressed in phase two of his organized effort. thank you, mr. chairman. look forward to your questions. >> admiral, thank you. adel clark, at oral west, we thank you for your telling testimony. it appears to me that there were

to disconnects that lead to a major question. disconnect number one is the actual performance of the alleged shooter on the one hand and who we are in academic evaluation. second disconnect would be one of intelligence type, whether that reached the right superiors or not. which leads to the bottom line question was a great deal overlooked because this will say medical person in a specialty which there is a shortage.

mr. secretary? >> [inaudible] mr. chairman, i paused just for a minute because i am trying to reflect on how much my answer takes me into a discussion of an area we've covered in the anned rather than their report. >> do your best. >> thanks for the encouragement. but i think we can say in general as to the way officers are evaluated especially medical officers and the way that is reported, that we have concluded and have said to the secretary of defense is this, first the disconnect you know it is correct. that is what we mean when we say the policies were not applied,

that things witnessed or not always reported where they needed to be reported and that in fact the contradictory indications. and that with respect to the second, and we recommend to the secretary defense that he take some public steps about this that we had to say to the force or he had to say to the forced, the department has to say to the force evaluations make a difference, and we can't do the job of leading were protecting against threats if honest evaluations are not done by those who have the duty, the information and the authority to do so. >> at -- admiral? >> a major piece of this is what is part of the record.

and our report we don't tell the secretary defense what parts to make, what should go into the record. we say when he asks us for gaps and weaknesses and so we said look, if an individual's track history doesn't stay with them, that leaves you open to potential weakness in gas. so there are certain things that are required by regulation that cannot move from station to station with an individual. that is something that needs to be looked at. with regard to the issue of performance appraisal, we all know the performance appraisal is a challenge. in any environment. that said, we use specific terms to say things we want to come vote. we didn't just use the term leadership. we use the term officer ship. if you look on page six and seven of our report we say specifically what we think

happened here. we believe that some of the signs were clearly messed or they were ignored. i can't tell you which, and i can't go further than that because of the nature of the restrictions that -- the information that is in the restricted annex. but there is no doubt in my mind or secretary west's mind that there are issues here and if there were not so we would not have said that to the secretary defense. with regard to the intelligence matters -- we did not do the intelligence review. the president had already outlined and authorized a review and we were giving specific guidance do not interfere. with that said, mr. chairman, since the review team began this action there's been a number of things in the public domain that tell us there is agreement that the dissemination of information

process needs to be improved and there was a release on friday by the fbi that talked about the improvements that are clean to be made and are being made in cooperation with the department of defense. our encouragement was this: we didn't tell the mix ackley how to do this. by the way we don't do policy. we were reviewing policy. you want people that are going to do policy to be confirmed by the congress and not people that were called on to do this in a matter of a few weeks i believe, in fact ensure of that having been there. so, what i'm suggesting is we suggest it will whatever the outcome is what needs to be done is to ensure the right information gets in the hands of the operational commanders. give them a chance to connect the dots.

>> thank you very much. mr. mckeon. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i asked an animus consent the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess be allowed to participate in today's hearing. after all committee members have had an opportunity to ask a question. >> without objection. >> thank you mr. secretary, admiral, the concern i think all of us feel probably most keenly is are there other potential threats? do we have other potential people that are in the system and the system is not adequately working to find them and are we open to further problems such as we've seen? the report was strangely silent on whether or not the major gave any clear evidence of his

radicalization or whether there were any substantive clues about that radicalization that is supervisors should have acted upon. we know from the media reports of at least three instances he acted in a matter in hindsight negative have raised concerns about his allegiance to the united states and possibly prompted action by his supervisors. his statement that the sharia law a trumped the constitution, his religious discussions with patients and his presentation to his colleagues that equated suicide bombers to service membered who died for this nation. what substantive evidence to your review turn up regarding major hassan's actions or statements the gate or should have given his supervisors any indication of his radicalization to what degree did the three instances i cited in my opening to this question i arouse concern by major hassan's supervisors about the appropriateness of such statements or actions and what

was done with regard to those concerns? and what policies, practices, and procedures limited or blocked the ability of major hassan's supervisors to appropriately assess his developing radicalization? and then i am concerned if political correctness was involved here and if the need for psychiatrists maybe beat us overlook some things. those are kind of my major concerns. >> mr. mckeon, let me try and answer that and i will try to insert remembering that there is a military and justice investigation under way and i need to be careful not to deal in evidence that will be used. first of all, let me say that overall i believe in their restricted annex you will find a

discussion of the items you mentioned. but on the question of whether the signals were missed, whether there were indications let me say this, we have said in the open report in our chapter we devoted and also in our executive summary and vacca just heard admiral clark referred to that again, some signs were messed, others appeared to have been ignored. the fact is that there was evidence and that is why we are referring to four or science for senior officials to note and react to. we explained those in specifics in flat annex, and our concern is yes there are policies in place that should have made the reaction to them possible. we should make it reaction possible throughout the force. and yet we have indications they

were not acted upon, the need for the proper recording in either ssaer or the oer, and the ssaer are used all the military schools, that is how we evaluate them both academically and as officers, to have those accurately reflect what is happening is an important tool for telling future commanders what has happened but also for making judgments on those officers as they progress. second i would add this -- again as perhaps important as anything once recorded the information needs to get to the people who will have to make decisions.

i think admiral clark pointed out the fact we have several policies that say and we mentioned this in the report, practices that keep us from keeping certain kinds of information beyond the period in the person's life and service members's life at which that is recorded. if there has been alcohol, drug use, rehabilitation program, the information is not for worded in the final. it is no longer in there after that is done and there is other kind of information which we have policies that specifically exclude keeping them and making them available in the files that go forward. we recommended that be looked at. there are times when it is important for us to be aware of changed circumstances and the circumstances we face today and i thought were going to ask about this when you first mentioned it, could this happen again. could an incident happen again. as long as there are humans serving in the armed forces of

the united states or anywhere else in government and throughout society, self radicalization, becoming onset because you believe you have been inappropriately treated in your workplace, prejudice of one sort or another can lead to violent acts. we need to equip the force and commanders with ability to detect by giving them the information you referred to and by equipping them to act on it. >> if i may, the things you addressed, alcohol or other prior things are things that affect the work place don't address the radicalization and that seems to be the real crux of this and we need to be mindful as we move forward. admiral?

>> may i just say you're right and i should have mentioned the fact those are also indicators. that is what gets said, how one speaks to one's colleagues and professes a view that suggests a willingness to act on that. >> i concur with your assessment also. i align myself with secretary west's, and i won't repeat all of those. i could answer your question in a very fulsome way if we were in a closed session but we are not and would welcome the opportunity to do that because there are real answers to your questions and those will be spoken to in the right time when there is authorization to release that information. let me make one comment about

your question are there others help their to become -- are there others out there. i want to make sure why it is clear don't have an answer to that. that the answer to that would not be evident by researching the clarity and the viability of the policies. which is fundamentally what we have done. the secretary asks us to find these weaknesses on the court and structure and architecture and so i don't know how to express the birth of that over the course of this whole discussion. it sometimes doesn't come through with just the way the written word comes out. but that answer specifically has to come from the collection of intel sources. we did not pursue in tell at all by direction and we were not seeking to, our task was sent -- he sent us a different direction. he sent us there specifically to

help equip the rest of the department so they wouldn't go off on a broad sam hunt the good but the crosshairs on the areas they had to go after first. and so as a follow-on to the things secretary west addressed, it is clear your question about what is the nature and breadth of this look like, that question has to be answered and we didn't go there because we are not interested, we went there because there was our task and i really do not have an answer for you. that said, the things secretary west commented on we do believe that there are indicators and those indicators need to be examined because the issue of self radicalization is one that is new to us in many ways and i listed that a series of kinds of

behaviors that could lead to violence that are well documented in policy and directives and programs. such is not the case when we talk about self radicalization. that needs to be addressed with speed. -- before, mr. chairman. >> we are now into the five minute rule. mr. ortiz. -- before, mr. sherman. secretary west, thank you for joining and for your service. maybe we can go back and look and you can inform the committee as to how he got this promotion, this evaluation and the performance now. was he promoted by a board? how do you promote him from the captain to a officer major? were there several members sitting on this board who recommend that he be promoted?

beebee you can give an insight into how was done. >> congressman ortiz, again, trying to be mindful on our part that we have explored this in some detail in the restricted annex which i believe is available to you and we want to be careful not to delve and talk in this session things the way of an effect on the military justice investigation, the standard practice for consideration for military medical officers and the army is yes they are promoted and considered by the promotion board. the board considers the officer evaluation reports, and also the record from the academic training, ssaer as i mentioned, so they make their judgments based on that and that happens in the case of every medical

officer and so it would have happened in the case of this officer. >> there are several members sitting on this board. were they allowed to come up with a dissenting view that maybe they were not all in agreement that this individual should have been promoted? >> these boards are controlled by statutory directive. in my time as the chief this was one of the very important things that the secretary of the surface and myself considered including specifics about the guidance that went to the board and the board than functions in accordance with guidance it gets from the service secretary. the statutory process precludes, controls is a better way to say, controls in very exact terms the kind of information that can come before the board.

and this is to insure everybody has an equal opportunity to promotion and, you know, all the things that goes with that and has been developed over the years. if you take our comment on page six and seven of the report, when we comment on the effect it is our view some things were missed or overlooked, that can give you a glimpse inside with our opinion is and again, i would love -- i don't like the idea i'm inhibited in what i'm allowed to talk about in an open hearing about this. i wish it was otherwise. but i would just say to you this: you can take comfort in the process if that communicates to you. you can take comfort in the process. what they are allowed to review is what is specifically in the oer or any material the member chooses to put in front of the

board and there's a very exact process that has to occur if there's other information going to be placed in front of the board. and that is all i can say in an open hearing with the restricted nature. >> understand, and the reason i ask this, i just wonder whether in this board met and maybe if they were dissenting views if they were able to filter all the way to the chain of command. >> i can only repeat what i said. i wish i can say more. >> thank you. i don't want to take too much time but thank you for your service and i hope we can get to the bottom of it and the reason i'm asking this question is because not only should we be worried about our soldiers who might turn out to be bad apples like this guy, but we saw the killings on the cia in afghanistan, you know, and we are just wondering whether we

can also come and maybe this is not in your mind, you looking to part of it but i wonder about our service people in afghanistan and iraq hoping we don't get those bad people to be able to infiltrate our soldiers where they will do something like this. mr. chairman, thank you for the time. >> thank the gentleman from texas. mr. marlo from maryland. >> thank you both very much for your service. i have a button with a message that i cherish. it was given to me by help baker, a principal architect of the guidance system for the patriot missile. i knew the man primarily in his role as an unapologetic defender of the second amendment right and i never saw him without his hat and this button that said a politically incorrect and proud of it.

indeed, the button was such a part of the happen baker that i attended his funeral and was pleased to see that it was there on him in his casket. i probably should be wearing that today because maybe i'm going to be politically incorrect. i suspect that these officers might have felt they were following policy because they had to policies which were in conflict. one of them was to be politically correct and not appear to profile. the other was to offer an honest and confident evaluation of the performance of the officer. now one cannot get inside their head but i would suspect they may have given more weight to the politically correct policy you don't profile. by the way we do profile and people understand that. if you are looking for a rapist you are probably not looking too

hard preadolescent males and women. i suspect if the ethnicity had been different here that the policies might have been applied differently. how do we get a proper balance between political correctness and the obligation to honestly and fairly evaluate? >> do you care who you get your answer from come? may i take that? were you are addressing that to me or to the admiral? >> both of you. >> okay. i will take it on. i hear the term politically correct all the time. and i know that people think they know what it means, but i am also sure. i think what we are talking about quite frankly is how do we do what we have to do to get the information to spot a people who

are likely to harm our service members on the one hand versus how are we careful that in so doing we are not taking steps that lump people went to a group and keep us not from favoring the them but from attributing characteristics to the entire group and thus convicting one person before we've actually learned what is happening with that person. and so i don't think there is a real tension here but we can't deal with if we realize this, in a work force we are already handicapped in trying to identify potential violators by the fact is a member of the military family, he or she is a member of the family who wears a uniform they have access to the installations. they don't get searched. they have their cards and they put them in and they get in and so the way that we stop them is to identify them ahead of time.

and i think if we had made these recommendations and our report that we can look for objective indicators. if you have objective indicators, a few catalog them and that is why we recommended an ongoing organization to do just like that, but the indicators a person might commit violence, make them available and make our decisions on the basis we will be able to get the job done and we won't have to worry about any other short-term expression that suggests we are not looking at the group because they are in a group. >> that the average american would like us to be a little more politically incorrect in circumstances like this if it is coming to result in better security. would you agree, admiral? >> i absolutely believe that the people of the united states

expect and should expect that we will pursue the best security posture then we know how to possess. and certainly, our people deserve nothing less. mauney take on this is that this and especially challenging, and this is why i refer to the secretary defense again commenting on the nature, the rapidly changing environment in the last decade, you know, the fourth generation worker scheme is our enemy in tends to go after persons in the seams and then the inside internal threat is an area our review suggests very clearly that we have done an inadequate job by identifying and fees' indicators. our focus is on identifying the the behavior so weak he quit and enable the commanders. i love one of the things the

chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said the day our panel review was set up one of the reporters said admiral, how do you look at this and he came out clear and cold and sick i expect commanders and organizations to understand what is going on and for the chain of command to be functioning in a vibrant way, and that's the answer to these kind of problems and challenges. the reality is that the guidance on what kind of behavior to look for for the self radicalized and to which will are inadequate. i will tell you already some of the have been published. i saw a review of a message to win out in the united states army yesterday. we have to move fast and it is is the requirement. >> thank the gentleman. dr. snyder. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary west and admiral

gouarec it's great to see you again. you've been great public servants through the many years. i want to ask this issue that has come up in the discussions about the fact we have an annex which i did go and look at in this discussion. i think this is going to be a frustrating experience trying to figure out where to go for the american people and policy makers if we have this dichotomy between the discussion here, kind of generalities' versus talking about a specific case, and i need to understand by the way that is not a classified document it is official use only. it is one thing if we had in that room the criminal case filed, the interrogation, whatever is there. but in fact what you are conducting is an administrative proceeding based on the records in the military in order to problem solve and it's not clear to me why the american people are not entitled to see because

it's part of the problem solving process these on redacted refuse or academic report or college transcripts or whatever is in the record as part of an administrative proceeding. you're not putting those out there. he did this performance in college and we concluded then based on that that he's a criminal. help me with that. here's the problem we are going to have, you said it's not the right time to have this discussion. when is the right time going to be? will it be after i assume there will be a criminal trial, that may not be. there can still be at adjudication of, i am not talking about this case but there's always going to be a potential question of somebody mentally fit to go to trial where will this go. i don't know what this time is going to be for the american people and people in texas and

military to have the kind of public discussion of the specific case. if i was a family member i would not be satisfied with go to the annex and we will discuss it. i would want to know what happened with this specific case so when is the right time, where is the advice coming from that you cannot in an administrative proceeding with the documents out there, things that occurred before the criminal investigation, so where does your edify scum from and what was your specific advice for the annex for the specific documents? >> congressman, there are several aspects but i think i can do them quickly. first the specific question where is that advice coming from it is coming from the dod lawyers. second, would it be based on? it is based on a couple of things. first, i guess, the annex is fouo.

much of it is from officer efficiency reports and the like. those are specifically protected. second, the overall concern what is contained will have an affect on the military justice proceedings and on that score we have already been warned not to discuss that openly. it is available to you. third, i would point out even the annex as you pointed out as redacted is only redacted as to names. everything else we wrote is there to disclose what happens, what we found out, what we recommended, what's in the record, disclosed in the annex and then the question when is the time to discuss it? is, you've given the answer. it's after the conclusion of a military justice which may be a trial. i assume that is what everyone is preparing for but i don't know. i would make one other observation. we were not asked to find out what happened.

we were asked to shore of the secretary defense there were not gaps or deficiencies in the policies, practices or procedures the would help us either identify such a person and deal with them or protect the forests or be prepared for mass casualties coming forward or support military care givers and also to look specifically at how the army applied its policies -- >> that is where the gap here is today because we can go back there and try to sort this out in the annex but it will be a frustrating thing for the american people i think to sort out where these policies apply to the policies it would be different. i think lawyers for the most part will always say this may upset the criminal trial but we have to be sure we are offering of nsl brought the of protection that it's going to keep us from making america a safer, our military seaver and avoiding these kinds of tragedies and i'm

not clear we are at that point today with the publication of this amex. >> may i make one very quick observation? in order for the american people to understand this part of the process we had five teams and one of the team still with the issues as prescribed in the terms of reference and secretary west indicated three the look up the gaps, the weaknesses, the application here. so that it is clear we thought through the longer term process the person that headed the effort to was a four-star general from the united states army, and it is not just coincidence that he has already been given the task by the secretary of the army. we recommended the secretary of defense refer the findings we have in hand to the secretary of the army and the secretary of the armenian to the same officer to proceed with the case in order to speed the process and a rapidly come to a judgment of

accountability. >> thank the gentleman. mr. jones. >> thank you very much, and to the admiral and the gentleman, thank you ferre much. i had the privilege of being with you in previous years when you were in uniform and it is a pleasure to see you today in this important work that you have done to try to get to the bottom of this tragedy that happened at fort hood. i saw today in the express' and it's not earthshaking news but hassan sanitize history to really want to take my question in a little different direction. i know those who evaluated his performances are probably hurting very badly because maybe they did not see what they should have seen were reported with the d.c. and his actions. but i am very -- i want to know

the environment where these psychiatrists in the military were working and let me explain that. there is no excuse for what happened. and you have already pointed that out and have made recommendations that i know the secretary defense and secretary of the army will follow many of these recommendations. i know there's an investigation going on by the military as it relates to what criminal actions might have taken place. but is there an environment where we have more and more of our troops with ptsd and more and more of our troops with tbi and other mental problems from going to plant after the planet after deployment? is there an environment that because we have not as many psychiatrists as we need in the

military but maybe, and this would be sure opinion. it probably is not anything you've looked at in the investigation, but is an environment that we need to have these psychiatrists, we need to have these psychiatrists to help the families and help the military and so maybe, and that is no excuse, maybe what should have been a red flag was not a red flag? i would ask both of you would respond to that. >> i think i will give you my answer rather briefly, congressman and then let admiral clark speak. i think that you very will articulate what could have been a possibility or more specifically what could be a situation that we face today. >> you identify one of the things i'm not sure people understand and our report says the united states military has had people in the combat zone for 20 years, virtually 20

years. and so, we all need to understand there is stress on the force. one of the things -- i agree with you that these are realities and these people -- we can to the conclusion and by the way the secretary gave specific instructions to go look at the care of the health care givers and we have and -- haven't addressed that yet, the conviction they largely have been treated as a separate group. we believe the need to be treated just like the combatants. the need the same kinds of programs and support and all that goes with it. and so we did not look at tbi, ptsd. the secretary had the view he didn't need our view -- that he must've looked at that and had but one where he needed it.

and so, we came to the conclusion these people are a critical part of the readiness posture that the united states military and so great care is required and programs to support them are required. >> mr. chairman i want to thank both gentlemen for being here today for their response to each member's question and thank you for your answers to my question. i hope that my colleagues did here as i think i heard your response very clearly. thank you. with that i will yield back my time. >> i thank the gentleman. ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman and gentlemen once again for your continued service to the country. i want to ask you from a different angle something that i may be wrong on the and it may be something to think and and don't know whether you had a

chance to look at this incident. i think it's important for us to understand how we protect our forces internally as you said but i'm looking more at this as another ministry official and certainly one section was what my colleague just talked about our need for psychologists and people in the military and how difficult it is to get them in their. but i'm looking more at a sense of a supervisor to somebody who works in this particular case, the alleged attacker because on the day that this happen as i was driving in the car i heard a radio station where one of the direct supervisors for the last year and a half he had now retired, a colonel who had retired had been out of the military about six months was on

radio talk show talking about this alleged attacker and i don't know if you all got that interview, but he went on and on for about half an hour about all the science he had seen with respect to this alleged attacker and how he never reported it. sorry think it comes down to two things. one, it is always difficult as a manager and if you go and ask for a look at the surveys where people are asked what is the toughest part of being a manager is the firing of people or the demoting people were turning in people. it doesn't make anyone feel good so there's that human reaction of, you know, i've got somebody here was crazy, and we tend to move them on versus todd wi-fi durham and then there's the legal issues how to fire someone

and how difficult is it to do that. my question is did you take a look at that especially with this whole issue of how much you can damage the career of somebody who is -- has made the military career and certainly -- i have heard from several soldiers of personal experiences where they are going to seek some help with a psychologist for example within the military. has come back to damage their career so much to the point they had to get out of the military. so, were you given that information about this talk show and this particular gentleman and how he preferred and solve these signs and never did anything about it and the only thing this gentleman's it is acquitted in tweet fast enough to retire because this guy was a walking time bomb and more importantly when you look at

administrative proceedings do you have any recommendations of how we get to the basic idea manager but i don't want to hurt this guy but he might be a crackpot? >> i wish to goodness that i was not constrained about talking about this. you might imagine how i feel about this having served 37 years and making the judgment that we have made here. we set to use the word officers chip. we were not just talking about the alleged perpetrator. they were responsible for developing him and educating him and channing him and developing him in the field of medicine and as an officer in the united states army. our impression and the words and our report are as straightforward as we can save

them. it needed work. >> any comment, secretary? >> i would add this with respect to your question about having heard or known something about that conversation you had come it's not specifically referred to in our report or any of the information furnished to us. i have no doubt the colonel with whom he spoke was interviewed and that the results of that interview are part of what is in the annex so i don't think what the colonel had to say if he was a supervisor had been lost or missed it's now been become part of the record for the military justice review frankly. second, on the broad question how with we are going to -- and i'm rephrasing the house if we are going to pose all of these things designed to get this information and act on it are we sure we are not pushing

commanders and supervisors to damage their careers of those to whom they may make a hasty judgment or based on not enough information and that has certainly been there and the discussion especially in the team did the work this supports the chapter which is on personnel policies and practices and in fact we have a section called barriers to taking action on the information because there is a tension. i had one officer who is in this room who talked quite candid about the tough decisions the commander makes in deciding when to move on information and when not to. what will that do to the career the person is it fair to record it? and this is even part of the policies what we do or do not pass along from command to command, from a section of a

person's career to the next station. all of those concerns are in there and yes, you're right we are in this report is pushing for a real look at the very balance so the danger you mentioned is quite possibly there because we are saying it may be more important under the circumstances we face today to look harder for the information and once we get it to consider what we need to make sure it is passed to the right places and perhaps acted on the danger that you mentioned is there. >> mr. aiken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the hearing may be frustrating for some people, but maybe to the witness is because some of you feel somewhat constrained by you've been told to talk in a particular specific area. fortunately we are not constrained and don't seem to fit in the box very easily any

way and the term political correctness has come up in number of times this morning and it seems to be high on my mind. i guess it seems to me standing back looking at the forest from a difference debate could distance you have a guide that is muzzled but we also know some percentage of these guys are radical and star wars in the middle east and things and blow people up but we've got one of them that works for the military and he got radical and shot a bunch of people. that seems the symbol face. maybe that is not politically correct but it seems to be the fact saw my question is as i read through the report there's nothing that makes reference to theology or religion or one drives this guy and i suppose maybe there's a difference of opinion may be some people think somebody committed a crime like somebody goes crazy in the opposite decides to shoot people and the other prospective is we are dealing with an act of war torturo where somebody because of an ideological motivation

decided something tripped him and was time to do wholley war. you have been tasked the, gentlemen, looking a procedure and seems the procedure would have to take a look at people who are potential time bombs even if it is a time bomb motivated by theology or by some sort of a radical religious view. ..

>> your relocate to say we will look at this more closely. >> i will not opined legally but we recommend we look at all indicators. >> is it an act of terror? >> i will pass on that one. i was not asked to do that.

the people who died were terrified and those who were wounded were to. >> thank you. secretary has answered the question right. my ear the focus in my opening statement about violence and the indicators is all about the subjects you are racing to us. i would notched down different kinds of categories of people. the focus is islands. we don't care where it came from we want recommendations that said go look at this. with self radicalization the indicators are not understood therefore we do not react well. we have not spend the time to talk and the department what they are. just friday the army is publishing the bus that they have got today.

the recommendations says you need to put together a group of people and look at this long term. it is not a single point* solution. >> my clock is running tight. i still think we have this figured out. parts of what concerns me after this event at its fort hood they have this guy speaking who is part of the islamic society in america and according to the justice department is connected with the muslim brotherhood he is a money launderer, radical islamist and speaking to make people feel better at fort hood about islam. we need to build in some how the political correctness is overriding but common-sense there are factors that drive behavior that has to be built into our model and i am out of time. >> may i respond?

>> this is a two-way street. we know we have over 3500 islamic leaders surveying faithfully. the street runs both ways. >> i think the gentlemen's been i think you. admiral clark and general secretary thank you for taking on this side of it. secretary west come it is my understanding prior to this you were on the walter reed, the group that looks at the independent review group. it is my understanding and it picks up on something looking at the mental health professionals are providers over all, they look at the

issue of provider the 58. medical provider fatigue. what can tell -- what can you tell us about that instance and reduce, the questions that were raised. have we made progress? adderall product -- general west said yes. what have we done? >> i was going to answer and tell you said what have we done? [laughter] we need to give you that answer more specifically then i can today. i remember sitting in a hearing two years ago at bethesda medical center. and seeing health care professionals from officers stand up and say it is good you are here and looking at the care that we provide for

those who have been served and wounded. keep in mind there is fatigue for the caregivers because if we dark-- are not hold in body and soul and mind and do not deliver the best of care, it is one of the reasons why i believe secretary included in the terms of reference. whatever is done, the more needs to be done is. >> do have any way of knowing how we monitor that? >> who oversees that to understand the extent of what people are in tough positions? >> as professionals they have periodic surveys but this may happen one of the first that have this must chance to look at it.

that is why we devote so much time. but i don't know how the ongoing basis it is monitored other than of the way they are assessed as they develop professionally. >> i will add one thought. it is a real challenge because each deploy the chain of command do not go with them in the medical sense very often. they go as individuals. we examined the policies. what we see, when the person gets home, who assumes responsibility? that needs to be examined and also look at policies in the way they put in place. in order to care for the combatants there is a policy that in order to provide continuity of care, they go with them to their home. that extends to their

deployment and there is a cost to that. i am not saying it is the wrong policy. it might be right but somebody has to examine this. we have not treated the medical personnel like the combat since in terms of the programs and processes to support them. >> thank you. i know there are some processes of inventing physicians as part of tricare but there may be some downside. the personnel issue has been about the appropriate judgment of the officer shipwreck wrote we know and not necessarily in the military but the school -- medical school generally it is difficult to perhaps inhibit a person's

career in some way and it has downsize in terms of the personnel practices that you have to go through. part of what you're looking at to say how many times have we intervened to suggest people are in the wrong place? is that something as you look at this you have identified yes, we see this is working? or it does not look as if instances adderall? >> i expect phase two examination rate day drill deeper have to look at this. we raise the foundation to look at and our report. what i believe past happen is they need to understand the process that they have. what we found, the educational side, the dark

side, there is one review group, then the officer side. the secretary and i were having a discussion talking about the specifics of this and wondering about the what ifs. there is no way to know, if this counseling have occurred, what was it like? the core of our institution to grow and develop people, we are proud of what happens when the united states of america serves and the mom and dad and aunts and uncles see how they have grown when they get home. that is the essence of what officer ship is about and creating and establishing and enforcing standards. reit suggests that is looked at. >> mr. "forbes"? dume i think you mr. chairman and secretary and admiral. thanks for your service

procure both good and decent men who have done a good things for our country. sometimes reseated a the american people oftentimes feel that we don't ask the questions we wish you -- they wish we would ask. basic questions you want to ask not what is on our minds. they have indicated they will not tolerate that. we try to get our arms around the questions of concern. this is what they seem to say to me. they are concerned about individual acts of violence. but even more concerned to them is when those individual acts of violence have an association or support from a more orchestrated longstanding patterns of violence woven into a tapestry of concern to the american people. it seems to be missing from your report. let me be specific. i'd want to focus on the

individual shooter but if he was a republican and nobody would have argued the republican party cause him to do this. but as mentioned earlier, there are radical muslim extremist groups with the objective indicators because we hear them on our streets interviewed and read the threads and are corroborated in acts of terrorism. my question is, going back to the political correctness issue and want to give you a definition, the failure to save our do something that might offend anyone, even if that statement is true and can be beneficial stated. my question is not to the shooter but why did we ask the question in this report whether that political correctness kept any of the military personnel from

applying their policies the way they would have done? that looks like a question that should have been asked and did we ask them if that kept them were impacted them from applying policies? >> the question that we asked was, did you apply the policies, the question we asked in a review of the facts that we got, was if not, can we tell why not? that is another way of getting to your ears. you will see about three paragraphs that go to that. what kinds of considerations were being taken into account when they failed to act? i think you'll find we cover your concern. >> my response would be

along the lines coming in the open, we would stress and focus the indicators for prohibited actions and activities. here is the instruction. dot instruction and in our view, it needs work. when i asked myself that question, i probably don't use the words they would use maybe i would or wouldn't buy we were focusing on violence. violence that would generate from any source, do we have it covered? do we have guidelines in place so commanders know the reaches of authority and what indicators they can say that crosses the line and in our view and information

sharing. this is a puzzle that fits together. if they don't have the information that would allow them to connect the dots, they will not get the right answer. our conclusion is these areas require immediate focus. >> we want to get that balance but to get that we have to make certain we're not going to four on one side with policies even by implication are keeping us from getting at the answers we need. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you both for being here. talking about political correctness i don't think that is what this is about. i think it is lack of leadership for common sense or awareness. talking about officer ship, i remember when my husband was the army

officer. you were responsible for everything around you. not just your own behavior responsible to notice and work with others and report. this is a common-sense element that is missing. i would like to focus on at and what will happen to the officers and the people around him? those who saw things? what was the responsibility to each other? country and army? would redoing about them? you can hear training manual after a training manual of the light is not on, it does not matter. i am more concerned, i don't know if it is the unwillingness or an awareness but i am not sure but i worry mostly about that.

most of us would say sure i can add more than one. i am not confuse. and the same thing here with all of the different pieces. we talk about connecting the dots but i don't think you need a whole tapestry to recognize we had a problem. i was upset to hear my colleague talk about somebody to observe that and i am not sure what he did with that but i did not hear the interview but i worry about the rest of us who cannot get to the right answer. can you comment on that? >> and think your comments are very insightful parker of i would be in alignment completely purveyor cannot legislate good behavior. but you do play out by directive standards and guidelines. and leaders takeover. we use the term officership because we want do

differentiate just between leaders in the requirements that the officer has that is beyond what leaders are required to do to create the environment for 6s for people. with regard to suggesting that connection of the dots all had to be done to solve all problems we have not taken that position but said there were indicators that were there. they read their best on page six and seven i spoke to earlier. clearly the essence of the institution is about leadership. i talk about growth and development aspect but then helping people along the road on the growth of development process with the feedback that often

chat -- oftentimes changes their life for their future. that is why i and it new-line minute. that said looking at gaps and weaknesses, we can see things that would make it even more clear have the dots been connected. talking about information sharing not just across the agency's. what happens from command to command? it is capt. local file sen not part of the official record. we believe in order to do with the evolving threat to that the secretary, his words that have evolved in the last decade, with changing threat to what happens when they are a member of the family? we believe you cannot leave a stone unturned part of

that means give them every two will we know how to give them. >> thank you. >> i think i'm good follow the admirals' lead on all of that with respect to page seven of our report. there is no clear indication of the fact we share your view of the responsibilities of leadership of supervisors, officers, when they are being responsible for those under their commander supervision. asking about the opening comments, first, the secretary communicates directly to the force to commanders and all, the necessity to a part of what is happening with those around him under the supervision.

reaching out and seeing and in knowing what was happening to them. how there developing and secondly, effectively how important it is honest incomplete and 80 vibrations from those we are tears arise and be responsible. those are directory for taking responsibility for those of whom you are responsible. >> i think the gentlelady. >> thank you, mr. chairman and gentlemen for your service for being here today. looking at your executive summary i did look at the annex which is useful, but i have some sympathy with what my colleague from arkansas said since it is rejected it would be nice if we could

see it. looking at page six of your report. as directed in terms of reference to be reviewed the succession training and education supervision and perversion of the alleged perpetrator of the incident at fort hood. i know that is how we talk we have the alleged perpetrator and incident but i think most americans say we had a brutal mass murder not an incident. as you pointed out mr. secretary, certainly the victims, those killed and wounded and the fish and -- families and those around were terrorized whether or not that is an act of terror of lawyers need to sort that out. i think following up on the "forbes" comment people recognize the 9/11 commission was correct years ago when it said we have an enemy that is the islamic

extremist. their words. and the concern is we may not be paying attention that the alleged perpetrator i think you're on to something

there. many years ago and i was a second lieutenant in the marines, we were asked to keep a platoon commanders notebook. in that notebook, we had every marines name and number and wife's name and dogs name and kept track of things so we knew who those marines were that were in our platoon. we keep track of them. then because that the word came now you cannot do that because those little notebooks with your comments will be taken away and made public. i think from that time it seemed in the next 25 years that i served and admiral, you served so many more, thank you for that by the way come with the ability to keep track of our men and women has gone further and further away

from the commanders notebook you cannot keep track of major events of those in uniform. i cannot quite track it, but have you made a specific recommendation to do something specific? or is that part of the reference he made for action by the secretary of orme? can you address that? >> >> the part referred to the secretary of the army is the specifics of determining the accountability and take a major as required and stepping forward i believe you were here when we talked about an order to speed the process in which we managers who stands structure and organization with conspiracy and continuity not only collected all of our

information it also does the next phrase parker your comments about the platoon commanders no book reminds me again of what offers a ship is all about. in moscow with the chairman of joint chiefs of staff say i a expect them to know what is going on in the group's. >> really have 20 seconds. but the point* is the officership needs tools and the platoon commanders notebook was part of that. is there a recommendation we take some legislative action that would allow for simplicity sake of the notebook to be reinstated? it is not there now. >> you see a reference zero talking about giving them the tools that they need and the gaps that exist so major's that have incurred because of the

interpretation is what policy review is all about. if it takes the action it is exciting to know that people are ready to the data efforts. >> thank you gentlemen mr. taylor. >> please respond. >> in the back of our report there is an appendix that list subjects 2.eight of the recommendations carries a recommendation of the ability to collect the information and carry it forward. that is part of what you have. second, you mentioned the victims in the wounded were terrorized i think my language was terrified but we knowledge they died and were wounded with courage and honor and dignity. >> the gentleman from

mississippi. >> a want to thank both of your gentlemen for continued service to the nation. this is the first area have appeared to the committee out of uniform see you can speak your mind. could this have happened on your watch? regardless of how you answer, why? and what is the message for those still in uniform? >> since we judged today that the policies and the programs and procedures of our guidance on unauthorized and prohibited activities are an adequate today, would suggest they were inadequately when i served. that is the what and so why. >> and enter specific recommendations? >> focus on the fears. -- behaviors', anything talking about protecting our

people and workplace. focus on the violins indicators. once you do that, it does it include this or that? of course, it does. anything that will create harm for our people. the guidance on the indicators and empower and enable the commander so they can take the action they need and connect the dots. >> did anyone or any co-workers or any of his patients raise an alarm flag and say i think he is dangerous? >> wrote this down at the top of my page. i am constrained. >> i do not think you are. >> i am sorry it. i am. my interpretation, i am. this is not report. >> i am asking new. not the admiral, the

opportunity to talk to the american public, did anybody in his commander patients raise a red flag in this man is dangerous? >> i am representing the work of this review. of you want to invite me back on another day to have discussions of the other topics but i am representing this review and this area of the discussion i restricted and i would be happy to talk about in closed session. >> you are invited back. >> >> first of all, think you both for your long service to the country but i want to start saying how offensive the notion this review and the classification is to the american people. this is another incident of a long pattern of the information withheld from the public that his nine 1/3

to evade -- germane to national security interest or impending on any legal process. i read it. it was a finding of facts to the cause of the event and not to be available to the american public. i think classification of politically embarrassing and that should be top-secret come a secret and politically embarrassing come with a maturity of the information come before this committee that has been classified only because it is politically embarrassing. general casey it said right after the incident after these people were killed it was a great tragedy but it would be a greater tragedy if we overreacted and i think he was referring to the muslim americans who were serving in the military. i served in the cold war and

there was a counter intelligence strategy for what we could detect individuals who had sympathies with those who might be ideologically inclined to our opposition at the time. we had statements we had no organizations that were aligned at that time during the cold war. it would seem to me that we are at war now with the recall of the global war on terror or overseas contingency operations with a version of radical islam that has morphed into a political radiology to declare war on the united states. do you see that we were in fact, able to have a system

of counter intelligence that looks at the linkages and objective patterns of behavior to try to decipher these sympathies with those that are lined as an amazed to this country? >> i think the quick answer is yes. two some extent secretary gates even touched on that idea in his statement the other day when he released the report. we do have to respond and those imperatives include the possibility, that is why we're doing this that an incident can occur again. or worse. several, several different installations and they could be part of a coordinated effort. we need to look at what admiral clark emphasized as

the indicators and then collect them and make them available so people can use them as they evaluate what is happening. >> reinforce my earlier comments. certainly tax collection is authorized in certain circumstances and those are not a partner this committee's work but others in the congress. is in the public domain improvements need to be made in that regard. and that is all about information sharing and i press the point* earlier in response to another question to help commanders connect the dots. >> let me say in closing i served in iraq with united states marine corps 2005/2006 and served with

muslim americans and impressed with their service and dedication to their country and i believe that they would want a counter intelligence operation to rear their prevented there was no question about there loyalty to this country. i think they are a valuable asset to the armed forces of the united states i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman and gentlemen for being here this morning and for the work you have done. i apologize. i have my own hearing so i got here late. but i do want to cover two areas, and if they have been covered, i apologize. but the first is the sharing of information. in terms, i guess, that kind of intelligence we know that

we have and have the capability to evaluate internally, let me start their. what are your recommendations in terms of how much we have not shared and how much we should? >> good to see you again. in the entire area of information sharing the recommendation in the simplest way is to take down the barriers. get rid of them and do it inside the department but certainly with the interagency process. in front of me is immediate fbi release saying a series of things will be done and did your committee at this will be something you look at. other investigations have

occurred, the president chartered the examination of the intelligence process i am sure that is a subject to your other work but my response would be just as to mr. taylor i am not here to represent that report but this report that our recommendation is made the barriers removed. we need to make sure we will hold the commanders responsible and to do that we need to make sure they have the tools sometimes that is a risk assessment tool, other times it is straightforward raw intelligence. remove the barriers is the us and does -- simplest way. >> two problems were addressed in our report the first is amongst ourselves within the department of defense from one commander to another or one command

level to another to get the information that is necessary to make assessments. second biosite alluded to from fbi statements is sharing between agencies. we saw some breakdowns in made some specific recommendations including increasing the operation of the joint terrorism task force. >> i hope we have the opportunity to have your back with you are not constrained the other issue as you probably know, i represent fort bliss and i get a chance to talk to soldiers and their families. i am curious to hear your thoughts. one of the things they are conflicted about is the fact before they deployed they are expected to be depp and

know about the country they are going to. afghanistan and iraq. the incident in fort hood has sent a chill, if you look at the internet to learn more, they may either be kim susceptible to radicalization come i get the wrong information, somebody may be monitoring it that might reflect negatively. how do we draw a balance on making sure that our troops going overseas in these areas are as knowledgeable as possible but don't have this cloud over them about the work they do on their own through the internet? >> that raises a good question. 1/2 to say i don't think we

discuss our and allies that part of the balance if you will to prepare our report. we have now been focusing frankly even in their research, i have to say or those connections come the indicators that we need to be aware of and evaluate. your point* us to the other there is an inhibitor in leading up to prepare is valid. my answer is coming if we pursue our research on the internet with good intentions, that is a likely to show itself. but if there are repeated efforts that lead to a growing radicalization, remember it is not just that but a whole host of them needed to re-read. we should be billed to separate the people who are a danger of self

radicalization and those who are simply preparing to go that may not be the most satisfactory explanation but the best i haven't the moment mr. conway? thank you admiral. good to see if this afternoon. you mentioned understanding the forces of radicalization for self radicalization and chairman in new indicated key factors of fireman's. it is easier said than done. clarity of pine side allows us in most instances to leave it to chance and connect the dots per car surely had we done that we could have stopped whatever of what was involved. but through the fog of the

present clarity the ongoing comment day to day, we ought to always try to get better at what every year doing. your report is great but i am concerned senator west you may have just called for a constant surveillance of the internet activity by all of us. do we want to live in a country that creates a surveillance program of thoughts and radius in those activities in a quest to be safe? there is a movie out there where this then it anticipates crime and they go and punish folks who they thought would commit a crime in the future before it was committed. i do not want to build an unrealistic expectation that in a free america where the

protections under the constitution allowed us to think and say and express we don't sacrifice that in the quest to be safe. i don't know if you'll never get there and will now be saved enough i delphi want to live in a world i cannot go to the internet for anonymity to look for things. if i am searching for bombs, but to create the expectation of the american people's mind coming we in fact, in the military could have our people watched so closely cover that an incident will never occur or if it does it would be a spectacular failure of command. i don't know if we can do that. >> i am not sure but i acknowledge that i

understood the congressman's concern by his people. we do advocate looking for the indicators and recording them and having an entity that can make a collection of what kinds of indicators should be looking for? use of the problem i would have with the question because we're not calling for the american people. when they are part of the military family, they enter our facilities and sacrifice. >> some things. that is already established. >> the more they sacrifice in terms of our personal freedoms and privacy is, the less attractive the uniforms will be? >> i think you are right. >> i would love to comment on that. i do not want to align myself with a movie.

[laughter] that is not where i want to go. you don't either broker i have not seen it. but i do believe we could have done better on this one. we want to do as well as we know how to do. the key word is balance. mrs. why we took great care not to define the exact hour comes put to say mr. secretary, as you look at this you need to put the spotlight on. we believe there is first to be harvested. then people in responsible positions make the decision about what the balance will be and we believe that will require everybody to challenge the assumptions and move forward and certainly the congress has a

role to play. >> understanding the radicalization process, if you look at all of the advantages he had, -- , growing up here, how did he decide to do what he did allegedly? i am a cpa, not a lawyer, and i can speak clearly. thank you for your comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think i am the last member so the end of the totem poll. hopefully, i just think that if we are ending here, we need to get back to the beginning and that is what the chairman said and you have seen consistency on both sides of the i/o, the same questions that were raised. on the other side and i think the chairman said it best what we have is a two

issues at the american people in my district are concerned with that deals with the breakdown between communication of the federal agencies, the department of defense, department of army, the fbi, cia or whoever should have known about these or communicating. after 9/11 that is why we have a homeland security so we don't have breakdowns of federal agencies. that is not acceptable. those solutions as we move forward and and stand you are under restriction and i served in fort hood as a former judge advocate and my son was born at the hospital majored hasan worked at. it is emotional for me to sit here. evander standing restrictions.

with the army i say to people cahal -- you are quick to react to mmi initial push back is give the army the benefit of the doubt we're doing things the right way and not purposely doing things to expose people to risk or danger that we can do better. with this review hopefully, that is true and whether or not you can address that specifically we will get better. ask an admiral it if we have the adequate policies those stocks will be connected and we will address them in the future. the one question i do have with that, admiral i don't know if you specifically say you alluded to the fact commanders will be held responsible. i don't know that means

retrospectively because things from this but i don't understand what you mean when if the policy is inadequate and hold commanders responsible how can you hold them responsible if the policy was what it was? >> thank you for the opportunity to clarify. what happens when issues like this come up and hearings are held some of the judgment is to the commander do what he could do with the tools he had? of it is within the ability to have the information required or take the actions or pursue the lines of inquiry, then they are held accountable. if they don't come which is certainly the case we're finding today with policy is inadequate is another story. as a former judge advocate you know, to revise as those that came before you. >> i did not finish my point*. second, what they are may

not have been best with major hasan and how we connect those dots with what is adequate and what we can expect from the commanders moving forward. those are what the people want to know. if i could clean up a few things because i have one minute left. mr. west, absolutely a terrorist act. could happen one of the charges referred whether it is or is not i don't know. premeditated murder and attempted murder charges but within the scope of the law it is centered. i will not question why it was our was not charged. >> we're not there yet. it maybe. >> i want to close with the idea that has been raised a few times with political correctness first is good order and discipline i

disagree with what is said to record all these guys wearing the uniform behind you understand their sacrificing a lot of constitutional rights, that is part of the sacrifice and service. we know that when we signed our name on the dotted line and getting into formation. fact is parts of the deal. it needs to be remembered the supreme court has upheld time and again for the sake of good order and discipline come sacrificing their rates civilians have including political correctness for the sake it might not be all politically correct in the military. it gets to do that to keep us safe. with that i will thank you for your service and testimony. >> very briefly, our report points out that there are differences between

uniformed members and civilians and the department. i've been referred back to the comments early on this is not just an issue in the department of defense. if you look at the kind of threat we're describing we are talking about a challenge as a people. we did not say go change those rules, but we did point* out that is different. if we examine the whole force protection in firing we have to understand and make statements and those are made on balance and the policies have to be defined in the enabling wake going back to the point* to enable the commanders and institutions so they can be the command with the context of good order and discipline and what goes with that. >> final comments?

>> thank you for being here to answer some questions i don't know if we all understand all of that, but it is what it is. i said in my opening statement to the officer takes an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and it also said in my questioning that the media reports we have been given a, one of them is major hasan it made us statement from sure we a lot of the constitution. can you answer that? did he say that? yes or no? >> >> it is in the restricted index in a reference to anything he said it we decided to cite.

>> okay. is somebody is an officer in the armed services and they make a statement such as i quoted that would indicate opposition to the oath they took as an officer, why would they then have a right to be promoted to higher rank? or why are they left as an officer in the service? >> it is fair to say statements like that are indicators that ought not the best and taken into account to make decisions on precisely what you say. >> thank you very much. >> may as a clarify i did not say whether that was in their restricted and exploit and the comments that we did include are in that section and i personally would enjoy the discussion on that

particular subject. >> let me ask, but in summary, if you agree with my comments. that we have all been frustrated by our inability to discuss all aspects of the shooting at fort hood some things are not clear. more days to be done to identify and document behavior that suggested individual may present a danger and carefully examined the new tools were authorities need to address this. do you agree? >> hi all line completely with your word. >> think zero. >> we also heard there is a failure and what the independent review described as officers ship that the least in the case of major his son, the

military officers failed to document his performance and abilities and his military the aviation. do you agree? >> that is greater detail and then we said. we said they failed to apply army policies to the perpetrator. and there were inconsistencies with what they wrote to. >> admiral? >> secretary west is correct. >> let me ask a last question. i think it is very important. your term, officership, i think across the board, those in uniform should fully understand that term. what each of you have given it a definition of that term one more time? >> i will let the admiral

clark go first. he goes most often. >> we talked about it at length inside our review. [laughter] just a couple of days ago staff member provided me with the instruction that has in it that happens to be from the new rotor -- uniformed services university of health science and we can provide it to you. >> would you like that to be part of the record? >> that is fine. without objection. i a agree with everything that is in here and it talks about all the elements that talks about the commissioner in talks about upholding the constitution and that both and the standards and all of the things we would expect that go with leadership and a person who decides to live a lifestyle of service

supporting the goals and objectives and principles and values of the united states of america. >> thank you. all members of the committee thank you for your service on this panel, your leadership and of course, but the fact you have been suchutstanding american and the jurors in the past. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations]

. .

now, south carolina governor mark sanford's final state of the state address. in 2009 governor sanford admitted to having an durham marital affair. after leaving the country without informing state officials. in number of legislators have called for his resignation and lawmakers in the state house officially rebuked him last week. the governor spoke the state capitol in columbia, south carolina. >> ladies and gentlemen, constitutional officers and south carolinian is it is an honored to be with you tonight to deliver my view of the state of our state but as i have done in the past i would first ask we pay tribute to those south carolinian who died fighting in the middle east and afghanistan over the past year. their deaths are a reminder to everyone of us of how short and fragile life can be and begs that larger question of what are

we doing to both honor their sacrifice and live the gift of life each one of us has been granted. their service is also a reminder to everyone of us particularly in these trying economic times of how important it is that we look for ways to serve others. there are little things here we can do that can make a big difference as for instance this year as one of their initiatives they decided to make a difference in a community in kenya where in one of the biggest obstacles to life was that which we take for granted, clean water. each member of the congregation was given what looked to be able to love them dewater and the challenge to empty it and resell it was simply by forgoing soft drinks and coffee over the couple of weeks leading up to christmas. 50 cents here and 75 cents a there doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice but a cumulatively it enabled that church to

provide five water purification machines that ultimately would save 15,000 people or provide water for 15,000 people there in central africa. or take more locally, you know, with their green fields and his team at the altar gospel mission are doing in the lives of homeless people just a couple blocks from where we are right now. if every person volunteered just one day a month it would be worth anything the government might do in the way of social service so here in the new year let's recognize many families across the state and across this nation are indeed hurting in these particular economic times, that there is a lot of need out there in some cases unimaginable levels of need as we see the tragedy of he the unfolding. and it begs one simple question. can we follow the soldiers examples looking for ways to surf? in fact under the category of service for the men and women in

this chamber, representative ted pitsor is back from afghanistan. his wife, christina and father are here with us and i would ask you not only offer a round of applause for his service to the country but that you match it with a prayer for his safety and if you like it and christine know what you stand to be recognized? [applause] [applause] >> and finally, the fact that each of the soldiers on a diluted to earlier by in service to their country is once again a reminder freedom is not free and this year's list of heroes goes as follows and out of a point of reference not to become

episcopalian but if you might stand as i read these names i would appreciate it. private first class jason watson, staff sergeant ralf, corporal brough and mcgee, a specialist abraham wheeler iii, lance corporal christopher folks, specialist demetrias filleted, specialist jerry, jr., private first class jeffrey watson. thank you for doing that. i appreciate that. on this topic of thinking i have historically think the state worker someone in the private sector and oftentimes the first lady will come ask them to stand and be recognized for the different contributions and to my what i would like to do for one last time this continue that tradition. first to recognize a steelworker whose representatives of so many who do their work with a recognition or praise.

berry works had tried and tape and will be part of the program at the new facility in north charleston, and i would ask that you join me in recognizing and thanking him for that important work and for frankly presenting so ably all state workers across the state. barry, if he would stand and be recognized i would appreciate that. [applause] [applause] >> we've also been joined tonight by maxine white and artist in the upstate and reminder of the creative talent and innovation found in the private-sector. she reminds me of the ways in which everyone of us south carolinian is can make a difference if we so choose. we don't have to wait for a government program we can go out and do it as she has done so

would you as well join me in welcoming her here to this chamber, maxine if he would stand and be recognized as well. [applause] and finally, if i might, i would single out the first lady not as i did last year in mid recognizing what she had done in saving the taxpayers' money at the swearing house and the mansion but in her will truly phenomenal grayson that she showed the world and the state and the storm i brought to our family and the state at large and here in her absence would you give her a round of applause as well. [applause]

now, never losing the perspective of the taxpayer but me underscore some of those savings geneina created the wearing house and the mansion and lace house are a reminder to every one of us of how we can follow the lead of of working south carolinian is in finding creative ways of doing more with less. doing more with less is what families across the state are doing every day. it is something that is a part of their lives and i would ask each one of us in the government to look for ways to honor those daily decisions being made by the people who pay for government. so with all of that being said the state of our state is we have both enormous challenges and opportunities before us. our economic challenges are in some ways historical in nature but with every great challenge

in life comes an opportunity and the opportunity in this moment is that some changes are possible in these tough economic times they wouldn't be possible in good times. think about it, few companies, to businesses, few nations, states, people change until they have to. we have an environment for change that we have not seen in the seven years i've been here with you. some things will change by virtue of the world economy whether we like them or not but the question in much of this is whether or not we are going to make the change or change is simply going to happen to us and it is my contention for the sake of the future generations we ought to be as deliberate as possible and making changes we believe will create to the people of south carolina. this also brings me to the situation i created with the events of this summer and let me address that one last time. after this speech to those of you i have grown weary i

apologize and rest easy i won't do it again but given what happened and this is my first state of the state since then i am compelled to say i'm sorry one more time for the situation i created and for the way that i put every one of you in this room in a bad spot. i disappointed you, i disappointed my family, i disappointed many across the state and across this nation. i could go down a seemingly unending list of disappointments but do you know what it means? it means i am weak and at times all too human. it means i can only be saved by god's grace and i get that now in ways that i never have. the grace of the people of this state has been none other than overwhelming, and to me it has indeed been a reflection of god's greece. people would come up to me and say you really messed up but sooner or later in life we all do. and the question is how do you get back up.

they would say you messed up but it doesn't take away from some of the good things this administration has done the last seven years. you get back up and finished strong and with god's help that is precisely what i intend to do. and so it is my hope and my prayer we can work to get there this year to make a positive difference in people's lives. the opportunity in all of this is i get it in ways i never have this larger notion of the fact i'm not in charge and these lots get larger articles of faith that some point are with a private conversation. i was raised to stride and push and in the world of politics i thought to a great degree that was what determined success, how hard i worked and how hard i pushed. yet i don't think that anymore. that is not licensed not to shore up and do our part but it is recognition of both higher power and the fact that in politics what will determine

success is more than anything on determined by what to do or what i do but what people do. if their voices and loud on an issue pushing at times as i have at times only guarantees newton's cergol we that says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and we have all seen plenty of that in the last couple of years. so what i pledge to do is work more earnestly to work with people of the state for the changes i asked for last year. i ask the people of south carolina make a loud but respectful noise for change. and i need to be a bitter messenger because if the people push for these changes and are not tone deaf and hearing the will happen and if they don't, they won't. as the people need to do their part, we need to do hours not only in my conversations with the public but in my work with you i need to be a humble

messenger and take joy in the fact our maker can use in perfect people and all walks of life. this very imperfection underscores the grace of others and grace of god and though at times we may try to cover or forget, the imperfections of any of us underscore the degree to which we really are of the people and by the people and it is my hope and prayer this year that we will be for the people in the results that we produce. folks i talk to tell me they could care less about our ability to play double-fault or problems in each other's lives. what they really care about are fixing problems that impact their lives. so it is within that spirit i hope we can come together. it doesn't mean we won't have our differences. we always will get in that we come from different political parties and different political ideologies and parts of the state but we can bridge these differences by committing to work alongside each other to

make meaningful changes in this legislative session. and toward that end we decided to narrow the focus to that which we believed was specific and measurable and achievable in this legislative term. i still have strong opinions on many to do something about unfunded liabilities of the state level and the need for school choice and to cappoli your education costs and more but in this final year we want to suggest the just a few things and hope that this greater focus by me and you and by the people margaret the ensures their passage. accordingly could we make this the year we had just a couple of tools to the tool kit of economic development and jobs? we put in place spending limits so we avoid otherwise inevitable harm to those who both pay for government and those who are served by it? and finally, we make three changes to the structure of our government that i believe will pay tremendous dividends over time in both efficiency and

effectiveness of the south carolina government people alone? boeing's announcement this call was indeed a great news for the 3800 permanent jobs, to those of construction jobs, supply jobs that will come with that it is a single largest economic development in south carolina history and it's actually been named the economic deal of the year in the country. it is again as bobby referenced an example of the way we can work together and produce extraordinary results when we do so. it is interesting to look at the way folks at the private sector and government levels work collaboratively on the project and to make a job of doing so. but as great as those efforts were if the conditions for the business would plant here in south carolina were not a better than the other choices available to them they wouldn't have come here. it is a reminder how every one of us need to work to improve the business conditions of the

state each year and the item we believe is most immediately before us and long overdue is reform the employment security commission. this change is the tool we could add to the toolkit of job growth and economic development in south carolina this year. the in planas secure a commission is yet another separate island of government in south carolina in some ways seems accountable to no one has the trust fund was from a 500 million-dollar balance down to the negative 800 million-dollar balance. if nothing is done here taxes are going to go up on every large and mid-size or small business in south carolina, and i don't believe a tax increase would be good for job creation in the state of south carolina. i am joined in that belief by greg and mickey and others and i think each of these three men for leading the charge on the reform this year in part because

of their efforts the to the senate will be taking up the reform tomorrow and i think leadership in the senate for taking the step come tomorrow. support arnall laid out for the taxpayer and harmful to the business conditions of the state the also in this case heard those searching for a job. bye linking in planas security commission to the efforts of the department of commerce the tse would move into many ways simply processing claims for those unemployed to more actively courted with four of commerce and others to connect those seeking a job with job opportunities in the state. we continue to believe there are other things we can do to improve the economy like raising the lowest in the nation's tax and swapping it with an equal dollar cuts to the corporate income tax. the effect of the change we proposed here is that south carolina ranking on the staid business tax index would move from 20 destination one to six in the united states of america

and i believe a change like that would produce jobs and it is for that reason i applaud what the house did just this week with regard to a package on that very front. i would say regardless though the different merits of the proposal or others in taking just one legislative change the would maximize economic prospects for this year it is esc reform so i ask you all for its passage. and for those of you out there listening, i would ask you again make loud but respectful voice for change on this larger notion of the esc reform. concurrent with the legislative efforts i am committed to working with each one of you the spearheading efforts and department of commerce to maximize every possibility in recruiting jobs and investment to the state. the success that can and boeing's landing in charleston is a reminder how south carolina can win in these economic development contests. in for a running quarterback in

that effort and frankly so many others like it i would ask joe tayler our secretary commerce stand and be recognized. shaking your head right now but you have to be stand to be recognized if he would, joe. [applause] [applause] now, speaking of the landing in charleston tonight we are also joined by marco who is the president and general manager of nihilism planned delivery for boeing and i would ask everybody in the chamber rise to give him a warm south carolina welcome for the difference bowling will make in people's lives as they produce a world-class product called the dream liner. would you stand and be recognized marco. [applause]

[applause] and a fine on light, could i put one more person on the spot, i guess proper protocol would be since you're standing beside me to recognize you for all that did it legislatively in this effort and concurrent with that, hugh, i see you in the corner where you stand and be recognized for all you did in making this happen? [applause] o cadel was fun but getting back to my legislative list i would say secondly can we make this thing here we get off the spending and budget roller-coaster?

to do so we ask this body enact spending limits. in fairness measures aimed in that direction to pass the house a couple of times and once looked awfully close in the senate side. i know plan is committed to the constitutional change as the most lasting way of making concrete the notion of spending limits and i applaud those efforts and what we are simply asking for is your passage of a deal the would limit government growth to population plus inflation and allocate anything beyond this to first pay down the state's huge unfunded liabilities which mind you now or $20 billion, and when this is done to either sit the money aside for a rainy day or return to the taxpayer. the importance of addressing spending issues and unfunded liabilities of law and can be underscore enough. it is the reason i got into politics and realize my convictions on this front at times get old but history has

consistently shown how governments spend their way into oblivion and to into real pain for the very people they supposedly represent. as a starting point i would simply ask you look what we proposed in the budget in addressing unfunded liabilities because i think it is a starting point. on spending limits if your political persuasion as from the right, then they make sense for the way they protect the taxpayer in good times, they help money from going into wants and wishes rather than poorer needs when $1.5 billion of new money comes into the state as it did just a couple years ago. if your political persuasion is from the left, spending limits makes sense for the way they help those, as avoid cutting past mosul and writing the bone when the times are not so good. financial restraint i believe is in many ways impossible without them because as i said repeatedly that the rotary club talks across the state this fall, each as if we have been

having parallel universe conversations here over the last seven years much like what was described from men are from mars and women are from venus on the one hand i was pointing out the spending is absolutely no way on sustainable. i pointed out in each of the previous state of the states and probably one other thousand 61,000 others as well. i didn't have a crystal ball on economic trends i simply heard from a lot of south carolina and on common sense principles they believed the law to apply to government. the trees don't grow to the sky and winter follows summer and the business and economic cycles represent thinking that's been around for a very long time. unfortunately as a nation and by extension as a state to they have forgotten that simple notion for a long time and the unsustainable march we are on in terms of building up the debt has come to an end. so we will face a tremendous deleveraging both as a state and a nation and i said then and

still believe that there is no way to avoid the simple reality. in last year's state of the state i said anybody who said this economic slowdown would be short-lived was missing what i was hearing across the state, and that is people believe things were tough and in some cases they get worse before they get better. i think that if you look at how high forest of dead and spending has grown the last 20 years you would say it is something we have to do something about. now, unfortunately i've been proven right on this notion of the money that we are spending not being sustainable. but in fairness to everyone of u.s. legislators, that was not the decision most immediately before you at the budget time. i say this because the reality of any dollar that comes into the political system is not whether it will be spent but where it will be spent and whether the spending of the

dollar was sustainable are not at that point it becomes an intellectual exercise and budget time when the question before each one of you is do i fight for my district and some of that money coming to the people i represent where do i simply let others spend it? i don't begrudge any of you for doing that which the elected to do in terms of trying to watch out for the people of your district so if we do nothing we are going to be left with the impasse we have found ourselves for seven years. this means future governors if they choose to try to hold the line on spending will durham simply large amounts of political capital and bridges in the process with less than commensurate results or they may punt on the issue of some with consequential results to the taxpayer. doing nothing will read every one of you in the less than ideal position of voting for spending you know is unsustainable as the only way of getting some of that money back to your district and the people that you represent.

doing nothing but perpetuate the peaks of the valleys approach to government spending that we've seen for far too long in this state. during nothing blocks in the spending track that will almost guarantee future tax increases. people are hurting in our state and rightly expect action to be taken but what we do in addressing the jobs and spending issue is very important for the way unsustainable spending can bring even greater harm to the jobs and economy prospects of the state. spending money that we don't have will never be the key to the economic prosperity. this is true of bailouts of washington just as it is true of our own approach to spending. as we have a second opportunity in these trying economic times and that is to pass spending limits. i donner when it will ever happen if it doesn't happen in this budget year and so i join with thousands of others across the state in simply asking that you pass meaningful and real spending limits this year. and if you are not listening, i

would ask that you make again respectful but loud noise for change in this notion of spending limits. while on the topic of spending by would say that there is one other thing we need to do and that is make our voices heard in washington. everyone knows my opinion on the fallacy of stimulus money and my belief that lasting jobs and economic growth can never come from a government bailout. i will restate my beliefs on how damaging those efforts are to the future generations, the american dollar and long term viability of both south carolina and american economies. but there is a new threat to the dollar, to financial stability and to this country is debt is spiralling out of control in washington, d.c.. so-called health care reform will bring immediate damages both to the state and this nation as for instance in south carolina alone it would expand medicaid rolls by over 500,000 people. let me say that again over

500,000 people. it would wind up costing taxpayers in this state more than $1 billion the next ten years and would mean medicaid would grow to be almost 40% of the budget and almost one-third of the population of south carolina would be on medicaid itself. all this means unless people across the state make their voice heard, significant cuts to other parts of government or substantial role as taxes are coming our way. if he were to take just one pearl of wisdom from this talk, and you are out there listening it is all i ask you make your voice heard was in washington or south carolina in improving the environment for jobs growth in the economy. finally in this last year of office, i backed away from some of our more ambitious proposals if you will on government structure and by extension the way things are done in colombia. and instead we are asking for

just three changes that we believe once again are specific and measurable and achievable in this term in moving us toward a more well-balanced thereby more efficient and effective state of government. it's important to remember south carolina government costs about 140% of the national average. our government structure leads in mighty ways to this cost and is something that hurts the businesses and job prospects on believe as well as the taxpayer. three things we believe would move us in a different direction or a department administration, having the governor, lieutenant governor run together on a ticket and allow the people of south carolina to decide whether a whole host of constitutional officers should be elected or appointed. last to the department of administration bill passed the house unanimously before stalling the senate. its premise is we don't need to be the only state in the country that doesn't allow its governor to administer the law we have

administered by the other 49 governors in the united states of america. he would not be given this power to me as i'm gone in 11 months. but for the sake of good government, please give this power to whoever follows me. whether they are republican or democrat, whether male or female give them the tools by which the succeed or fail at the task at hand and then hold them accountable. number two, will you put the governor and lieutenant governor together as a team klaxon to me it makes no sense to have a governor elected by the people and yet the first check on exit french rocket is not the legislative or judicial branches of government but in our state the lieutenant governor who in our state could be of the opposite political party and opposite political persuasion. would it make any sense to have a president and vice president elected with opposing agendas going in the opposite direction? i don't believe it would and i would respectfully ask that you exchange. finally, can we let the people of south carolina decide whether a whole host of constitutional

officers should be appointed or elected? for instance we are the only state in the country that collects its general and we are not asking that you will take a position for or against electing that position. all we are asking is that you that the people of south carolina decided. we are asking you do what was done at the time the lottery when many industry or said they were opposed to the lottery but they believed it was such an important issue that it ought to be decided by the people of south carolina and it is our contention if it can be good enough for a lottery it can be good enough for the taxpayers chance to make decisions on the constitutional framework of the government the owner. i would say that is particularly the case in south carolina when the framework was handed to us in the 1800's based on the fear of black men in politics that is both wrong and outdated. these truths and the need to

change these truths had been recognized by democrats like antoine were vince along with republicans like gary smith or tom young and i think it is vital we do something this year a bill changing the truths. so these are a simple request for this legislative term. i ask for your work on their passage and hope you will call on me to do anything in the respective districts that might help toward that end. i would say i intended to call it quits here but as this is my last day delete christie of the state of me had a few other words of thanks as together we have made changes the last seven years that will make and have made a difference in people's lives. in fact when i ran for office eight years ago, i pledged to work to make south carolina and better place to call home. and when will this work is never done and never completed in today's global competition for jobs and capital and way of life, we have made changes in

each of the areas talked about in the now dustin the campaign. when we talked about the need to improve a chance for a job, the chance to better what we brought home and building a life for a family hour even a job was the key to using one's talent there for how important it was each year we do things to make our business climate more competitive. that is why i would say i thank you for passing the first cut the marginal income-tax rate in south carolina history. as a result of that change, $292 million has already stated the hands of small business people that would have gone to government. it has made a difference how the small businesses could have a job or even survive frankly in these tough economic times. and so if you what i would ask you offer a round of applause to the speaker and the senator who were instrumental in this passage and for that matter where he will stand up? bobby if i could and would you

mind standing up again and where is jim? [applause] >> thank you for doing what you did on that. [applause] i was trying to recognize jam as well because i know he worked hard on that one, too but thank you for passing the largest recurring tax cut in south carolina history. already to eckert $60 million have stayed in the hands of taxpayers and for the difference this will make in people's lives if you wouldn't mind what he once again give speaker harold and letterman a round of applause and for all of you in the senate and house instrumental passing that change to people's pocketbooks and wallets, would you give yourself a round of applause on that one. [applause]

thank you for passing the first toward reform bill of its kind. that bill took us off the list of judicial hellholes and it's the kind of chance instrumental to better link the state's business climate and prospect for jobs so i would ask that you recognize senator larry barton and keto, where are you all? would you stand up, please be recognized. thank you. [applause] thank you for passing the first reforms of workers' compensation system a change like that one is also just the kind of thing a business from the far looking at south carolina takes into consideration. in addition to thinking larry and harry i know scott richardson was a senator back then, scott, would you be stand it to be recognized on that one along with harriet larry? come on, there you are. [applause] thank you for passing things like the small business health

care bill and i would ask you thank senators lowry and mcconnell and representative cato for making that happen if you all are getting tired of standing of -- are you getting tired of the standing of thing? [laughter] we will keep -- i have a couple for you to stand up, here's the interesting thing though, the byproduct of the changes is evident in the record setting matched by 4 billion the year before which was matched by 19 invested in the state since 2003 or for that matter the more than 64,000 more people working today than there were when this administration started back in 2003. these numbers are not at times where we are likely to be but it's important to remember we ranked 14th in the united states of america and in employment growth and ranked ninth in the nation in labor force growth which means a lot of people

voting and leaving the northeast or upper midwest coming to south carolina to seek opportunities. i think it's evident in the decisions of companies like boeing and google and starbucks and eddy thus to put roots in south carolina. it is evident in expansion of bmw or oscar, it is evident in the efforts of on some heroes working to grow and sustain small businesses like southern aluminum and clinton or roofing in some central or that matter donner and estherville. it's evident in a lot of different fronts. we talk about change in the way that colombia works and once again we have this land where we would like to end that we have made real changes and efforts year i thank you. for too long to many votes were not recorded in the chambers and there can be no accountability with out transparency. get niki hanly and najaf and valentine in the house and harvey in the senate led efforts

to change this on the simple belief is an idea was important enough to be voted on by the general assembly of south carolina, it was an idea important enough to be recorded and i thank all of you for when you did to change this and if you wouldn't mind what you get a round of applause to niki and nathan and harvey for spearheading the effort? come on, stand up. [applause] we now have online transparency to allow taxpayers to see more directly how their money is being spent in state government and on the front would you give the comptroller general a round of applause, richard i don't know where you are you up there? he may not be here. he's watching on tv. okay. quote i will give him a round of applause on that one. [applause] we into the competitive grants program and i will leave that

one alone. we ended passthroughs and came with a water faucet and fighting an executive order and court decision to boost but i know they were meaningful steps opening up our political process making it more accountable to the taxpayer. thank you for what you did here. even in the ethics committee said it couldn't be done back in 2005 we found a way to begin online disclosure so that citizens could better see where money was coming from and going to in campaigns. we pass campaign finance reform. i had been vetoed twice during the previous administration and its passage and the wild west practice of on a limited and undisclosed amounts of money coming to a political party or political caucus and i would particularly thank jim harrison and mccaul will once again for their efforts here. thank you for what you did on that one. can we give a round of applause? i know you're getting weary of it. why not? [applause] i would thank for passing steps

to improving our governmental structure that yield better results. think about this the department of transportation had not changed since 1919 and changes mean more money will go to the places of congestion and need rather than where there are fewer cars and much more on political power. larry did a great job on that one and where is annette? stand up if you wouldn't be recognized for what you did on that one. [applause] you know the dmv story. it's important to think about the impact of people's lives on this one. we only have so much time here on earth and you can spend doing something you love or spend it on the dmv. waite times have gone from on average 66 minutes down to 16 minutes and that kind of change matters directly impacting

somebody's life and for what greg did and speaker wilkins an what we emphasize this for what the staff did in increasing and fostering change would you give them a round of applause as well. [applause] we talked about improving quality-of-life, and for me and so many others this is an important measure to the look and feel of our state and that is why i think particularly pride if you want to call it that in fact more land has been set aside during this governorship than any other in south carolina history. there's 153,000 acres will pay dividends economically in attracting and retaining people in the state and giving them a glimpse of the splendor that keeps so many of us here. i think what chip still deserves credit for what he did with conservation banks if you could recognize my old friend,

fishing, hunting partner, list if you would stand and be recognized i would appreciate. [applause] i would say the quality-of-life begins with life itself. and so i went to thank each one of you for working to pass the dui reforms. over the course of this administration the fatalities due to drinking and driving have decreased by about one third which means more than 100 people each year are able to continue in this difficult life and that would not have happened without the changes you all made so when you join me in thanking those three? where are the others? [applause] do you know we passed one of the toughest immigration reform bills in the country? it was based on the simple

notion if you're going to have rules we all ought to play by the rules and it's made a difference for the families across the states and i would once again thank chip and jim harrison and mcconnell for what they did on this one. if you live on or near the coast some would define quality-of-life as able to buy insurance for your house. the coast winter and still protect taxpayers in the middle and upstate from holding the bag on paying for storm damages as is now the case in the government-run program done in florida. as we walk in wal-mart we never get the price we want the we would get a better price as if there was no competition. this bill of the private sector to work and i would thank not only members of the task force would once again nikki and harry for what they did in advancing that one. it to you want to stand again or want us to class at you? we are going to clap at you. all right. [applause] we talked about improving

education, and about we have a fight on this one. but as a result of all that back-and-forth on this administration's core belief that every parent ought to have an opportunity to decide which school works best for them and their child for the choice more had been offered. we now have virtual schools and classrooms that allows someone in the rural south carolina to get educational expertise from a different chorus of carolina and i know that rex and chip once again worked hard on that one and showed leadership moving that through. we passed a statewide school bill fellows the first of its kind in the nation and i don't believe we would have gotten that through our friend the other choices that now, and education without a larger debate on full-scale choice in education but what i know where are you, west, would you be recognized for that one? [applause]

i would say whether in the additional 2.7 billion that is gone to education above and beyond the level of funding but can at this administration starting in 2003 or the education and economic development act that offers a tech program for students our physical fitness programs offered as a result of health and fitness act or even in full-scale choice in the early childhood education i know the darrell jackson and mike and a long list of others deserve credit for the work here that is making a difference in the minds of students and thereby a real difference in people's lives. would you give them a round of applause as well for their work. [applause] i finally said i would watch all for the taxpayer. i have always believed that money was a close proxy for freedom and freedom at the end of the day is what the american political system was designed to perpetuate.

it is economic freedom that unleashes the dree initiatives that drives our economy. it is freedom that in powers us to strive toward a respected dream that individually defined with the pursuit of happiness means to each one of us. yet when you spend one-third or half of your day working just to pay taxes in essence you're in debt to governments for part of the time and we always got to get to the heart of what drives taxes and that is what we spend in the government so as mentioned earlier this conviction is the core and at times i wasn't as diplomatic as perhaps i should have been in expressing my thoughts on this one but the good news is as a result of all of that fussing and fighting the taxpayer was recognized a table of the government in ways that would have not been the case. though they are still remembered what is forgotten about that chapter is the way that we faced a 155 million-dollar on constitutional deficit.

those pigs in the joint and even changed few minds when we set president backend for the next 100 years on the sanctity of our balance budget requirement in south carolina and for what you get here on thank you as well. did you know we are the second state in the nation that offers of savings accounts for all state workers and state retirees and that health and budget initiative will save millions? did you know that there's changes we instituted at the front end of this administration with corrections hatching eggs and a growing their own corn for grits and commerce selling jets and prt consolidating programs? millions more have been saved and will continue to be saved in fact if i might, could i ask the entire cabinet to stand up and be recognized for all those little things the you've done over the last seven years in saving the taxpayer money and making a difference on behalf of the taxpayer? what you stand and be recognized? [applause]

did you know that $110 million has been saved with the proviso that you put into the budget with the preferred drug list or that we save $1.8 billion over the last six years in the first in the nation long-term care program? i could go down a long list of the did you know with regard to taxpayer savings but i will spare you that list and simply thank each one a few for all of those little and at times and seen steps he took over the last seven years to save the taxpayer money. i have always believed that the ultimate measure if you will of government is what it spends and all too often spends at a rate that is unsustainable and far surpasses the taxpayers' ability to keep up and with all those

conversations and even consternations what we have seen is a worthwhile and that they have forced many in government to follow the lead of those paying for government in looking for ways to do more with less. the length of this talk leads to the conclusion i'm going to ask for legislative changes beyond that which i had already all lined. i will call it quits but let me leave you with to parting thoughts. the first is from our family minister in the prayer service before my second inaugural he encouraged me to live like a six roman:8 that we do justice and what crumbly. i never got that charge quite right over the following four years. i don't know that i ever will. but what i do know is i will be trying and would pass his charge on to each one a few who bear both the pressures and the

responsibilities of elected leadership. under the category of life beyond politics i would ask the new focus on the things that matter the most and many of you if not all of you are so far ahead of me on this larger germany but i heard a story a couple of months ago that has helped me in refocusing on the hoeven might help you, too i offer it. in early december i was the grand opening of the llc in lancaster where i ended up in an amazing conversation with the ceo, rick eliason who found him saltzman seat 18 in the plan that went on the hudson river. lift it from lagarde and a short time after liftoff the captain came on mentioning a bird strike and a matter of factly said they would have to be headed back to the airport to replant. rick's position was interesting because he said cady corner to the stewardess he saw absolutely no fear in her eyes as he said what he said.

another couple minutes go by and the captain comes on announcing just three words "prepare for impact." at that point he could see the horror in the stewardess's eyes as she knew what it meant. they are fully loaded with fuel and you don't put a plan that size in the stream of the brooklyn or manhattan. he did the calculation and figured he would be daunting and about 40, 45 seconds, and in the moment the whole of his life with flashing by. he said so before he had the natural fear that we do of deaf and the moment he wasn't afraid of death because it was so near. what he did think about was the time that he had wasted, the time he spent arguing about petty things about things that mattered with people who needed, the tiny little things get to him. he said was the amazing process of letting go of those things in that 45 seconds in a sense she dieted to himself and some of

those previous aggravations in the short window of time that he had left on earth. but he didn't die and he now light and life to playing on a bonus, playing a video game on bonus time that he shouldn't be here but he was and therefore he was going to fully live each day and profoundly positive ways he would try to make a difference in the lives of those around him and the world of large. he would invest in the things that matter. those things you can't see, feel, you can't touch but the things of lasting value. i don't know if i will ever see him again, but i do know i will be trying to follow his lead. and as we work together over the next 11 months and as we go our different ways after that, i hope that you will, too. if we strive in this direction i suspect will make a difference in bringing all of us republicans and democrats to the representatives from the coast and the midlands and upstate and south carolinian is together to

better the lives of people here in our state. that is my hope, that is my prayer. thank you. good night. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [applause]

governor i understand look rick was going through, too. i've been there. [laughter] thank you her for allowing me to be here. we thank you and appreciate you being here. the purpose of this trend is simplying been completed i hereby call it adjourned. [applause]

now the annual winter meeting of the u.s. conference of mayors. first lady michelle obama talks about childhood obesity and will also hear from energy secretary stephen chu and the number of mayors discussing transportation

and cities. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. and good afternoon to everyone. it is just a pleasure to welcome all of you to my new home, washington, today for this year's winter meeting. thank you, mayor, for that very wonderful and kind introductions, and congratulations on becoming president of this outstanding organization. and i know you're going to do a great job. i see my friend, secretary chu and want to take time to recognize him for his outstanding leadership at the department of energy. [applause] she is also my partner in

quizzing the kids. he was my pat sajak, no, you were my vanna white. [laughter] i would also like to thank my home town mayor, mayor daley. it's wonderful to see you. [applause] as well as mayor joe riley, who is a past president, and most of all i want to thank all of you for your extraordinary work during every day in the cities that you lead across this country. as some of you know, one of my first jobs was in the mayor's office working for this gentleman, mayor daley out in chicago, and that experience gave me the opportunity to see firsthand the kind of challenges that you will face and whether it is handling a crisis in one of your schools or dealing with

cost overruns and street paving or planning for an upcoming snowstorm, you have to be prepared for anything and everything, and i have seen that. and it's not like any of you catch a break whenever you leave the office. whether it's at church or the grocery store. [laughter] or the friday night football game, i know that people do not hesitate to come and tell you about the problems they are having antonakes ackley what you need to be doing better. and they never called back, right? and there's a reason for that. it's because you all governor where people feel that the most. you see people's struggles of close and personal. and what you see on the ground is often the first indicator of what's happening on the national level. you were the first to see the impacts of a struggling economy in the lines that your unemployment offices. the first to know that crime rates are rising when you get

those reports from your police force at the end of each month. you are the first to get a sense of job losses when ceos tell you they've decided to locate their operations overseas rather than in your home town. at the same is true for issues affecting the physical and mental health of the people that you serve from. and that's one of the reasons why i wanted to come to talk to you today about a problem that is of great concern of me and i know to all of you, and i know that it's one many of you are seeing and hearing about every day in your communities and that is the epidemic of child obesity in america today. as you know over this last year my first year in the white house i've been thinking, reading and speaking a lot about this issue, but the statistics still never failed to take my breath away. mayor cowles pointed out right now nearly one-third of children in america are overweight or obese. that is one