them instead of being completely stopped. >> to answer your question, if i may quickly here, the aircraft that i think you're seeing being sold now for a lower cost, they certainly are operational, if you will, but i don't believe they're going to meet our standards at this time. we are very conscientious about what we're doing, so we're looking for redundancy. i would present to you that these systems don't have redundancies in their safeties, they don't have the lost link capability. might not even have a transponder mode s capability. but those, yes, they're out there, but will we get there through micro and nanotechnology? i think we will, but that's not going to meet our safety standards at this time. >> yeah, but it's not going to stop a hobbyist from flying it in the air and possibly causing damage. so i think that you're going to have to answer the media. and is by the way, i'm canadian.

so it's not going to touch me personally. [laughter] i mean, like, sooner or later, like, this accident will happen. the media is going to hit anybody that is using uavs, no matter what kind. and if you have at least some good stories that you can, basically, use to continue pushing the use in the law enforcement, then you'll have an easier time overcoming that hurdle. >> i would absolutely free with that. um -- i would absolutely agree with that. it always is a matter of statistics. often time what the media presents is not statistically based. last year during this conference in denver in if a local community in colorado, there was an incident with just that. it was presented as this is what happens. statistically, that's not what happens. and i would absolutely agree with you that the openness to show the successes that we've had, to demonstrate the safety of of the system is paramount so that it is expressed in the

media correctly that the statistics show it's absolutely safe. >> uh-huh. >> for law enforcement aviation is expensive whether it's manned or unmanned. it's an asset for law enforcement to use. so we're constantly having to justify what we do through exactly what you're talking about, reporting the results that we, that we have. and for the money spent. >> okay. >> and can i add one comment also? as a contractor, what i have to overcome is that everybody out there is an expert, okay? in this area. they can go on to the internet, they can pull up youtube, they can see hobby aircraft, fairly large size. c-17, i just saw recently, real jet engines about the size of an 18-wheeler flying, okay? suddenly, people come to us and they go -- or whoever we're working with goes, yeah, but i saw this. and this looks really good. i think we need -- you have to fight that. everybody suddenly becomes an expert. so you have to present facts, you have to present data.

you're constantly having to validate what it is you're trying to accomplish married up with what the technical capabilities, the risk involved. you're going to have to -- you've got to be smarter than those that don't know much about this. and just go on to the internet, and suddenly they're an expert. >> uh-huh. >> but in their day job they're doing something different. so, you know, it's unfortunate, but the good thing about law enforcement is that they communicate with each other. they communicate with louisiana or where we're at in texas, if shuttle goes down, we're talking to louisiana, we're talking to mississippi. and that's how it works n. the service, we don't do that. what the navy does, the air force, the marine corps does, there's a little bit of this, but we're still going to do what we do best. not in law enforcement. if it works, that word's going to get around. you know, if somebody's using something and they fail, we're going to use that as an example as well. so just -- >> get prepareded for it because

it's going to happen. >> yeah, thanks. >> and i see it's after 12 now, dan, so i'm going to try to keep this short. i'd like to just comment on a couple of observations that i made here and see if i can't kind of build a new type of synergy. but, you know, tim made an observation that this room isn't full enough, and we're looking at you, the gentlemen who are doing this work. most of you or many of you are in public safety or law enforcement. and one of the observations i've made down on the floor in the last few days in looking at some of these manufacturers is there are a lot of manufacturers who they see the next great bubble in unmanned aircraft that's going to burst is going to be the public safety or the law enforcement. and you, of course, are aware of that too. but what these manufacturers are doing now is they are now building systems for you right now. they're building those systems. but when you ask them who on

your staff is law enforcement or is public safety or has law enforcement/public safety aviation background, virtually the answer is almost zero. now, i know that in situ has one guy they just hired as a consultant. outside of that i don't know who's doing that. what i would recommend or like to challenge you to do is go out there and talk to those manufacturers that are right now building those unmanned aircraft for you for what they perceive to be law enforcement/public safety, the perfect machine as i heard some of you talk about, and ask them, well, who on your staff helped you design those ideas and those criteria and those standards? who do you have there that's doing that? do you have a law enforcement guy on staff? what is your current history, what is your recent or past history in law enforcement so that you know exactly what i want. >> i agree with you. i think the industry could take

a lesson learned from all your rotor-wing manufacturers that usually have ex-law enforcement, somebody who's involved in law enforcement aviation, hire them to be their law enforcement specialist and sell the aircraft. and i think this industry's going to have to continue to do the same thing. >> and i wish -- [inaudible] auvsi, take this message to the manufacturers and the constituency. if they want to be part of public safety and law enforcement, they need to bring those guys in to their company fold right now in order to connect properly with the doj and these gentlemen up here. [inaudible] >> you know, good, but i think it's more important that they listen. [laughter] you know, i've talked to, you know, i've spent be three days out there, and they're telling me, you know, i'm not -- i'm lumping everybody into one. >> well, no -- >> they're telling me what i

need, and i'm telling what i need, and they're not listening. it's frustrating to me, a couple of them wanted to fight me because, you know, i'm pretty consistent on here's what i need, i don't need. you know, it doesn't have to have rockets firing. i need this, i need safety, i need to be able to do this, you know, controllable. and they keep pitching as if, you know, i'm a pentagon vendor. >> that message is one that auvsi needs to -- >> and i spread that. and we get a lot of manufacturers come up and talk. that's one of the reasons why it's helpful for me is then we can get that direct feedback to 'em. hey, these are the features we need. i don't need this. i'm not paying for that feature. here's what i'll pay for, you know? i need for law enforcement. but i think, and that's the bottom line is they need to listen. i think we're telling 'em, but they're not doing as good a job as they could be in listening to what we're saying. >> with i be i think -- but i think it's coming, leonard. it's still in its infancy, but i

think that that will come, and i think law enforcement, if nothing else, will speak with their dollars on that. >> [inaudible] i was talking to one ceo yesterday who said, well, i used to be a law enforcement officer years ago, so i think i know what they want. >> understood. all right. well, i want to thank everybody for coming out there, the audience coming and asking the questions. i thank all the panelists for being here -- i'm sorry, did you have something to say? >> no, that's okay. >> okay. thank you very much. [applause] ..

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we have more live coverage coming up for you later today on the c-span networks. on c-span this afternoon, republican presidential candidate gary johnson is the luncheon speaker at the national press club, beginning a nine-day campaign tour of new hampshire starting tomorrow. live coverage of his appearance today begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> in a city that averages 250 murders a year, a former homicide detective and a investigative reporter take on the tough question, why do we will kill. one. books we're featuring on "booktv"

>> a quick reminder you can watch "booktv" all this month in prime time here on c-span2 >> throughout this week

>> what was really shocking to me and many people in pakistan, these assassinations were, were welcomed, were congratulated by many pakistanis. these are not terrorists, not al qaeda, not taliban but ordinary pakistanis who feel that their religion is threatened. that, that the country's becoming too secular. that the islamic values are under attack and that blasphemy, which is anything

that insults the prophet or islam, is something to be defended with your life. >> remarks right now from south carolina governor nikki haley to replaced mark sanford in january. governor haley is the youngest serving governor in the country. she spoke 25 minutes at the red state bloggers convention in south carolina. >> i met a lot of politicians in my life. you know the typical stereotype of a politician is real. it is one of the weirdest things when i met the future governor of south carolina, that she and her family, they're actually real people. and i mean it's a surprising concept. my wife has become very jaded in politics. governor haley and her family, they're normal people. they're real people but beyond being normal people now, they live in a governor's

mansion and governor haley fights the good fight and she wins and it is my pleasure to introduce her. [applause] >> good to see you. thank you. thank you. it is such a pleasure to be here. feels like home and i think the reason it feels like home you always go back to the people that you were with in the very beginning and what i loved was right after the election, or right after i had announced, we had the sanford explosion. and everything fell apart. and i was already an underdog by major means. i was just a little house member, running against a congressman, lieutenant governor, and attorney general, all who were very well-established in the state. they certainly had more money than i could even think about and we just didn't have a whole lot going for our campaign. and erick erickson invited us to come to atlanta from

redstate. we had nothing to lose at that point. i spoke to the people at re redstate. i will never forget that i truly felt home. these were heem who thought like me. these were people who saw where i wanted the country to go. these were people that had energy i knew felt like we could move the country and they were going to help us do it. what i did i told all of you my story. i told you what i wanted. i told you it wasn't be being republican and. it was about conservative. we're no longer about republicans and democrats and we're about conservatives and about people that understood liberty and we're going to fight for it every step of the way. [applause] i told them that i wanted every state in the country to show what d.c. should look like and we were going to start with south carolina and it was going to be the best state in the country. you right now are in the best state in the country. [cheers and applause]

but more than anything, what i said is, i want the people to understand the power of their voice. i want them to gnat that eleaked officials work for them, not the other way around. the only way we were going to do that is to get lewd, to be transparent and be accountable. what i love about all of you and about red state and what about erick erickson has tried to do, it is not about who could win. it is about who should win. you carried me. you carried me the whole step of the way. when the press said i couldn't win you fought back. they aimed bullets you fought fought for me. you sent me 5, 10, $20, $50 donation. when i couldn't get $1,000 together 46 states donated. we brought in the $60,000, all within 48 hours [applause]

i will tell you i absolutely love that you are in south carolina. i love that you're here and what i want you to know is this is a state that is conservative. this is a state that is it getting more conservative by the way. we want redstate to be here every year but i have work to do with eric on that one. let me tell you about where i think we are. i could talk about the state and south carolina and what we're doing and let you know, yes, while some of the legislators were saying it was unconstitutional for us to know how they vote, we were able to push through anyway and now south carolina, every single legislator is required to put their vote on the record on every piece of legislation and wait for it, every section of the budget. [applause] we now hold elected officials accountable. we are now transparent. and not only that, we can see their spending habits. that is key at the end of

the day. i see someone in the room i want to recognize. one because he was a fighter with me on the record voting but two he is also running for congress. thadbiers over there. wave your hand. a good conservative. a strong fighter. somebody you should definitely pay attention to. we've got one of the best federal delegations in the country. thad would make a great addition to that. so i appreciate that very much. what i will also tell you while we did and we got legislative votes on the record, while we also passed tort reform and told people this was a very simple decision. it is either lawyers or businesses, you pick. and then while we also got medicaid reform, the biggest surprise for me as governor was how much the federal government would not let me do my job. they got involved every step of the way. the first thing we're dealing with is health care. people have stopped talking about obamacare but obamacare has not gone away. we had some good wins. we'll continue to show it is

absolutely unconstitutional for them to tell us how we're going to take care of ourselves. [cheers and applause] but this is a bigger decision. what we're talking about with health care, is people have divorced themselves from the cost of health care. they go to the doctor and they get whatever the doctor tells them to do just because. whereas 30% of the services we get we don't even need. and so now we've got a president who is saying i know better how to take care of you. and south carolinaians are like people in massachusetts and people in massachusetts are like people in texas and people in texas are like those in california. that is not it. what we need is, when you go to get your car fixed what do they do? they show you the charges before you pay for it. that is what i want for health care in south carolina. that's what i want for around the country. [applause] we need to let people get back involved with their decisions on their health care needs.

not just what the services are but what the costs are. guess what happens when we do that? we suddenly start to pay more attention to our health. we suddenly start paying more attention to the cost of that health care. we start driving costs out of the system because we say, i don't need that fluoride at the dentist, i have got it at home. you start to show that you're paying attention. the goal that we have in south carolina and goal that i challenge every state in the country we'll make it transparent from the patient to the doctor and the doctor and insurance company and focus on health, not costs, health. that's when we will have healthy people paying less money. we've got to make sure that our insurance companies can cross state lines and allow us to choose exactly the kind of insurance policies we want. [applause] so it is amazing to me that we have a president that is trying to mandate costs and mandate services in a time where all we need to do is be allowed to make our own decisions, have options and

make the decisions for ourselves. when medicaid is a huge part of every state's budget, instead of this president understanding it is about taking costs out of the system, he is actually mandating more costs into the system. it has taken us into the wrong direction. another problem in south carolina, is illegal immigration. we had a law in place. we just wanted to be able to enforce it. he told my state we couldn't. we had two dozen immigration inspectors that weren't allowed to do their job. my labor license and regulations director went to the president, went to janet napolitano and said we need to do this. all we need to do is get one piece of paper. we need to be able to see the e-verify. and they said, we're sorry you can't do it. they wouldn't answer us and wouldn't answer us and wouldn't answer us. i called and they didn't call me back. i called and they didn't call me back. and so you know what happened? i did a press conference. and i said did you know this is going on? and we have two dozen immigration inspectors that i'm going to have to lay

off. we'll have a state that can't enforce its illegal immigration laws because the president and janet napolitano won't call me back. guess what? she called me back. [laughter] [applause] within a week we had what we needed and we are now enforcing illegal immigration in south carolina. it is a great thing. [cheers and applause] and then, the unbelievable happened. the president and the national labor review board went and did a suit against a great american company called boeing. let me just give you the backstory on this for any of you that don't know. south carolina was saved when boeing decided to expand or put operations in south carolina. they created 1,000 new jobs in charleston.

it was the highlight that we needed. he. we were so excited. it was a shot in the arm that let us know we were going in the right direction. all the while they created a 1,000 jobs in south carolina, they expanded their operations in washington state by 2,000 jobs. not one person was hurt. and the nlrb sued boeing and said they had no right to do that. that is the most un-american thing i have ever heard of and we can not have that. [applause] when you allow a company to come in that says we want to create jobs in this country, and you tell them they can't do it, what are you doing? you're incentivizing companies to go overseas. what is worse when i'm trying to bring jobs to south carolina and everybody is looking at south carolina, the companies overseas see our dollar is weak. this is not great but it is good from the standpoint they're talking about coming here. the first thing they ask me,

what's going to happen to boeing? that is hurting us. that is keeping us from having jobs. on top of all this i'm sitting there talking about this is the ridiculous part of unions. there was a time we needed them. we don't need them anymore. they're trying to be relevant and they're not. [applause] so what happens? the union sued me. they told me that i was talking too much smack about them. and i told them, that if they would quit giving me reason, i would quit talking about it. the truth is unions are not relevant. this was their way of trying to say we're going to make ourselves known in south carolina and there is nothing you can do about it. you know what? this governor is going to do something about it. [applause] we fought it every step of the way and god bless the judge. he dismissed the case this week and said guess what, she is exercising her freedom of speech rights.

[applause] friends, that's why conservative judges matter. that is why judges need to understand our constitution and need to understand while unions are trying to mandate and bully through our states, our liberties and our rights mean something and our freedoms mean something. that judge stood up for me and i'm way out of talking smack now. they haven't heard anything now. [applause] so i will tell you that i got sued, boeing got sued. this great american company could settle but they're not going to. because they understand i have told them they are fighting the fight for every company in this country. i am fighting the fight for every governor in this country. boeing and i are committed, i don't want any governor to go through this fight and they don't want any other company to go through this fight. we will fight and we will win and this will never happen again.

[cheers and applause] good stuff. that's right. good stuff. thank you. and we're going to win because we're right. you know the sad part is, boeing will spend a lot of money and a lot of time they could be hiring people with. but they're not going to stop. so they are six months ahead of schedule. we've got the huge mac daddy planes ready to go. we're going to continue hiring people and we'll continue to fight our fight for the companies and make sure what we need to do in america. this also comes back to the fact that when we have a president that doesn't understand what we need in this country, we've got a group in d.c. that doesn't understand our spending situation. and when you look at spending in every state, every governor has had to prioritize.

every governor has had to figure out a way to live within our means. every governor has had to tell their people what the value of a dollar is and how we are going to understand that government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. it was never intended to be all things to all people. [applause] so in south carolina we cut our budgets and fought against the arts commission. we said that is not the role of government. we fought against educational television and we fought against all kinds of things. we started with a $800 million short fall. we ended up with a surplus. what i'm trying to tell legislators in this state, what i'm trying to tell the people in this state, whenever you have money, whenever money falls you don't go and spend it. you pay down debt or you give it back to the taxpayers. those are your only options. [applause] so now we have a washington

who decided they were going to do this fabulous debt deal and the president came together with the people in washington and they created a whole lot of drama and they stopped world looking everybody in the world was looking at us and what did they do? they came out and celebrated said we got a resolution. we did it. where was it? because they said that it wasn't enough to make the credit ratings not fall. this deal that they did, they didn't, they didn't reduce the debt. they didn't freeze spending. they didn't balance the budget. every state, almost every state in the country is balancing their budget. when is d.c. not going to learn they have got to balance their budget. they have got to cut spending and debt is not an option anymore? [applause] they will understand it when we get loud and what we show them the power of our voice. i am going to tell you i'm one governor that said we can do this in

south carolina. you can do this in d.c. what happened, this super committee coming together, that is nothing more than a waste of time. you can't tell me if we can find waste in south carolina which is pretty conservative state, you can bet we can have a field day in washington, d.c. [applause] my daughter is in 8th grade and my son is in 4th grade and i can tell you they can find some money pretty quick. i with a couple governors not long ago you put us in a room and real quick we will come back out with some real savings. this is what i will tell you. the spending issue is the number one priority. we have to make sure the people we send to washington have to understand this isn't about the tea parties ruining what is happening in washington. this is about the tea party bringing a conscience to a group of republicans that need it and stop the democrats from running our economy into the ground. [applause]

and that leads us to the presidential. what a great policy debate this is going to be. it doesn't matter what their personality is like. we want them to be a fighter. but we want them to understand, all they have to do is talk on policy. talk about health care. talk about illegal immigration. talk about securing our borders. talk about energy independence. and how the cost of gas is ridiculous where we would start taking care of it ourselves we wouldn't need other countries in this. [applause] talk about the value of a dollar and that it is our money, not their money and how they spend it matters. all of these things are great things. and, the given easy is, our credit rating fell? america's credit rating fell? what is that doing to every state? what is that doing to all of our businesses? what is that doing to my children? that's what i want people to know. so it is up to the governors in every state to be loud

and talk about our problems in our states like what is happening in south carolina and give these presidential candidates every ounce of ammunition they need. you have got my commitment from south carolina. i will be loud. i will continue to be loud against president obama but we need you to be loud. we need them to understand, this presidential election is probably the most important we ever had. but we're going to hold everybody's feet to the fire. we're all going to get loud. get 10 people involved, that have not been involved in elections. let's do it this time. because the presidential will matter. i will tell you, i have great faith in the people in this room. i have great faith in the people in this country. and i know, when i say it is no longer about who could win. it is about who should win. we get it. so make sure that when you leave today, and we've got the ames straw poll and you have a superstar coming in today, let's have one with it but don't forget the

message because we have a president that doesn't want to talk about policy. he will get back on a bus and he will go back and start campaigning but what is going to happen? he is asking for a redo. he can't have a redo. you have messed it up once. we don't need you to mess it up again. let's give somebody a chance. we just have to decide who that person is going to be. [applause] somebody told me the other day, they said, well, i'm just not excited about the republican candidates. are you kidding? i'm excited about the issues we have to discuss. we have got great issues. we've got great candidates. the combination is magical because you're going against a president who has failed. he has failed this country. and god bless him we wish him well but it is time for him to leave. [cheers and applause] so, do what i know you can

do. get out there, god bless you for every one of you bloggers that blogged. you saved me at the end of the day. get involved with these candidates. make sure all of you get involved from the grassroots effort. we have just started how big we're going to be when it comes to 2012. know that i love you. i appreciate you. i will keep fighting for you every day and my number one goal is to continue to make you proud. god bless south carolina, god bless america and thank you very, very much. [applause] >> you can tell a speaker is regular at a redstate gathering because she says, it is now time for questions. we're transitioning mics

here. i have to get questions and point you out and repeat questions that the other side of the room can hear. let's go right here. >> [inaudible]. >> where is she on nullification? >> right now what i want us to focus on value of a dollar. i want us to focus on our liberties and i want us to focus on being strong. i think nullification is something we talk about when we're not sure, we're frustrated. we talk about nullification when we're frustrated. what i want to do is talk about how we can be strong. while i support us making sure we're keeping our core beliefs and go back to what we believe in, that is not, i want us to stay very focused on value of a dollar and how we make our elected officials accountable and what we're going to do about that. >> [inaudible]. >> listen when, it comes to states rights a lot of what we're talking about with states rights is, states rights trump everything. the tenth amendment trumps everything. [applause]

but part of the way we show that is understand for every federal dollar we take, we end up spending more money down the road trying to match the federal government whereas if states would focus on their money and their time and their freedoms, then the federal government can't -- i think it is very important. states right will always be a issue. it is always something i will fight for. it is something everybody in this room should fight for. >> next question? yes, ma'am. >> -- boeing, what can we do it help them in their fight? >> great question. the best thing you can do to help boeing, get every presidential candidate to talk about it. every presidential candidate should talk about what we do if they were president. president obama says it is independent agency. i can't control what they do. i'm a governor. i have agencies and i appoint people to those boards. if they do something wrong, you can bet i'm going to

call them and speak out against that agency. he has been unbelievably silent. i would rather him stand up and say, i believe in what they're doing then to be silent. leadership is not silence. leadership is fighting and saying where you stand and he has not done that. let's get every presidential candidate to say they're not afraid where they stand. [applause] >> next question. right here. >> [inaudible]. [laughter] >> the amazing thing we've got the passion and, that's what i want. we've done enough of the establishment thing. we've done enough for where people have groomed themselves what to say and what not to say. they worry about whether it is politically correct or not. look at the real rock stars in this country. look at chris christie's and look at rick scotts and look at marco rubios. look at all the people.

one thing they have in common is true passion. they believe it. we know the people of this country believe it. anybody that use as teleprompter, let's ask them what they believe. [laughter] [applause] >> -- are only two yankees here i think. >> good bless you. welcome to south carolina. >> how do we bring your ideas, your passion to -- [inaudible] which did elect pat toomey. >> great one. great one. >> we need somebody, how do we bring you and red states into pennsylvania and to light up our, we do have a grassroots. we do have a tea party. there are two women up there that are fantastic. we need a little bit of juice. >> tell us when and where to be there and we will be there. you know the word is, you have to spread it around, a lot of people even in heavily democratic states, we've got great grassroots and we have great

conservatives. what we have to understand, don't look at majorities. don't look where people stand. make your voice known. in the days of internet and facebook which i'm on facebook by the way, in the days of that, get your voice out there. i'm going to continue to speak as loud as i can against the unions, against health care, against the federal government intruding in. for states rights all of those things. the more of us that say it, the more people feel it. look what happened in washington. that debate never would have even happened a few years ago. do you know who did that? conservatives did that. the tea party did that. now imagine what we can do two more years from now? we're just getting started. you hold on in pennsylvania. we'll come take care of it. >> folks, a round of applause for governor nikki haley. [cheers and applause]

>> watch more video of candidates, see what political reporters are saying and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns. candidate bios and the latest polling data plus links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states, all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> coming up live in about 20 minutes republican presidential candidate gary johnson. he is the luncheon speaker at the national press club today. the tomorrow he will kick off a nine-day campaign tour of new hampshire. he will talk about that and running for president, starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern. you will be able to see it live on c-span

>> the organization, smart girl follow ticks, held its-- politics held annual convention. one of speakers was long time activist is phyllis scflaey. this is about 10 minutes. >> i said what's up, smart girls? and the smart guys.

my friends, we are here today because of government gone wild the spending, the debt, the deficits, the regulations. it is progressives gone wild because they want to control every aspect of our lives. you see the progressives don't think you're smart enough to run your own life, smart girls. they want you to be dependent on the government for all of your wants and needs. but we the people will not stand idly by and allow this assault on our liberties, not on our watch. [applause] and i admire your courage to stand on the front lines to

defend liberty. you are here engaging and educating yourselves to empower yourselves by attending this great smart girl politics summit. and make no mistake about it, my friends, we are in a battle, and it's a battle for the direction of our country. but what troubles me about president obama and his progressive allies is that they want to fundamentally transform our country. transform it into tea ball nation. everyone knows what t-ball is? no one wins. no one loses. [laughter] and in obama's t-ball nation there are no winners and losers. and all of our wants and

needs would come from government. energy, jobs, health care, education, from cradle to grave. such a system will reduce our liberty and sap our prosperity and block the engine of ingenuity and resourcefulness. this transformation will segregate our country from the elites, and the dependents. the haves, and the have-nots. i ironically, the first black president wants to put all americans on the government plantation. [applause] here are some numbers to back this up. in 2010, 66% of the federal budget was for entitlement programs.

in 1965, that number was 28%. today there are over 50 million americans on medicaid. over 44 million on food stamps. over 46 million on medicare. over 52 million on social security. we spent over $2 trillion a year on redistribution programs. too many americans are depending on the government. obama's policies will only drive more americans to depend on government, driving them to the plantation. obama's energy policy is a great example. obama is waging a war on fossil fuels and that, my friend, is a war against all americans. we can't say we're surprised,

we can't say that. when he was running for president obama said, and i quote, under my energy plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. when cap-and-trade legislation died in the senate, obama shifted gears to run his toxic energy policy through the environmental protection agency. stepping up their efforts to kill jobs. in the face of our daunting economic challenges, the epa is advancing new rules under the clean air act, which will dramatically, dramatically increase the compliance costs for coal-burning utilities. now here's a list of some of the regulations that the epa is pushing. cross state air transport rules. greenhouse gas rules. of boiler mat rules.

ozone rules. coal ash rules. rule after rule after rule after rule. and what does that mean? too many costs coming from these rules under the epa's actions. it will destroy the industry, destroy our economy, and these costs are real. the american electric power, facility, an ohio-based facility, announced in june, this year, just last month it, was closing five power plants and will be scaling back operations on six additional power plants. american electric power estimates its actions will cost about 600 jobs in our country. naturally american electric power will pass on the additional costs to the consumer, who will bear the brunt of epa's burden?

through higher electricity prices? all of us will. american electric power had already made great strides in reducing environmental impact. the company spent over $7 billion since 1990 to reduce emissions from its coal-fired power plants. now keep in mind, these economic numbers are just from one utility provider, only one. reuters reported this week that the u.s. power industry will likely retire up to 20% of the country's coal-fired electricity generating capacity this decade. why? because of the epa. if you live in missouri obama's war on coal is going to hurt i and your family.

this state currently gets about 80% of your electricity from coal. that's why you only pay just over $7 per kilowatt-hour for electricity. from new york, i pay double that. double. rising energy prices are regressive in that they hit families in fixed income households, poor income households especially suffer from these consequences. today there are many americans facing significant financial challenges due to soaring energy costs. the more money spent on gasoline and utilities, the less money you have to spend on your family for your wants, for your needs. under obama's energy plan, a majority of americans will suffer from a reduced standard of living.

and then there's our country's jobs crisis. higher energy costs will drive manufacturing jobs overseas. with our country's unacceptably high unemployment, the epa's harsh regulations on the fossil fuel industry, that's coal, oil, natural gas, is a job killer. sadly, obama is not acting alone. our country's natural resources are under assault by progressive allies. environmental special interests, big business interests. and progressive politicians. their plan is to raise the price of fossil fuels to make renewable sources of energy for cost competitive. this energy plan is bad for our economy, bad for jobs, bad for hard-working

americans. this energy plan also picks winners and losers. approximately $90 billion of the $800 billion stimulus was, which was supposed to keep unemployment at or below 8%, went to the clean energy industry. don't know if you knew that? and unemployment is still high, which we all know. obama's war on fossil fuels is blocking development much our own natural resources. according to the congressional research service, our country has more natural resources than any other country. fossil fuels provide about 85% of our nation's energy needs. they also create good jobs and tax revenue. american petroleum institute reports that oil and gas

industries together provide $2 trillion annually for the american economy. and pay approximately $85 million a day to the u.s. treasury. while creating 9.2 million jobs. the facts don't lie. importantly, the american people support the development of our natural resources. rasmussen reports 50% of the adults believe the united states should produce more domestic oil by allowing drilling in anwr. 67% now support offshore drill, the highest level of support since the bp spill. clearly president obama's anti-fossil fuel policy is on a collision course with the american people. we desperately need to reverse course and adopt

pro-growth energy strategies, and that means we need to challenge president obama, the corporate elites, and the environmentalists before they continue to keep advancing this harmful policy agenda. to lower energy costs for all americans, grow our economy, and become energy independent we need a new energy policy that will encourage the development of our own natural resources. there is something terribly wrong, my friends, when the elites can use the power of government to advance their narrow agenda while harming, harming, hard-working americans. [applause] which is denying us of our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

my friends, fighting for liberty isn't easy and being a target of the left comes with the territory. i have been called all kinds of names. a token. a traitor. a sell yacht, simply because i believe in liberty and limited government. yet, i'm targeted simply because i'm expressing my views about obamacare, climate change legislation, the second amendment, and pro-growth economics. this verbal assault, my friends, only tells me that my message is getting through and the progressives don't like it. [applause] because personally, i will not stand idly by and allow this assault on our

liberties. i will not. i'm committed to reach all americans, to instill a sense of hope that we can rein in this government gone wild. [applause] that we need to hold those elected accountable to preserve the constitutional right of liberty where anyone can succeed. because you see, our country does not guaranty you success but liberty guaranties you the opportunity to succeed. [applause] and my friends, the progressives better get ready for more from me. [applause] because my first book will be out in january 2012.

[applause] are you ready for the title? "black-lash". [applause] "black-lash, how the left is driving americans to the government's plantation". [applause] in closing my friends, for the sake of liberty about, i hope each and everyone of you will search your god-god-given taletns to continue to engage, educate, and empower yourselves because we all have a role to play in this fight for liberty. we all have a role to play. it is time for us to stand together for this fight for liberty. stand together. i have a question for each of you today. are you with me? [applause]

are you with me? applause [applause] let's stand together my friends, to cherish the constitution, the blueprint of our country. let's stand together to challenge those progressives with our ideas and our principles. stand together, to rein in this government gone wild. we can do it. [applause] we can do it. we can stand together. this is the united states of america. let's stand together. god bless all of you and god bless america. [applause] thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> that was, deneen borelli.com she said. i certainly can say i am with you and i think you have a massive amount of early book orders. does everyone agree? thank you so much. that was tremendous. so, our next speaker that i have the distinct pleasure of introducing is one of our original smart girls and district coordinator. she is now the county clerk from bouie, texas. i had to get that right. i didn't want to mess around with texas so i got the right pronunciation. please help me welcome, natalie nichols.

[applause] >> i probably need a booster seat up here. sorry. i just want to thank you all for asking me to speak and for being my sisters throughout all of this. this is really my sorority. so it's an honor to be here, standing here speaking with you and to you. this is the third year, and i'm just as excited this time as i have been every time. i can't wait to come back and see my family. i was never involved in politics before. i live in texas. and in my naivete and my ignorance i assumed we are a red state and they're going to vote the way i would have voted anyway, so i just wasn't involved. and that was until i saw sarah palin come onto the scene. i assumed that they just wanted a skirt on the ticket and they just needed to

boost it and get some of hillary's voters. i really didn't think they would give the floor to a woman with a voice of her own. i don't think they realized she had one. she was the complete opposite what i had assumed that she would be. she embraced all things feminine. she was a wife, a mother, a leader and a fighter and she didn't apologize for it or hide from it. she was bold and in your face and basically came out saying, this is who i am. and i hope you like me. but if you don't, i'm still okay with that. this is me. and, that was a kick in the rear for me. it made me get involved, get off my butt. i got involved in smart girl politics and i'm so thankful that i did. that started me blogging. i created a website with my husband. we did it as a family. we started planning tea parties. i sought out other women in my local year year and we tried to move to get people elected to office. i went back to school for political science, not

because i needed to but i really needed to learn everything i could. i never intended to run for office. i was going to the summit so i could learn how to help other people run. . . >> i cried a little bit because it really hit home. if i was going to talk about it and be willing to push other people and i had good ideas, i better darn well get up there and do it, and i did, and i became the first republican woman ever to be legislated to a

county wide office in bowie texas. the platform was really, really simple. transparency, integrity, and accountability. that's what we were fighting for all along. they were not just words to me. they were a belief some. you have to say what you mean and mean what you say, so it's part of my job to create the official court record based on actions of the court. we pray and say the pledge of allegiance of every meeting, and i record it. i was out in town on training, and the judge crossed through on exed out the prayer and allegiance from the court. thigh didn't want to stop saying, just didn't want you to know they said it. you heard it before. we might get sued by the aclu. we might offend someone. i can sit down and shut up and say that's not going to happen on my watch, and that's what i

did. there was not even a choice for me. it's what you do as an american. i knew that it might be an unpopular decision, and i knew the court probably would not let me get the words out of my mouth before throwing me out. i planned to say three words and hand it to the media, but they let me. i said there was no way on earth i would not say we did not have a prayer and pledge when we did, and that drew in support from all over the country. we are veterans saying at the meetings say don't dishonor my husband. it did what it was supposed to do. the citizens spoke out, and the court really, really quickly backtracked and wanted to put the prayer and pledge back into the court and deflect like most politicians do, we never wanted to put it out. she left these things off, and then she also left off a devotional they never even had

said the word " devotional" so in my joe wilson moment i said, you're lying. [laughter] [applause] and that was -- that's how loud it was too. you can watch the video yourself. it's the most boring argument you've ever seen. it's my bewilderment and shock that they would do that, so i said you're lying because somebody was lying. i think that's what we're supposed to do as good americans, just as moral people, and i -- three days later, i got a call from a reporter asking me what i thought about the judge's complaint that would result, if i was convicted, of six months in jail and a $2,000 fine because apparently it's a crime in the state of texas to disrupt a meeting. now, personally, i don't think i disrupted, but took part and disagreed with his lies, but that's what i'm doing right now. i'm facing criminal charges that

if convicted of a misdemeanor when you're a county official in the state of texas, it results in immediate and automatic removal from office if that conviction is related to your official duties, which this obviously would be. now there's a huge battle brewing. i've talked to the alliance defense fund, and if indicted, they said they will defend me, and they'd like to come into the county and write a plan to be sure we're not sued by the aclu and defend the county if we do get sued, but that's not -- that wasn't ever the issue. it was a power struggle. it's the good old boy's system and i was a little lady with no business there in the first place and wasn't going to stand up to them, but i'm still standing up, and i've gotten calls and support and e-mails and faxes and postcards and personal visits from people all over the country, and they've been inspired, and they are inspiring me and it makes me cry

a lot of nights because they are so heart felt and sincere in what they are saying, and they're standing up with me and on their own in their own community, and i guess -- i think the whole thing is retaliation, and it's really intended to do what they've all done, the whole establishment system has done for so long, and that is to scare the crap out of you for a lack of a better word into never standing up against them, and we cannot do that. none of us got involved in activism or politics in any way, shape, or form with the intent to sit down and shut up, and we darn well better stand up and make our voices heard and let them know that we're watching and even if it's unpopular, a little bit rude, a lie is a lie, a distortion is a distortion, and it really doesn't matter. we're going to call you out, hold you accountable. i want to be held accountable

the same way. that's -- that's -- i did have a funny thing i wanted to tell you. the day i found out i was possibly facing these charges -- i'm a woman, it was not the best day. there were a lot of tears, and i'm moving, getting out of here, and then i had chocolate -- [laughter] and i decided i was going to fight back, by golly. [laughter] i just want to close with letting you know that i went to college late in life. i have four children, and i put them firstment i didn't do it in the right order, but it's made me who i am, and i never had the chance to have the sore roarty and sisterhood you have in your youth, and that's what this has been for me. you are my sisters. as soon as this broke and got out into the media, you were the first runs running with heels on the ground, and basically saying, oh, no you didn't. that's what we can do here.

we can run to each other's defense, and we can really cause change. when the story first arose, when the issue came up, i saw it unfolding, and i knew there were risks involved in standing up. we're human. it crosses your mind when you take a stand, it might not be popular. we wonder if we'll be the only one. we wonder when we stand up if it really will even make a difference, and then in that 30 second time frame, we come to the realization that some things are just bigger than we are. the prayer and pledge are two of those things. one man with courage is a majority. i haven't been alone. that's been people all over saying we're with you, and it's times like those when the words of the pledge ring very clear and very true. we are one nation, under god. we are indy visible, and we are americans and sisters in

conservatism. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> all right, everybody. put down your tissues, recover from the chills. i feel so lucky to be here and so lucky to introduce these speakers, and our next speaker is from the susan b. anthony list, former representative, marilyn musgrave. [applause] >> how wonderful to be here. you know, just a few days ago, we had another grandbaby born, a little girl named reagan, and when i was holding newborn reagan, i'll say that again,

here came the 2-year-old, 3-year-old, and 5-year-old sisters, and they were gathered around me. she was trying to shower, you know how that is when you have babies, trying to shower for the day, but as i was just holding on to that precious little baby, and the little girls were loving on her. they didn't call her reagan yet, just new baby -- that was her name then. i thought, wow. i told my son-in-law, you are a blessed man because you will always be surrounded by beautiful women. we're loving all the grandbabies and loving life and noting the preciousness of this little baby that came into our family. you know, he was a member of congress in the state legislature, a senator, and then i went on to congress and the life issue is what got me involved in politics. i mean, when i was at home with our four little kids and who said it, phyllis, i was lobbying

from the kitchen table, and it was because of life. i knew that if that candidate was pro-life, it spoke volumes about their stains -- stands everywhere else. you can count on social conservatives in all the areas you're concerned about, and as i worked were other candidates, i like to say one day i got a virus, and i became the can dad when the youngest of our four children was 14 years old. i was elected to the house. the first advice i got when i was there was just don't talk about the abortion issue. just don't talk baht that. i was called into the majority leader's office, and he said that, and i sat there and something rose up in me. you know what i mean. i looked him in the eye across the huge desk, and i said, it's the pro-life people who put me here, so what kind of a person would i be if i didn't stand for

life, and i loved those moments where you kind of have a baptism by fire, and your strength rises up. as i look out at a room full of lie dis and -- ladies and wonderful men too, i hope there's women in this room who decide one day they'll be the candidate like our wonderful speakers say. well, i feel i'm called to do this. i hope there's ladies in the room. if that's not your thing, an activist supporting the candidates that get there. what a wonderful experience to be in congress and start the pro-life women's caucus, and then to go on to be the project directer for votes have consequences with susan b. anthony list. i love sudan b. anthony lists. before i went to congress, worked with them closely, and i'll tell you, pro-life women in congress are worth their weight in gold because always -- can we applaud the pro-life women in

congress? [applause] always, always the women on the left when they were talking to henry hyde or chris smith or joe pitts or mike pence, they said what do you know about it? you're not a woman. those men carrying the pro-life banner have such a job, but what a special voice a pro-life woman has. we, as sudan b. anthony list, are all about electing pro-life women. did we ever have success in the last election. called the year of the pro-life woman. you know why it was so successful? because when obamacare came down the pipe, including taxpayer funding of abortion, the american people said no. the american people even those who call themselves pro-choice have an add version for the most part with their tax dollars going for abortion. we at susan b. anthony spent

over $8 million and countless efforts fighting obamacare, and i loved the sticker out in the hallway, appeal obamacare. how about it? repeal obamacare, taxpayer funding of abortion. you know, after that, obamacare was front and center. remember i was told not to talk about abortion? good political advice. what happened with obamacare? what was the issue in the end that would see it pass or fail? it was the life issue. i tell you, you talk about heart breaking. we at sudan b. anthony support pro-life democrats, pro-life republicans. well, we have this group of pro-life democrats that we thought we could count on. remember that? remember bart stewpack? i had a call from bart just before the vote. thank you, marilyn what you're

doing. he told our president i will not cave. whatever the pressures were, he caved, obviously. it came down to the life issue. those pro-life democrats giving in was why obamacare was signed into law. you know, after that, we were on a bus, susan b. anthony bus going into the district of the so-called pro-life democrats reminding their voters of what the person in office had said and what they had done, and we were very successful in defeating many of those democrats that caved on the big ones. [applause] you know, i have to tell you i only go on bus tours when it's below freezing or incredible hot. you know, i told my husband, i don't know what it is, i paint the house on the sunny side. it's just my makeup i guess.

we've had our job cut out for us. did you ever think you would see the united states congress voting on defunding planned parenthood? wasn't that something to behold? 240 votes in the house, god bless mike pence as he runs for governor in indiana. what a hero for our side. [applause] i actually kind of just wanted him to run for president, how about you? but maybe that's down the road. i know mike and karen so very well, and, you know, here they went after him. they are going after anyone that would want to defund planned parenthood saying it's a war on women. i mean, can you believe this? on one of those bus tours, i was privileged to be with lyla rose and live action folks. you talk about a poised, fearless, beautiful young woman getting people to go into

planned parent hood clinics and give us a hellish look at what they are really like. can you see that one in new jersey where the clinic director almost salivating as she helps the person who she thinks is a sex trafficker? i mean, this stuff is beyond the pail, so here we see planned parenthood workers, clinic directer on down engaging in these reprehenceble activities. you know, planned parenthood had this image that we're helping poor women, offering health services. i don't mean to offend anybody here, but now listen to this -- calling a doctor in one of these so-called health care clinics, a health care provider. the first time he sees that woman is when she's lying down on the table -- now, we as women all get the picture. ready to have an abortion. he hasn't had a discussion with

her, and that's her health care provider. we're not going to let planned parenthood get away with this, and they talk about helping poor women. they talk like they are the only game this town. that's not true. we have health centers, other services available from places that do not provide abortion and again american people do not want their tax dollars going for abortion. you know, there was a poll recently that was so encouraging. americans, a large majority of americans support presential notice. they support informed concept, and then they'rest there's the question -- and then there's the question of planned parenthood, and 40% support that. it's not a majority, but i want to encourage you because they've had 25 years -- planned parenthood has had 25 years to project this wonderful image, and we've only had a few month where we've been chipping away

at it, and i'm telling you, 40% being with us is a huge increase from just a few months ago, and as we continue to damage their brand and tell the truth, we will be successful even more so, defunding planned parenthood at the state level. susan b. anthony has a score card, and i was recently in new hampshire because there was an executive counsel who voted to defund, not renew parenthood's contract to the tune of $1.8 million, so if you look at that score card now, you'll see that over 60 -- almost $61 million has been taken away from planned parenthood in the states with courageous people on executive councils, courageous governors, courageous state legislatures, and we will continue that effort because when you defund planned parenthood, you save the lives of innocent unborn children, and

you help women and you help young girls. we will continue in that effort. you know, getting into this political arena, let me just kind of give you a picture of being in congress and being pro-life. i'm in the judiciary committee. we're called in to testify on mexico city policy. that's whether or not our tax dollars, and you know what obama did with that, tax dollars would be used to pay for abortions in third world countries. i'm there as the head of the pro-life women's caucus. nina lowey, another grandma is there head of the pro-choice caucus. it's an emotional time for me because it's always a spiritual thing when you're going after abortion, but chris smith, congressman from new jersey who is a hero that i cannot -- i can't sing his praises enough in

regard to his stand on life -- when he makes his opening comments on the screens on both sides of the room, he says a few things, but what's on the screen is a 3-d ultrasound. wow. it would have been poignant enough, except a week before that, i was at the 3-d ultrasound of one of our grandchildren. as i sat there and i looked at that precious image, i thought of the little baby coming into our family that we already cherished, and i looked at the chairman of that subcommittee who was then, the democrat controlled committee, and i said to him, congressman lantos, i said, you know, i applaud the human rights work that you have done, but i have to tell you with all due respect, mr.

chairman, i believe human rights begin in the womb. that's where they begin, and we all know that, don't we? little children know that because it is true. [applause] you know, we at susan b. anthony are involved in the presidential race too right know. we have the most proabortion president in history. that's what we have. as we look at the nominees, the potential nominees on the republican side, we have this pledge that we've offered them. i can tell you all the years i've been in politics, sometimes being pro-life doesn't really mean very much because the candidates and then someone who's elected will be pro-life in that they will throw you a vote every once in awhile, but they'll never go to the microphone, never make comments, never make -- break a sweat on the issue, and

we have said we want a president who will lead on life, and listen to this -- this is our pledge. first of all, i would nominate u.s. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint. let me just translate that for you. we don't want a president to nominate anyone who would legislate from the bench. how about that? [applause] in regards to appointees, the cabinet in executive positions, we say the relevant ones like national institutes of health, pro-life. we're asking a president to do that, and then to defund planned parenthood which reflects what the congress voted on with those 240 votes and god willing will take care of the problem in the senate so that in this time of fiscal and moral crisis, we will defund planned parenthood, so that's part of our pledge, and also this reflects legislation

that we've had passed in the house of representatives too. sign into law a uncapable child protection agent. we are asking that potential nominee sign our pledge. we've had signers. we've had michele bachmann, tim pawlety. ron paul and those people committed to lead on life. i'm not supposed to talk about it, but aisle be on -- i'll be in a hot state on a bus before a very important vote, again, going with some of these presidential candidates. we are very excited that these people have taken our pledge seriously, and, you know, again the pundits will say the social issues don't really matter in this race. it's the economy. you've heard that, haven't you? i'll tell you, we have a woman, the only pro-life woman serving in the united states senate

right now, kelly ioke. you know, it was the life issue that made the difference in her race and propelled her to the united states senate. you take the economy, and, again, you can count on social conservatives to be good on the fiscal issues too, but when you add the life issue into the race, it is a political winner. when i look at this room, i think of incredible potential here. all of us can make a huge difference. it's a great nation that we live in even with all of these problems, and i stand for life. i know that you stand for life, and you want candidates that stand for life because indeed laws saves lives. do you know what i think of? i was hop norred to serve with -- honored to serve with henry hyde from illinois, the chairman of the judiciary committee, and i've never heard a man speak so e gently --

elegantly as he did. when we stand for life, millions of voices who have never been heard in this world will thank you. god bless you. thank you so much. [applause] >> picturing my sonogram pictures framed in my house. thank you so much. again, we are so lucky. now, i have the privilege of making the introduction for an introduction. we have from the eagle forum, bruce carlston. [applause] >> it's my honor to introduce phyllis schlafly, one of the most tireless, courageous, profamily activist of all time.

with a bio bio who cannot explain our practice, she's stood up as a full time homemaker and a host of issues of what makes america great. she started a volunteer led organization called the eagle forum in 1972, author of over 20 books, and you can follow her activity at eagleforum.org. please welcome phyllis schlafly. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. [applause] [applause] thank you very much. smart girls, i'm so happy to be in the presence of so many smart girls who are not only smart,

but don't mind being called girls. [laughter] years ago, probably the greatest star of his time was senator edward dirksen of illinois, and he opened his speeches by saying in his low voice, girl -- and we didn't mind that at all. we liked him very much, and it's -- you have a wonderful group. you're speakers have been absolutely incredible, one after another. it was 40 years ago that i invited 100 women from 30 states to my new to come just a few 100 feet from this location here, and meet me on the golden rod show boat right on the river, and invited them to join me organization, newly founded, and to go home and be leaders. we wanted to beat the equal

rights amendment, but basically my message was to be leaders in the political process because our country needs you, and it has fallen to our responsibility to be the leader to tell you how feminism has been such a destructive force in our society. i do a great deal of talking on college campuses and talk on a lot of subjects, but it's interesting the speech i'm most frequently asked to give on campus is a speech about feminism. the women study's department always turns out. [laughter] some of this has been a hot topic. every few years time and "newsweek" ask the question, is feminism dead? also at the same time, feminism is something they talk about in the blogs, magazines, and on the pages of "wall street journal,"

and perhaps a reason for this is because of czar ray palin. one of the lies feminism says is women cannot be successful because they are victims of mean men in this society. whatever you think about sarah palin, she is obviously a success. she's a success in politics. she is a success with a bunch of children. and she has a cool husband. on top of all of that, she's pretty, and the feminists just can't stand it. [laughter] they absolutely keep attacking her all the time. it has made feminism something they talk about in the media because the feminists do dominate the discourse about women in the media, and we need to be understanding about the lies that they tell young

women. for example, this idea that women are victims are the most fortunate places to live on earth. whatever the cause, the current cause of the feminists is, women are pore tried as victims. in the 1960s and using the word "liberation" and that means liberated from home and husband and marriage and children, and then in the 1970s, it was the equal rights amendment. to be liberated from this terrible discrimination that was allegedly visited on women. in the 1980s, they demanded government funded day care as a middle class entitlement because they thought one of the examples of the oppression of women is

the society expects mothers to look after their own babies, and we have to lift that oppression off their shoulders and give it to the taxpayers. in the 1990s it was the domestic violence carried on. it's funny after claiming the sexes are completely interchange l, they were never for equality, but selling the idea of the interchangeability of the sexes, and there's no gender difference. in fact, in the women's study courses in the colleges, you are absolutely required to believe that god didn't make us in two different kinds. we really are the same, and the only difference is you think you see are a social construct. it's because terrible parents give dolls to girls and trucks to boys, but when nay come to passing the violence against women act, all the sudden, they do believe in sex differences, that women are naturally victims

and men are naturally batterers, and it's a very discriminatory law. in the obama administration, they are for the paycheck fairness act which basically is to set up government commissions to give the jobs to women and not to the men, and you know when obama passed his stimulus bill for these solve-ready jobs that didn't exist, the feminists had a little tantrum and went down there and demanded that the most jobs that were given were begin to women, and they got the majority of jobs although we know the majority of jobs were lost by men. the best definition of feminism was given hi jess ray from the washington wash. she wrote feminism is an ideology based on the position that atree i don't --

try tree arty exists. they have one conservative professor at harvard university. his name is harley mansfield, and he wrote a splendid book identifying the current women's liberation movement. the feminist movement as they now call it, and he said, in fact, it is antiman, antimas cue lip, antimarriage, antimotherhood, and antimorality. it is amazing that any woman today would want to call herself a feminist. this so-called liberation movement started with the betty freed book called the "feminine mystique" said the homemaker was living in a comfortable concentration camp, and she was doing duties not worthy of an

educated woman, and she should move out into the work force, and the big mob of women's lib, the french woman who taught in all the women study classes, called a homemaker a parasite because she was not doing anything useful, and even gloria -- they have not changed their views. just a few weeks ago gloria said when a woman gets married, she becomes a semi-nonperp. she didn't get married until she was rather elderly and she got married was to put her boyfriend on her health care plan. [laughter] okay. all right, so, but the devaluing of the full-time homemaker has really become a part of our culture, and it is constantly reiterated on the media, and so that's why they -- they don't talk so much about liberation anymore. they want to call themselves

feminists, and the real thing that has made life so much more pleas sand for women is not the feminist movement at all, but all the labor devices. when i got married, i just wanted a drier so i didn't have to hang my diapers on the line. now you can even get cut up onions at the grocery store. the heritage foundation made a list of the 25 amenities people have assigned to the poor status below a certain income level. i read that list, and growing up i had one thing on the list. we didn't have a stove or anything else, but we were not claiming we were victims, we were not getting government handouts, and it was my generation that grew up to be the greatest generation.

[applause] the national bureau of economic research has reported that as women have gainedded more freedom, more education and more power, they have become less happy, so they are not as happy as they used to be as when they were in that comfortable concentration camp. they are not only antimen, but also very antimas cue lip. this is why they have used their most ruthless feminists in the department of education to go after the getting rid of college men sports, and they have made the colleges cancel hundreds of mens' sports, and particularly they have forced colleges to abolish 450 wrestling teams. wrestling is a very masculine

sport, and the feminists can't stand it. getting rid of the wrestling teams doesn't do anything for women. all it does is hurt mep. my e-mail box is filled with students from vairs colleges like -- various colleges like brown and other places. can you please help us save our wrestling team? this proves it doesn't have anything to do with equal spending of money. it's the cheapest sport in the colleges. all you need is a mat -- [laughter] and yet they are determined to get rid of them, so as several speakers have commented, feminism inevitably leads to big government because all of their problems that they claim they have calls for a government remedy, and, of course, when they walk out on marriage and kick out their husbands, they look to big brother government to be their provider, and the obama administration knows this. one of his chief advisers, also

an adviser to bill clinton, pedesta, when his own think tank u now. he has 83 bills to channel taxpayer's money to unmarried women because 73% of unmarried women voted for obama for president, and they know where they constituency is. when you kick the men out of your life, you look to government to take the place and be provider, and we now have nearly half of our people who are getting all or part of their living expenses from the taxpayer. that means we have a two-class society. people who pay taxes and people who vote for democrats who give them the biggest handout. that's what's going on in our country today, and that's another confirmation of the fact you cannot separate the social issues from the fiscal issues. you have to ask the people who

are concerned only about fiscal issues, what are we spending our money on? we're spending it to support the broken families and the children who don't have any fathers in the home. now, another one of the lies that the feminists tell is that they have created these opportunities that women have today. that is a bunch of nonsense. i've already mentioned how it is all the wonderful inventions and all the labor-saving devices that have made the difference in women's life. one time when i was in england, i brought a real fungsing spinning wheel, and when our country was founded after the women did all their daily work of cooking, washing, ect., in the evening they sat down at the spinning wheel and spin the cloth to make the clothes, so i have that spinning wheel just to remind me of what it used to be before the american private

enterprise system created all these wonderful up vengeses that have given us the highest standard of living in the world, and all this attack on our energy is to reduce our standard of living because when obama said he wanted to redistribute the wealth, he just didn't mean from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. he means to the rest of the world, and that's what he's trying to do, and, you know, we live in a society where we have single family dwellings which are heated in the winter and cooled in the summer, and the rest of the world doesn't have that, and this is because of our great supply of energy, and he's trying to reduce it. he said you can't keep your thermostat set at 72 anymore. who is he to tell me i can't keep my thermostat at 72? [cheers and applause] he wants to take away our lightbulb, the eddison lightbulb, one of the greatest inventions in the world.

he just closed all these american plants that make eddison lightbulb, the last one laid off 200 people in virginia, and opened plants in china. that's his job -- creating jobs in china, not this this country. well, i just want to point out that the feminists did not create all of these -- even educational opportunities. i worked my way through college and got any bachelor's degree in -- when was it? i forgot. [laughter] i forgotten when it was. [laughter] it was 1944 -- before most of you were born, and no problem. washington university is just at the st. louis here, a great co-ed university, and i worked my way through as a gunner, firing.50 and.30 callly beer

ammunitions. i worked half the time four to midnight, then midnight to the morning. went to college in the morning. i got a degree in three years. i went to harvard garage watt school, no exation. i got my masters in 1945. what was the problem? any of my classmates could have done the same thing if they wanted to. i did it, and anybody else could have done it. those opportunities were there. my mother got her bachelor's degree at washington university in 1920. no problem. she competed with all the guys then. what's all the problem? [applause] it is such a big lie that the feminists created these opportunities. i think we need to remember that attitude is everything, and if you wake up in the morning thinking you're a victim, you

are probably not going to accomplish anything whether you're a man or a woman, and we have the great opportunity to build the kind of life that we want to have. now, when i was working my way through college, i had to take classes that fit into my work schedule, and that's when i got into political science and was fascinated with the whole subject of politics. i've been a volunteer in politics ever sense. i enjoy it. i think it's terribly important because when the founding fathers said they wanted to leave the blessings of liberty to our prosperity, that means you and me. they wanted us to carry on, and we need you to be involved in the process, and it's just so exciting to hear the speakers you've had here at this conference and so exciting to see you smart girls who are willing to be active in the process because that is what we need to make sure that our country can exist. we don't want to live in a

country that is run by executive proke clay mageses that obama givings out and by his czars. he's appointed more czars than the russians appointed in a millennium. [laughter] some of them are really cooky too. you got the one man jones who admitted he was a communist. then you got the one who said he wanted dogs to have lawyers so they can sue us. the one who said that your body parts really belong to the government so if you're in the hospital with a life threatening ailment, the government can take your body parts right now and give them to somebody else who will find them more useful. these of some of his czars, and then, of course, the ones who

have been teaching the little kids. i hope you saw the thing on youtube where the second graders were taught to sing new words to the battle hymn of the republic that go like this, hue ray, mr. president, we honor you today for all your great accomplishments, we all just say hooray. mr. president, you're number one, we're proud of you. obama -- well, somehow i don't think that's what our second graders ought to be doing. the high schoolers have training courses to invite them to join his organizing for america so that they will be able to be bought into the political process to reelect obama. it is true what he said that he wants to fundamentally transform america, and he's doing it very rapidly. that's why we need you and your energies working between now and

the election next year. now, some of you know all about feminism. we are going to have a book signing of my new book this afternoon, i think right after this program. it's called "the flipside of feminism" and it's particularly good for young women. my co-editor is here, suzanne, i think she's here. giving a young woman's point of view which is important so you are not led down the dead end road of feminism. we invite you to get yourself trained and accomplished and dedicated to work in the political process. i invite you all to join the eagle forum to come to our eagle counsel which will be in september in washington. you can get all the facts on our website, eagleforum.org and

there's training on how to grapple with these issues. you see, our leaders have been in this fight as i said for 40 years. this is our 40th annual eagle council of eagle forum, and you would like to associate with these state leaders, all of whom, like me, are volunteers in the political process. you'd like to know them and learn from them so the -- so that you can be an effective part of the political process. i did a debate with one of these feminists one time, and the moderator said to my opponent, she said, i don't understand why you guys didn't win. he said, you had all the prom innocent people. you had the presidents. you had all the political people. you had hollywood. you had the money. why didn't you win? she asked her, and i think it was a truthful answer. she said, well, it took us several years to learn how the process works, and we know an eagle forum because we had had victories.

our victory over the equal rights amendment is the most incredible proof how the grassroots can rise up and take over the entire establishment, three presidents against us, nixon, ford, and carter running their campaign out of the carter white house when he was there. they had all governors, some who walked the picket line gebs us. they had nearly all of congress, 99% of the media, plenty of money, and we beat them all, and you can do that too, but you -- [applause] you need to learn how to -- how the process operates. i encourage you to associate with our leaders who learn how to do is and accomplished great things at the state and national level, and i'll just remind you -- our national anthem is different from every other national anthem in the world, and it's the only one that ends with a question, and you're there to provide the answer.

the question is oh, that star spangled banner still wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave. that's our question. we need you to provide the answer. thank you for coming to this today. [applause] [cheers and applause] [applause] blpg

>> glad to hear that. >> last week, nasa's dawn spacecraft gathered information on vesta and that same day, nasa began its future form up at college park. panelists including nasa scientists and engineers talk about what's ahead for the agency and the role of nasa in advancing innovation and technology. this is an hour. >> i want to start by saying a simple fact, and that is this -- that our greatest achievements, greatest things we do as individuals or as a society

really begin with dreams. some thought of something we may view as up achieve l, -- unachievable, but worthying about and dreaming about. as our capabilities evolve, we become smarter, technologies brought forth, these dreams e vol into aspirations where all the sudden -- or not all the sudden, but in time it's not crazy to think about going to the moon or going to mars or looking at distant stars on the edges of the universe. they become aspirations. something maybe to some day shoot for, and as we continue to become smarter or develop more capabilities and technologies, the next step in this con -- continuum are pursuits. these aspirations become pursuits, setting goals, focus our efforts and work towards the

realization of those dpoal -- goals, and then finally the last step in that second sequence is achievement. we go from dreams, aspiration, pursuit, to achievement, and i believe that sequence has been born out time and time again at nasa in the past, is being born out in the present, and will be born out in the future. one great thing about achievements is they lead to new dreams. this cycle can just keep going, and really saying the skies the limit, but the universe is the limit, but i don't think that's the limit. we'll learn as we go. nasa has a history of producing incredible achievements. these are not just human achievements and exploration taking humans to places where was thought to be impossible. these are scientific achievements, discovery about

our surroundings, about the earth, about our universe. the administrator listed a number of achievements in either the last couple of months or in the coming next months, but the last few months of this year really is incredible with two missions to study the earth, mission to study the interior of the moon, on our way to jupiter now, exploring mars in ways that we have not been able to to date, and we're in orbit around the asteroid vesta learning about the origins of the solar system. we recently entered orbit around mercury. in february, launching an x-ray telescope to look out further than has been before with x-ray astronomy. this is over the course of maybe an eight or nine month period. i would say this is a period of great achievement with many that still lie ahead. when i think about nasa science, two words come to mind --

inspirational and service. i think what nasa does is inspirational. i think it speaks to the very core of who we are as human beingsment one thing that has been constant throughout time is the desire to explore, the desire to understand our surroundings whether it be, you know, years ago the forest we live nearby or how our residents or domicile fits into that landscape, or more recently, the universe we live in and our place in it, and if you just think about it, getting back to dreams and pursuits and achievements, you know, we're currently looking very closely at the beginning of time as we understand it out at the furthest reaches, the edges of the universe. we discovered methane lakes and

rivers on the surface and discovered strong indications of liquid water on mars. we're understanding our own planet, how it functions, how it's changing, and what those changes mean for life on earth, and that gets to the second element. i said inspirational, the second is service. the science we do helps us understand not just the stuff we dream about, but where we live, and the second aspect of the human spirit beside exploration is the desire, the need, the hunger to survive, and not just survive, but thrive in our own environment, and surviving and or thriving, depends if you're a pessimist or optimist. i'll say thriving in our environment requires information, requires the perspective and scale and context of observation that comes from looking from spacement you know, i'm sure

nearly all of you saw the earth's rise image of the earth hanging -- well, floating -- dploat floating is not the right word, but being in the darkness and silence of space, and that picture really changed how we view our planet as did the pale blue dot image. that perspective, understanding how the earth works, the interacting components will not only allow us to survive in the face of the changes that our planet faces, but really thrive, really make the most of the evolution of our planet. in that sense, nasa both inspires and serving human kind, and what pursuit could be greater frankly? i think it's fitting that we're here at a university because i often compare investing in nasa science and exploration to

investing in college. you know, we're in difficult economic times, but i think any parent that scraped and saved money despite hard times to send their chill or chirp -- child or children to school for a brighter and better future understands what we do at nasa is for the nation and with the world. with that, i'll pass it over to laurie. thank you. [applause] ..

>> as we go we will be building on an extraordinary legacy, the legacy of apollo, perhaps the greatest achievement of the last century of humankind. the legacy of the space shuttle program, which we successfully brought to a close only weeks ago with an extraordinary mission, final mission of the space shuttle to the international space station. how many people watched launch? did we go in person? right on. i was very privileged to be there, and it was a special, a special time. and we all extraordinary kudos, and that team deserves the kudos, all the kudos we can give them.

and that prog rim deserves all the pride that it takes in its achievement. it has been extraordinary, but we are looking towards the future, as charlie said. it was time to retire the shuttle and move forward. we will be going farther. we will be going beyond where the shuttle could go, beyond leo, beyond low-earth orbit, beyond the moon, beyond where apollo went. we will be going beyond to places like asteroids and mars, and in my hopes and aspirations, even beyond that with humans. why will we be doing this? well, one, there's so much to know about these places. asteroids can teach us incredible things about the birth of our solar system. they are the remnants of the cloud of material from which the sun and planets formed. they are the oldest rock in the solar system, and we can use them to really unravel the mystery of how solar systems form and how our solar system

formed. and even of things like the organic material that we are all made of were delivered to the forming planets. in addition of coarse asteroids can have a counter effect on life and our planet as we know. anyone who loves dinosaurs knows that these objects occasionally intersect the order of the earth, when the earth is sitting there. so they can cause major changes in life on our planet, and have done so. in fact, we are here today as a result of an impact it would not want to go the way of the dinosaurs. so asteroids are very interesting objects. they are interesting from a hazard perspective, and who knows, maybe we can help save the world by going and exploring them. and then of course mars is one of our future destinations for humans is an extraordinary compelling place with a long history of holding a special place of humanity's dreams for

future exploration. i believe that our best chance to discover life on another world. we all heard about our great water discovery last week, potential for floating water even today on mars. it's my opinion we will be human explorers to actually go and answer the question of whether or not there has been or is currently life on mars. so that's an extraordinary scientific reason to go. and in addition, long periods of -- mars seems like a logical place to go do that. so we do because there's so much to know. we also do it because it's pushing the boundaries of what is possible is part of our dna as human beings, and as part of the dna of our country i would say. it's part of american dna so we'll continue to push beyond where we have been before. and also because undertaking really audacious challenges like saying we're going to send humans to mars, drives our

nation to thrive and invent and ultimately prosper. i truly believe that we must take on audacious challenges as a country in order to continue to drive forward and prosper your so how are we going to do this? how are we going to create this future for human spaceflight, as for me people are saying, there's no program. i'm here to say there is a great program. we actually have all the pieces in place in the programs we are putting together to undertake that space of human exploration. we have the thesis in place thanks to congress t ed pastor authorization act last year into the administration who supported that. what are those elements? there's basically three pieces to our future program of human exploration. they start close to home in low-earth orbit with the international space station and extends until these 2020. it is our laboratory, our testbed and a foothold in space for humans.

we have astronauts. now. it's been occupied continuously for over 11 years and we can to keep a record going for another decade at least. we will use it in ever expanding ways. we will supply it with cargo and ultimately crew using innovative approaches, partnering with the private sector in new ways for nasa to create new industries and new commercial opportunities. so not in the traditional nasa program since which we can talk more in the q&a if you all want to, yet anyways with our commercial partners developing a service that the nasa can purchase. that service is available to more than just nasa. it's a great opportunity to expand space exploration in new ways. so we start in low-earth orbit. next to go beyond low-earth orbit, so the great thing about doing this innovative partnership for low-earth orbit is it frees up resources for nasa to focus on beyond low-earth orbit. nasa should be focusing on the sink under been done before. we know we need a capital into

the rocket to get out. we have low-earth orbit so we're starting of those right away and those our information right now and actually starting to be constructed. and third we need research, and we need to develop technologies and new capabilities in order to go beyond low-earth orbit in addition to the rocket and a capital. we're working on those as well. so there are questions we need to answer about human survivability long space trips beyond earth. the our new habitats that need to be invented, new kind of propulsion for in space travel, new kinds of spacewalking suits, new kinds of shuttlecraft to maybe five asteroids around -- like astronauts around the asteroid. with a question on twitter come to already about the kinds of technology that we're going to be working on. those are some of the new kinds of systems we need as we go beyond low-earth orbit pics of the rocket and the capital we're doing are absolutely necessary. they are actually not sufficient for us to get there. we need to invent a lot of other

things as well and i'm sure bob will see more about this. we have all those elements in our programs now. we have all those different pieces, the low-earth orbit peace, the rocket and the capital and the research and technology that we need to go forward. we need to make sure we follow through on investing all of those things and i'm driving to all those things to make our exploration dreams are reality. but i want to close by saying having cool destinations and having the various pieces in our program isn't enough to make this aspiration become reality. making this endeavor a reality will require in venting something that's more challenging, affecting new technologies or new systems. i think it will require inventing a new way of operating for nasa and for our community. it will require inventing new ways of collaborating, new ways of exploring. we need to collaborate across different parts of nasa. science and exploration working

together. like we're trying to do with our commercial programs, but even at our nasa programs we need to work differently with those, whether private sector collects. we need to collaborate with other nations in new and expanded ways. we need to collaborate with universities to make sure that we're getting the best and the brightest students and the best research possible. we probably need to collaborate with the public in the ways we have a collaborate with and before. we need to create a worldwide exploration movement in order to make this aspiration are reality. so my request of all of you today is to think about how you can help us do that your talk to us, tell us ways we can help create this worldwide exploration movement. tell us how to do that with you, worry less of a will build it or watch the rocket exactly what to look like, and more about how we create, the human beings who will not rest until a person is walking on mars, or even going beyond that. let's just think about that for

a moment. what is that moment going to feel like as that first astronaut sets foot on mars? as she shakes that red soil from her boot -- >> i like that spent i hope you all will remember, this is the day we all dedicate ourselves to working together to enable an amazing future for nasa. thanks. [applause] >> and now, i turn it over to my dear friend, bob. >> thank you both. remind me not to try to speak after you do again. [laughter] >> i want to start out by just making a couple of remarks. i guess the best way for me to say this is to say that i love being affiliated with nasa. i'm an engineer who has dreamed of building things and had the privilege of action working on

flight systems in my career, who has been transplanted here in washington. and i love being affiliated with nasa. and i've been thinking about why that is. and the reason i think is because nasa to me is a little microcosm of the best of our nation. we are a nation of explorers. we are a nation that is never satisfied with the status quo. we are a nation that is always trying to out-innovate ourselves, to do better. we are never quite there. we can always do it better. and sure, there are fiscal challenges that our country faces today, but this country still remains the land of opportunity. and when i look at nasa, those are the exact same characteristics that i see for our future. and by the way, those of the same characteristics, that mentality, that approach, the first operation, is the same

characteristics required for success in the 21st century, in the global technological marketplace that we find ourselves in. we heard some about nasa's future science missions, some of nasa's future human exploration missions. these missions are bold. these missions are grand in stature. and so to me one thing that i'm proud of is that our country can dream big through nasa. now, from a technology standpoint many other nations that we are congress and today are based on engineering principles and an engineer and systems that were actually first demonstrated in the '60s, '70s and '80s. and so while we're doing great missions today and while we will be doing even bigger missions in the future, it's imperative that while we are cws missions that we also at a low level make the technology investments required for a future, make the basic research, the applied research

investments required for a future. when i think of nasa i think of all the way back to the space, i think of three long-standing core competencies. basic and applied research, flight systems, i put software in there, and mission operations. you take any one of those three things out and nasa is not nasa. all three are required. now, from a budget standpoint they don't all required equal budget, but that's not what i'm saying. but all three have to be nurtured. all three have to be at a critical mass. because our technology investing in nasa are motivated by our mission, and our missions are only as big as the technologies and capabilities that we have proven that these are integrated core competencies, at the core of what makes nasa a special place for our country. and a special place actually for the engineers and scientists across the country that work there. i've had the privilege over the

past year and a half of representing those folks that are doing the basic in applied research, the technology development that are critical for our nation's future, and for a future in space. and i can tell you from firsthand account that these folks at the nasa centers, in industry, and small business, and universities like the university of maryland, are thrilled and excited and ready to go. and they are contributing today to our nation's future in space. with the work they are doing that will come to fruition in the future. now, we make technology investments for a number of reasons. we make them to enable our future in space, to enable our future science missions, our future human exploration missions. we also may, the federal government also makes these investments because they build our economic competitiveness. we know that when the federal government spends dollars in basic and applied research, the

economy reaps a multiplier of the dollars that are invested. just the past few weeks by the way, there was a whole bunch of news articles out about the human genome project and about for every dollar the federal government invest in the human genome project, in human genome project, over $100 were put into the economy. if nasa's could get that kind of multiplier, i think, think of what that would do for people of this country in terms of jobs and our economy. we also invest in technology because it's a way of staying at the cutting edge. universities know this, at their core. nasa knows this at its core. that's why they're such strong partnerships between universities and nasa. small business, larger companies, they know this as well. its by pushing boundaries up arrow signs and taking informed risk that these future missions will one day be possible. the 21st century will be won by those who innovate, but those

who seek breakthroughs, by those who create that future. and that here today today that nasa is doing that. nasa is doing that every day. the engineers and scientists are making great strides towards that future. and when we create these missions, in future science missions, our future exploration missions, when we create that future in space, i should also point out we improve life every day here on earth. the technology development that go into nasa's future space missions are often spun off into new businesses. new products. new services that we utilize every day. in the biomedical industry, the protective armor that our police, firefighters and military personnel where. bloodflow marking devices, artificial heart, even lasik eye surgery. the gps system that is in legions phone are my friends car. all of these things that we take for granted, the weather

channel, they all come from our past investments in space. and they certainly have all improved my life. and i'm sure you agree they have improved yours. so when i think about our space program, i, first of all as an engineer, ideally am drawn to the charm of our future mission in science and human exploration. but i'm also reminded that those mission can only be as bold as our technological investments that we make today are a life. and without this technological investments, we won't reach where we are trying to go. we will be grasping for that future with older technology that will make it harder to have a sustainable and affordable exploration future. like i said, i'm an engineer who believes this passionately.

i think it's been a real honor and service for me to come to nasa and get to represent the engineers and scientists that are going to make this future possible, and are making the future possible every day. there's one question that i did want to get to before i pass on to leland. it also came in on twitter. and the question that was asked, very wise question, was how do we ensure that the best ideas are harnessed? everyone has ideas. i'm sure here at the university of maryland if i got 1000 students together i would have 10,000 great ideas. and there are ideas that are pouring in by the way toward tor technological develop programs from across the country. they come from universities, small businesses, the nasa center. so one thing i do want to mention that we can maybe discuss it in the future is, one of the things that nasa is trying to do is engage america in this journey.

we can't do this by ourselves. so the technological developments that i'm speaking about, the technological develop and that we need for future science and exploration mission, they will come from across america. they will come from innovators from all around the country. we have to do this in an open and competitive manner. and you see us taking steps that way with some of the solicitations actually that administrator bolden has mentioned in his speech. he mentioned nasa institute for exit advanced concepts which this week announced 30 visionary advanced concepts awards. those awards by the way just happened to be divided by about 30% went to the nasa centers, about 30% went to academia and the rest went to industry, small and large business around the country. that wasn't by design, but to me that's a little bit of proof that there are great ideas everywhere. there are innovators everywhere in this country. one that thinks nasa needs to do

is engage them. and that will enable the future that we seek. thank you. [applause] >> so, let me turn it over now to my good friend, mr. leland melvin. >> thanks, bobby. i'm excited to be here because my job of the last eight months of in the associate administrator for education. and charlie has charged me to help inspire and motivate our next generation of explorers. so all the missions that waleed and lori and bobby this document innovation, a very technologically and digitally literate workforce to make these things happen. and it starts at a very early age, usually middle schools where students get turned on and turn off a suspect sometimes even before the. now, i have had two very defining moment in my life at an early age. the first one was when i turned

over a desk in my elementary school class, and mrs. martin grabbed my ear and took me to the principal's office. and back then you'd have a little corporal punishment. i had a little hand in my development from the principal. as i walked home, i stopped by my friend butch's house, and his mother was a teacher. so they had that telepathy thing, you know, teacher network. she had a hand in my development. and then when i got home i got the real deal from my dad, who had the bigger hand in my development. but i say this because it takes a village to raise a child, an african proverb, and we're all part of that to ensure that our children and students have everything in their power, their arms, everything in their power to succeed. and to be the future technologists, the future innovators, the future rocket

scientists, the future explorers. so the only way that we are going to move forward in our society is to allow the village to come together as we are doing here, and have a role and a part in the development of these children. now, there's another piece to this. that was my first defining moment. showing the community cared about my education, my development, making sure it would be a part of a function society that does great things. the second defining moment was, i think i was in eighth grade and my mom gave me a chemistry set. and this was before osha had child appropriate age for doing things. so i mix these two similar chemicals, and created this fantastic explosion. that orange and white smoke and burnt a hole in mom's carpet. another hand in my development. at this field my curiosity to be

a scientist. i became a chemistry major in college. and so this out of school hands-on experiential activity helped me see the excitement of science and engineering. and that fueled me to become a chemist, as i said. but how do we do this as a society to give the students to see how they can become something like a bobby braun or a laurie leshin or waleed. how to militancy this? it's aligned them to see that dream. this only gets better disaffected by the inability for teacher to share with them the proper way to do an integral or a proper way to learn different systems to get to the next step. math, science, engineer, technology, these are all the things that nasa is trying to do to ensure that kids have the right route, the right tools to move forward, but also the

teachers at the same thing. we are working in programs where we support teachers with curriculum, with hands-on experiences, the spiritual hands-on peace is not just for the kids, but the teachers. click couple weeks ago i was down in houston at nasa and we flew, it was on the zero g. airplane which we called the vomit comet, but we had 84 k-12 teachers that supplied research experiments. working in groups of four comment research experiments. they flew on this zero g. airplane. and i took down one of our white house policy analyst with me to let him see what are the nasty things he can offer to the kids to be motivated and inspired. so we all have to figure out what do we uniquely have to offer to show that piece of inspiration? that's what this is all about.

this village coming together to share these unique experiences to blow up the rug in my moms room, to have these defining moments so that they will know that there is something out there for them in their future, exploration, the science, engineering. how many of you, by a show fans, have had a defining moment early in your life that led you to where you are today? a teacher, or an experiment or building a bicycle or doing something with your hands. we have programs like where we're trying to reach underserved, underrepresented students having a summer expected lots of times the summertime is when you get students who don't do anything. by the time to get back to school in the fall they're having to play catch up again. so this is a program where we talk to students but also we talked to teachers, to give teachers these same types of

hands-on experiences. we are looking for collaborations with industry, nonprofit, for-profit, other government organizations to see how we can better leverage the nasa resources. and it might not just be money. it might be subject matter experts that come to a school or work with you. it could be, you know, giving awards for the invitation to have the winner to fly on the zero g aircraft. or where a student or teacher can actually build experiments to go up on a ride or go to the international space station. these are some the assets that we can have to offer up in a strategic partnership. we have an announcement of opportunity that is ongoing, that you can apply to get a space agreement with nasa that will talk about some of these things later in the panel this afternoon. but one of the other things that we are doing, we have a vision for nasa education which is to advance high quality education,

using nasa unique capabilities. the president and the americas competes act had the office of science and technology policy come up with a paper in january of next year to show how the federal government in the stem fields are working together so we don't duplicate efforts. how many summer camps are doing the same things quick summary of the organizations are doing very similar things? how do we pull them together to leverage the resources that they are doing to make a bigger impact? i want to try to take things too stupid our to try to help motivate and inspire that's what nasa is doing. so thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you to our panel and our speakers. and now is the great part. and opportunity for all of you to ask questions of our panelists. we have microphones here in the

aisles. if you'd like to ask a question of one of our panelists, please go to the mic. we ask you to use the microphones so everyone can hear your question. the first question right here, sir. >> good morning, folks. i have a general question about technology for you at nasa. how much do you think there is a synergy between green or fuel technologies and exploration technologies, how strong do you think this synergy is if you think it exists? and how much do you put, how much mental effort you think you guys can, should and have invested in making that synergy a cornerstone of how you run technology research? >> that's a great question. thank you for that.

i think it's very true that the technology investment that we make for a future space mission can help us right here on earth. and in particular in energy. i'll give you a couple examples. so, when it was an engineer i worked on a mission, to mars actually, the mars 2001 lander. and to be honest with you it never flew. but there was a payload on that mission. it was designed by university professor at arizona state university. and after that payload was developed and after it didn't fly, he actually left the university come went to california and he started a small business. the reason he started that business is because he realized if he took his little mars payload that was designed to produce propellant out of the atmosphere to mars, and he ran it in reverse, he would have a very efficient fuel cell. and those systems are now

popping up all over california. they are called boomboxes. i don't know if anyone has heard of bloom energy here. but for instance, nasa got a new energy efficient building, and it's got boomboxes for some of its power. there are google headquarters, ebay headquarters. so there's a direct example for you. in his speech, the administrator mentioned juno. juno is the first solar powered spacecraft to go as far as jupiter. it's only able to accomplish its mission because of the high efficiency solar cells that would provide the power for the instruments to do that mission. now, those high efficiency solar cells didn't just happen. it took years of investment by nasa to develop -- by the way, in collaboration with business and universities -- to develop those come and the senseless can

be transferred -- same cells can be transferred and in many cases can be transferred to commercial applications right here on earth. so those are just a couple examples. but i should also take in my role as chief technologist i am working to set up partnerships with other government agencies. i've talked with the director of d.o.e., a number of other agencies in the energy sector as well. one of the things i've noticed about agencies, we all have different missions, energy has a different mission for nasa which has a different mission than the dod. but where we all have commonality is in advanced technology. and so when nasa makes investments in technology, it creates partnerships, partnership opportunities i should say, across government. and in a way it makes the pie bigger for all of us. and the fact that nasa is now

making technology investments and is talk about how those investors will help our missions in the future, and actually created some energy for me, positive inertia, positive momentum with those other government agencies. including d.o.e. and arpa-e. i think what you see is nasa will continue to make advances in technology, and power and propulsion for our in space mission and will continue to transfer those advances to benefit life here on earth. >> i would just add one quick thing to do, which is there's a unique part of this when he went into the equation which is the long-term life support system to sustain human mission of up to a year, said when asked what our to do for to mars. you must by definition, can't take everything with you, you need to live for two or three years in space. you've got to be able to generate or recycle, we will have the most efficient

recycling system around on these spaceships that we listen to these other worlds. and so the water systems and other support systems, packaging, advanced packaging systems, all kinds of ways this can flow back into our everyday lives when you put humans in that equation. [inaudible] >> we are pioneering. spent a reminder that if you're falling us on twitter you can follow the conversation at pounds and nasa future. you can also send questions to us to the national -- massive twitter account but and if you're here and have a question, please come up to the mics. will take one in the back. >> good morning. i teach at the university of maryland. in my naïve opinion it seems like the biggest problem that nasa has is actually pr.

i think you guys probably appreciate the fact that you're kind of preaching kind of preaching to the choir here, and everybody that is following along, you know, on twitter or on the web are also kind of part of the choir. nasa does a lot of great stuff in terms of outreach, you talked about it, we recognize it. but the aerospace community is very small. it's a very niche market. and it seems to me that, you know, our military advertises, you know. the general public knows what the military does because they see advertising for it. it's great, you reach out to the kids, and the hope is, you know, they are going to get excited and this information will get disseminated. but the province is kids don't vote. it's the parents who vote. and i don't know if maybe there's something that restricts nasa from being able to just make commercials, but i think you need to get creative and find a way around that. because i think the biggest

problem is really exciting the adult public and letting them know what nasa is doing and what they are doing for the kids, you know, the technologies they are benefiting from. >> well, yes, you're correct, there are things preventing us from doing exactly what the military does. but the truth is, we are created and getting more creative all the time. david could answer this, but you start to see nasa popping up in pop-culture references, a lot of places, tv shows, things like that. that's not all an accident. we do what we can to get things out there. you are absolutely right though that part of the challenge i hope we all take on is to try to go beyond the people who we have already convinced and have already great supporters of nasa. and there are a lot. it's a fairly consistent when

you do polls and things, fairly consistent, between 50 and 70% of the country to support us all the time. so that's great. nasa has great brand recognition all around the world so we are fortunate in that way. but you are right, we need to unleash an even broader base of support. one way we can do that is by having created programs to engage people in new ways. and i think for example, the commercial approach to bring current cargo to low-earth orbit it will open up space for people to experience ultimately. it will take a while for us to get there but for more people to experience that have ever experienced it before. in my mind that will be some of the best advertising we get, to have more people experience going to space. >> i would just like to add one thing. you mentioned preaching to the choir, and asked want to ask for the choir's help. the more loudly using, the more people passing by the church might poke your head in and see what's going on.

there's a lot of magic in nasa, and i think the people in this room know that, and believe that, and feel it. and i think we really feel it. otherwise we wouldn't be here. so, ideas that you have and conversations you engage in to help get that magic out, because i do think it will be helpful to all of us. >> i think one of the other things we can do is look at nontraditional partners. last year during the summer innovation program we did apsa with mary j. blige, multi-platinum, you know, musical recording artists in r&b. and she supported a school in new york, the women's academy of excellence. and so she's giving scholarships to these students, in. city, a lot of these kids are single parents and don't have a lot of resources. but just this relationship with mary j. blige enter foundation for advancing women now gets

about a demographic that doesn't usually know what we do at nasa. and so i think more strategic partners that we don't usually see or work with is really important to assure that this message goes out. donovan mcnabb, we had kids in his football camp get taught by a nasa physicist the physics of a football. we're telling if you're statistic you'll be a better ballplayer, you might get a scholarship or go on. but here's a group of students who would never think of physics associated with football. and so again, reaching out to groups that would not traditionally be part of the mainstream. and then because that gets replicated, replicated, replicated, and it goes out and then using social media is also a big area. >> but please, send us your ideas. >> this is a two-way conversation. it's not just us knowing the best things to do up here. we need is a sport from you guys out there also.

that's why we are here. >> okay. sir. spent i'm dick henry, director of maryland space consortium and i'm a professor at the johns hopkins university in baltimore. and i have a question for mr. leland melvin. we are all attempting to inspire the young people and the national spacecraft program allows nasa to the footprint, not just in states such as maryland whether the nasa center, but in every single state of the union. and i'm wondering what your vision is, mr. melvin, for the future of your space program? >> a very good question. we just went through a redesign of nasa education and we're meeting actually september the ninth to start shaping where we're going to go with our new vision for nasa education. so i'll have to get back to you september 9. we are looking at how do we give kids more experiential moments to get that defining moment in their lives?

also with middle school teachers, it's another area where going to try to increase this pipeline and give some of the higher ed kids these experiences. all the things you're doing right now, but how do we taken to scale even more with better strategic partners to get even more reach, more breath. so it's coming. we'll be talking to you guys a lot. we are working together to try to see how we can use the dollars to be more effective and well we are going with vision. >> thank you. i see we have gotten a couple of cards handed out from our followers on twitter. would any of our panelists like to take a question? >> sure. i'll take one that came and asked what international partnerships are currently available, and how can these benefits the u.s. economy? we have a number of partnerships

from, from argentina to japan, throughout europe, to brazil. i mean, there are sensors, instruments on various spacecraft. some of our loftier ambitions going deeper into the solar system, looking out for into the universe have strong partnerships, in particular with the european space agency, and i see more in the future. we cannot do this alone. we can do a lot of it alone, but can't do as much as we should be doing alone. these partnerships allow all nations involved to realize things that are greater than we could realize individually. so certainly there are many existing partnerships. i look forward to many future partnerships. in fact, as part of the national space policy. and as far as how these can benefit the u.s. economy, it all ties in to what bobby was talking about, investment and

innovation producing significant economic benefits. the farther we reach, the more we pursue. the more we can learn from and cost share with our partners. the more benefit we can realize in our own economy through new technology come through capabilities that would otherwise would not have developed on our own, through i would argue that missions that go farther look deeper, can be more inspiring young people who will benefit our economy through their contributions down the road. so that many opportunities and many benefits. >> i will just add, today we have an extraordinary international partnership with the international space station, six agencies working together, and we have expanded the group to be thinking about the future of human exploration or quit the group called international space exploration coordination group. and in about another couple of months i'd say you will see come

out the first international roadmap for human space exploration that is 14 space agencies coming together from all over the world to work together to think about what are the destinations and the pathways we want to think about for futuregen spaceflight, and more poorly than what does that drive us to today, to be think about the things we need to do to be collaborate on. we are laying the foundation for extending all of the success we've had internationally to the future. can i answer one quick one from twitter? erin from twitter asks nasa, i hope to be a geologist on your first human mission to mars but how can i make this a reality? care and come you're going to throw me out of the way first. [laughter] know, i'm getting. i would be throwing up the entire time. that's a great question and, of course, i think what motivates a lot of us to think about being, about getting to experience that spaceflight and getting to be

that person that does set foot on mars. so i would say is keep pursuing your scientific work. and i love the concept of a scientist being among the first crew that goes to mars. we will need that to be the case so we will need a geologist there. to keep studying archaeology. make sure you throw some biology in there because we will be looking for life when we get there. and and i wanted to ask leyland to say something about what else this person should do if they are thinking about becoming an astronaut spent each year green beans. [laughter] study hard. you know, i had never thought about becoming an astronaut, and i was working at nasa langley for 10 years when a buddy of mine handed me an application and said, you would be a great astronaut. and i looked at him and said what a you talk about? i never imagined, never thought of it into my friend who applied in net income and then i said to myself, if they will net better if they will let no clutch like

that in the i in good enough to get into it but it's really about doing the best that you can in the field you are in. people always say do i have to get a degree in materials science or mechanical engineering? it's just choosing what you lo love. and doing the best that you can, being inspired and motivated. because when you fly in space you are not really an expert in one thing. if the total project to fix. in a solar panels break you have to do a spacewalk and fix it. so you are not a focused specialized person that you're a generalist that your engineering and science classes have taught you how to learn, how to grow, how to think. >> as a scientist you probably want to get a ph.d. most of the scientists in the core our ph.d holding. and then come work with us at nasa. >> you heard it from leyland. you knuckleheads will be the inspiration. [laughter] >> that was charlie.

>> okay. will take another question from here in the audience in the back. >> thank you. good morning. first things first. thank you so much for being here today and giving us a chance of talking to you. it's wonderful. i'm a graduate student here at maryland. i study aerospace year, and we had this course last semester, professor harvard from nia. we were discussing many of the challenges that nasa has in terms of education, exploration, manned versus unmanned, robotics exploration. and we were rounding up all these issues, but in the end it seemed that one of the major problems was to sustain or increase nasa's budget authorized by the government. so, what our solutions as

graduate students was to say okay, why don't you approach the problem from the standpoint of motivating the american public, to motivate the congress at the point of authorizing these budgets so that people would say oh, yes, nasa does this for us, nasa does that for us. so my question is, what would be needed for nasa to be more present in the simple life, just like you did with the chilean miners, so, you know, nasa has many advances that can help humanity at this point. droughts, famine, things that definitely make a big, big publicity and will open the general population's eyes to how great nasa is to because i do think that nasa is great. thank you very much.

>> well, first i'd like to say i hope you run for political office. [laughter] secondly, in our earth science division we do have an applications program that really is highlighted at how we can use the space observations to serve society directly. secondly, i think, you know, one reason we wanted to have this forum was to hear this kind of feedback, invite ideas from you. because we don't have all the answers. but i believe our content is incredibly inspirational. i believe that, i believe that anyone who sorted even looked at the old footage, even if it was before you were born on other landings gets goosebumps disturb my. when i watch the satellite last

fight launch toward jupiter, it was palpable, people and the public are watching this rocket carry this thing to great new destinations were energized. and somehow we are trying to bring that appreciation, the inspirational aspect and the service to society outward. and this conversation is one step in that process are out outreach efforts, they are working diligently. we are always open to new and innovative and exciting ideas. >> if i could just add to that a bit. i think your question is a very wise. coming from aerospace engineer, i'm proud. but i should say, and so i'm also a university professor. i'm a guy who's been affiliated with nasa for most of my career, but before i was in this

position i had that same question. now that i am at nasa i see the content. i see it every day. and waleed described it well. it is rich. it is amazing the way nasa impacts the nation in so many ways. economically in disaster relief across the world. you know, the weather, monitoring of the earth. it's unbelievable actually. but i can tell you that for someone in the choir, present in the public like yourself, i didn't know. i didn't know about all the great things nasa was doing. so one of the things that i've been doing as chief technologist is we've been ramping up our communications of the spinoff program. nasa has a fantastic spinoff program. spin-offs brogue rent is where

we take the technological investments we're making for future missions and we spend those off into commercial products or into services that help the country. and we are publicizing that much more now. just in this past year there were a whole series of magazine articles that came out about some of the spin-offs. we're highlighting them on our website more. there's always been a spin-offs book and the spin-offs website. and this is just a start. you know, we haven't made a dent in where we need to be with this. but what i think you'll see this year and in these next few years is a much greater emphasis on societal benefit. and communicating that societal benefit to the general public. because nasa does have a great story to tell. >> i will add one thing. and my perspective on this is we are living in a time in our country where thoughts of

dramatically increased budgets are probably not realistic, right? i mean, we have all just watched the great debate about the debt ceiling and linking that to reducing federal spending. so i think part of our job and the way we address this, is how do we do more with what we have. how do we bring other kinds of support to the table beyond just federal dollars? and we have several ways that we are doing that. that gets back to the innovative partnership that leyland was talking about. how do we leverage investments that are being made by others to advance the cause of space exploration. i think that is something that is really a great opportunity for us. to our commercial programs we don't just get a government contractor contractors bring their own investments to the table. we all have skin in the game. that expands the pie. we're working, partner with google on google x prize were privately funded folks are all trying to build missions to go

explore the moon. what could be better? that's not nasa money. if they make it after successful we incentivize with very tiny amounts of investment if they make it there is a surprise for them from the nasa site and from the google site as well. so there's an extraordinary opportunity for us i think to leverage other investments that are out there as a way of increasing the pie that is not is increasing nasa's budget. nasa need to look at doing this more efficiently and effectively. >> to out this week "washington journal" has been bring you a series of looks inside the fbi.

the former and current represented some homeland security talk about what homeland security looked like before 9/11. they talk about what changes were made after the terrorist attacks and with the will of public is in national security. held by the u.s. chamber of commerce, this lasts about an hour. >> okay. now we're going to get into the meat of our discussion to our panel. you can see we've got quite a big panel here. and the intent is to have a dialogue with the audience. two ways to do that. i'm going to ask a series of questions as well as prompt some discussion, but feel free will get to your portion to ask question. is also some index cards and pads of paper on your table. if you prefer to do that, just hand it to matthew. can you raise your hand?

or will who is around and they will bring the questions up to me as well. so two ways to do it. let me give you -- you had a bias but i'll introduce each of our panelists briefly. if i may. first of all, commissioner ralph basham. ralph basham for the most distinct and diverse backgrounds of law enforcement. implement security. over the course of his 38 year career in federal law enforcement he said a senior leadership positions at four of the eight operational components in what is now the u.s. department of homeland security. most recently he served as commissioner of customs and border protection at dhs which is also the nation's largest law enforcement agency and the largest operational proponent of dhs with over all response but for border security at the united states. next up will have a jim caverly. he is a direct of the partnership and outreach division within the office of infrastructure protection at the department of homeland security. his division helps develop and sustain strategic relationships and information sharing system

for the owners and operators of critical infrastructure in our country. he joined dhs at its inception. prior to that he spent with abuse at the the department of energy. and then we'll have al martinez-fonts. he is now here at the chamber as a senior vice president and executive vice president of the u.s. forum for policy innovation. in this role he served as executive vice president and overseas the chambers three nonprofit foundations. before that as you all know he served as of the first assistant secretary for the private sector at the department of homeland security. there he was charged with providing americans private sector with a direct line of communication into the department and had the distinction of serving with secretaries ridge, chertoff and napolitano. earlier in his career he worked for 30 years at j.p. morgan chase and his predecessor bank in the coal bank. welcome, out.

next up will have greg garcia. greg is now the partnership executive for cybersecurity and identity management for bank of america. from 2006-2008 he served as the first presidential he appointed assistant secretary for cybersecurity in communications at dhs. he led the department strategic direction and oversaw the national cybersecurity division, it's office of emergency communications as was the national communications system. then we will have major general timothy longer. is appointed adjutant general of the state of washington back in 1999. general lowenberg also serves as the homeland security adviser to the governor of washington state and he has done so since 9/11. he is th the longest-serving homeland security adviser in the country. in addition he served as the chair of homeland defense and security at the adjutant general's association. he chairs the national governors association homeland security advisory council and shares the covers domestic security subcabinet in washington state. then we'll hear from randy

mullet. rand is the vice president for government relations and public affairs at con-way inc. with 4.3 billion freight transportation and logistics service companies headquartered in california. as the county senior policy manage and executive representative, he is responsive for all of government relations and public affairs for con-way and its subsidiaries. randy is a well-respected voice within homeland security community freight transportation and supply chain management as well. and then we'll hear from lori ries. lori joins csc as it's directed immigration reform strategy in october of 2010. they are she entertained leverage csc's expertise and thought leadership in the visa, border and immigration iran to adapt 21st century next generation infrastructure that brings integrity to reforming visa, border and immigration reform. from 2003-2006 she worked at the department homeland security first as a policy director for immigration in the border and

transportation security director and best deputy director for mission operations in the us-visit program. and then last but not least round as out is dan stoneking. and is the director the private sector office at fema. is focused on listening to the private sector to collaborate more effectively in preparedness, response, medication and recovery. prior to that day and worked as a vice president in washington, d.c., public relations firm. he was a soldier in the u.s. army and he was also a high school english teacher. welcome, dan. >> so like i said we will go through a series of opening questions. ..

>> were you thinking about threats like that at the time? >> i think it's helpful to acknowledge that a lot of people were involved long before 9/11 in preparing for the looming threat. those who were paying attention including the hard work of the red wing commission and others were well aware the terrorist fleet was growing around the world for two decades before we were attacked so dramatically on 9/11. in the state of washington, we formed with the governor's leadership, a committee on terrorism that included our association of washington business which is the up brel la organization -- em brel la organization, and we

met every other month and had a running head start when we were attacked on 9/11. i was with joe alba, then the head of fema on 9/11, and in fact, for a time it looked like i was going to lend my aircraft to him to he could get back to washington, d.c., and so like everyone else in in the room i know exactly where i was and what i was doing on that occasion, but that gave us the opportunity to implement everything we had been examining and preparing for for quite some time without federal government guidance. that was done because we knew that the threat was very real, and i had a privilege of working with ann at the national governor's association in late october, 2001, shortly after the attacks, the white house asked us to report what we saw as the greatest vulnerables and therefore our greatest

priority. they hosted a meeting in february of 2002, so just a few months after, and i was privileged with ann to facilitate conversation among the governors from states and territories to address the same question, what were the greatest gaps? if i can throw them out for conversation, they could be a term of reference. we say inner operateble communication was one of the top three. information sharing and intelligence fusion was the second, and medical surge capacity or more literally the lack of a national medical surge capacity which dramatically effects one segment of our private sector economy that's for-profit and non-for-profit hospitals was our great vulnerability, and we focused on that as a nation in many, many ways since the years since. >> thank you. commissioner bashim, the early

days of your career, federal service played a big part. you were training law enforcement officers at the time of 9/11. what did you make of the day? what was it like for you? >> i think like everyone, it was a huge shock that this had happened and then there's the realization that, you know, set in, that we can no longer view ourselves just because we have two vast oceans on both sides and relatively friendly neighbors to our north and to our south. that was no longer going to be sufficient to protect us from a catastrophic event like that, and i think you recognize that we had to somehow create a system where our borders became the last line of defense, and not the first line of defense,

and i was in georgia, i was running the federal law enforcement training center leving on an island -- not a bad gig, but i was asked to come back to washington to start up the trption security administration. my good friend, pat, was one the six people together who started it up, and i realized very quickly and pat would agree with me, that we needed to reach out to the private sector, and quite frankly, we department do a very good job. we didn't engage the people that truly understood the aviation industry, how it worked, and i believe we had missteps in the beginning. we could have done a lot better job of creating those partnerships early on to build a system that was going to be efficient and effective and as has been said here today, not

only to secure this country, but at the same time facilitate legitimate trade and travel because otherwise the terrorists, they win. we shut this nation down. our economy goes in the tank. they don't have to strike buildings. they don't have to blow up subways. if they destroy our economy in that fashion, that at the end of the day, they have won. >> exactly. randy, can you talk about conway's response to 9/11 and how your relationship with the department of homeland security evolved over the past decade. >> sure. well, first off, 9/11 was a huge shock to us as it was to everybody else. it was to me personally. my daughter had started her first day of work in one of the high-rises over in roslin, and her office looked at the pentagon. i, as the father of a young woman, sat at home watching that -- actually atwork -- war #* watching that transpire and

see what was going on in washington. for all of us, it was something that happened that was very, very important. at that time, i was working in operations for conway, helping to run their trucking company. homeland security was the farthest thing from my mind. i was not involved with government, still have not been involved with government. within several months after the 9/11 event, our corporate risk committee decided that we had a new corporate risk. it was not necessarily terrorism. it was the reaction of government to terrorism, and what that might do to our business model, and to our international supply chape and our customers. at the time, we owned a cargo airline, so i was sent to washington to kind of bridge the gap between what really happens

in the private sector, much as commissioner just talked about, and how can government interface with that. remember that particularly as an air carrier or a trucking company, heavily regulated industries that most of our contacts with government were from enforcement people or regulatory people. we were not big time into information sharing and those sorts of things. our corporate security was also set up even though international and very sophisticated people, many ex-federal law enforcement. they were kind of in the basement. they were people that were interested in securing facilities and cargo and those kinds of things. they were not geared to all hazard. i could -- this is a dissertation topic, but i just want you to know that security inside of u.s. corporations, particularly those evolved in home lander security from an --

homeland security from a supply view is not sitting in the basement, but at the boardroom level. we are finding have, -- very, very many ways to interface with government and share information. it's just taken a long, long time to build that trust and so forth. remember, in the private sector, we're about managing risk and making risk and reward decision where homeland security is concerned with the government, most of it is an absolute. it can't ham on my watch. those two different views of risk and reward are going to create natural tension. it's not that that's a bad thing. it's just a thing, but it's something we have to be aware of and manage. >> al, you were the first assistant secretary for the private sector office. the government didn't really have private sector liaisons prior to that. what were the early days like for you coming from the private sector to government, and can you tell a few stories and what

you experienced back then? >> well, it's interesting to put things into perspective like randy did. i'm still taking notes on homeland security, and that risk-reward is really in effect what's important. as a banker for 30 years, i had nothing to do with security other than making sure the money in the vault -- we were not robbed and white collar crime and all that type of thing. i was a banker, a lender, i wasn't even in the securities side of banking. i was a lener, a manager, you know, and all that kind of stuff. when i interviewed with secretary ridge over at the white house, he said, well, you've worked, you know, with the government because you're in a regulated industry, and i said, sir, with all do respect, i didn't like it very much. when the government, most of the time they came in asking me to do something i didn't want to do. fast forward to i actually joined homeland security, and i get this job and start talking to people in the government, and i tell them i'm the guy

representing the private sector. i'm one of you, but kind of the advocate for the private sector, and the reaction from the career employees in particular were like, you know, we don't like the private sector. i'm going, why would you not like them? they said, you know, they are always just trying to sell us something. one of the toughest things early on was that almost psychological factor of thinking of the private sector as viewing the government as interfering in our business, and this going into government and having them view the private sector as just somebody as somebody trying to sell something and recognizing that by the way, again, coming out of the banking industry, i was invited back up to my old jp morgan and chase and around the room is bank of america, wachovia and barkleys.

there was no competition. they are willing to do more than sell you stuff and sell the message to the private sector that they are not here to just tie your hands, restrict what you're doing. how do we work together? you know, that really was one of the toughest hurdles. >> and, greg, you, too, served in the government and the private sector. can you talk about the early days in cybersecurity, and how has that partnership evolved to where we are today? >> okay, great question. you know, like the old country song goes, i was cyber before cyber was cool, and i say that because really the cyber landscape, cybersecurity landscape really started to evolve before 9/11. it was really in 2000 when several major household name websites were slowed to a crawl by so-called denial of service attack, and it brought home the notion that our increasingly

online way of life is being threatened by adversaries and malicious actors, and then when 9/11 hit, i think that brought into stark belief the recognition of the anticipation that not only are we vulnerable to cyberthreats and attacks, but blended with physical attacks. there was an anticipation and mobilization around the notion that all of our interdependencies across sectors and with the government could produce situations where we have some kind of a bleepedded attack where both physical and cyber were to occur, and that we needed to prepare ourselves for that. i think as dhs began to stand up and begin to mature through president reel directive and -- presidential directive and homeland security activities, there was the stand up of the initial infrastructure protection plan which recognized that so much of the critical

infrastructure, cyber, i.t., communications, financial services, many others -- so much of that is owned and operated by the private sector and incumbent with the private sector and government to protect those assets, those capabilities, and those services that make up our way of life that support our economy, our public safety, and homeland, and national security, so i think over the years, and we can talk more in subsequent questions and after the break about how these partnerships have worked, but from my per perspective as one who has been in the information technology sector, in now the financial services with government and with the congress, i think these -- this partnership has evolved is maturing. there remain challenges, but without this apparatus that we have put into place i think would be much worse off than we are now, and i think we are

improving, and i think it's -- i think we have reason for optimism, so we can go into more detail about that later. >> thank you, greg. that's a nice segway to james caverly. the infrastructure plan was mentioned. can you talk about that and designating the critical infrastructure sectors and why that was important? >> there are a bunch of things that came together. there was a presence commission in scene of this accident -- 1996 and 1997 identifying sectors that were critical. it was the work for y 2-rbgs k this in which the private sector and government recognized the joint interest. you come into 9/11, come out the other side, and there was, as the governor said, protecting critical infrastructure is a shared responsibility. there's things that government does in government space, and there's things the owners and operators of the infrastructure have to do in their space, and if you don't marry the two together, you're not as

effective as you need to be. you come out of that, the president says to develop a national critical infrastructure protection plan. we'd already started to work on the partnership. we created a structure, actually, that came from the private sector, the ones who recommend the structure we use for dealing with the 17 sectors, 18 sectors we dealt with, and then we put together a critical infrastructure protection plan, and we realize it was not something we'd done before which is a document that has to be developed jointly between government and the private sector. we put documents out, ensuring with the partners, learning how to share with our partners because it was not as flawless as we wanted. we have a major document that is circulating outside. traditionally, that never gets outside the government until it's cleared at the top at the highest levels. there were subsets out there that had to be developed with our partners, so the architecture came together. we were fortunate, i think, because it was pretty easy to

recognize it was not just a government responsibility and not just a private sector responsibility, but what happened from that with protection, you come into katrina, and we realized we had joint interest in responding and recovery and that our critical infrastructure played a key role in responding too, a change really from what the federal role before looked at how we simply protected the public, and we saw we couldn't protect the public if the private sector didn't come back, and now you move forward out a protection framework to an all-hazards framework and now it's a resilience framework because it is a partnership. we have a public interest out there, and obviously, the private sector has interest, and they cojoin in place. we are learning to deal with something that's been under current here is the tension between the regulatory environment carrying out certain things begin in law and certain policy that shared public speedometer -- responsibility that we share in general for the public.

>> a lot of state emergency managers at the time became homeland security advisers as well. there was a tension whether, you know, counterterrorism is a fema mission or a homeland security mission. dan, can you talk a little bit -- i know you were not there at the time, but i'm sure you heard a lot of stories. how did that go down, fema moving into homeland security, the state emergency managers having to wear the counterterrorism hat as well. >> i was ready to say where i was on 9/11. [laughter] >> go ahead. >> i think long before 9/11 through 9/11 and even today, there are battles for who's in charge, and i think that's really the problem. i think that what we need to focus on and what i hope we have learned from 9/11 is how to connect the dots, and not worry about who is in charge as much and general lowenberg can speak

to that with the dulles roles and the active duty and national guard. we can also do it in the government and more broader than that still, we need to do it with the public-private relationship. if you don't mind, i will say where i was on 9/11. i was in the pentagon so my experience there having been in the pentagon and while the building is on fire and smoking and you continue to work worrying if another plane is going to come in, the rare bright spot for me was to exit the building because the only place to get food was a mcdonald's tent set up in the parking lot where it was all for free. they didn't care if you ordered one burger or 20 #. they didn't fuss about how many you got. you asked for 20 burgers, you got 20 burgers, went back into the building and went back to work. i don't think i fully appreciated it then, but i see in hindsight that was the real value. at the time as a citizen soldier, so i knew what it was like to be a citizen and a

soldier, and i knew both of the audiences didn't get the other, and it was the first inkling for me that the public-private relationship is the same way. we are empowered by folks who have a long experience on both sides because that's the only way that we can appreciate the relationship, and my last comment would be this is an interesting gathering here today because you can almost pick anyone out here to be up here. you know, bob connors and phil and rich cooper and bob dicks, and you know, everyone out here has had a long experience of understanding the relationships without being territorial on both sides whether 9/11, before or since. >> we'll get into more how the public-private relationships evolve. lora, talk about immigration. that was your area, the immigration program changes that happened after 9/11. was it just because of 9/11? what's your perspective on that? >> a lot of the changes that

came about were tied to the facts surrounding the hijackers, and some of them actually stem back flt first world trade center bombing in 1993. for example, the idea of having an exit system was in a 96 bill in response to 1993 bombing. same thing around student visas. because one of the 93 terrorists had gotten a student visa and then never bothered to report to the school. the ins started a program called siprs in response to the student tracking, shelfed that, and then after 9/11, we were given the student exchange visitor information system, but some other changes that came about were, for example, the 19 hijackers were from four countries, 15 of them from saudi arabia, and on the one year anniversary of 9/11, the justice department began what was known

as national security exit administration. it was called for in congress in 1996, but was not implemented. after 9/11, president bush said, okay, we're going to go ahead and implement this, and so it began. some other changes that came about were with respect to the state department. there was a lot of controversy about what to do with visa authority following 9/11 and so there was ended up being a compromise of giving visa authority to dhs, but state department maintained the authority to issue the visas, but for awhile there, there was real consideration of giving all of it over to dhs in part because several of the hijackers from saudi arabia tended visas from what was a program in saudi arabia called visa express. it was a third party used to

obtain visas without interviews, in-person interviews with the state department, so the visa express program was ended, and also dhs personnel had to review every single visa application in add ya raib ya -- saudi arabia which began the visa security program. several security changes, most of them in reaction to 9/11. there was one exception that i actually forgot about, but looking at the 9/11 report again it refreshed my memory. the transit without visa program. that was suspended in august of 2003, and not in reaction to 9/11, but thereto intel gathered that terrorists were looking to exploit the country. if you fly from country a to country c through the u.s., you didn't need a visa to change in the u.s. airport.

that could be exploited and you can just not get on the plane or do something to the plane coming into the u.s.. that program was suspended and has not been reinstated. >> there's an important foundation of what we did in immediate response to 9/11. it would be helpful for us to be reminded of us. presidential decision 63 prom -- promulgated had three important pillars. first, the private sector makes everything government does possible. a vibrant resilient private sector makes all the government activities possible. the second pillar is including our military strength -- second pillar is our military prowess creates a vibrant domestic economy especially in a global system of supply, and third is that both the private sector and the government are increasingly

dependent and interdependent on cyber doe map, on the information technology so whereas we all recognize the importance of the air, land, and maritime physical domains, the nation's greatest strength and greatest potential of vulnerability, and i've drawn upon that repeatedly and many forums in strategic planning because it brings us back to the roots of what makes everything successful, the private sector, that all-important partnership. >> let's open it up to the audience. let's see if we have questions. wait for the mic to get to you and identify yourself. >>erratic, american shipper magazine. two related question. there's been talk this morning about importance of information sharing, you know, from the private sector to government, but lots of times when you talk to business people, the client

is that, you know, the information sharing is one way. you know, nowadays, you know, if you see something suspicious, you report it, but also, you know, especially in international, there's a lot of reporting of cargo movement and shipments and all of that regular data to the government, but not as much srb i'd like to see people comment about, you know, what kind of information government could give to, you know, some kind of filtered intelligence or whatever to help the private sector react, and then in a related question, governor ridge talked about, you know, more information sharing within the government, less of that siloed approach, but i'm wondering how the wikileaks issue lately may have chilled any kind of intergovernment sharing of information and how -- what kind of impact it would have on homeland security. >> al, did you want to take the first part? >> yeah, i was going to say i'm not going to wikileaks at this

point. [laughter] again, as a banker and my last assignment was chairman of the bank in el paso, texas, a place where a lot of money and people and now guns and drugs and all kinds of things go back and forth, would be of the many three letter agencies in the government would come to us on a regular basis and tell us to, you know, ralph basham opened an account, help us keep an eye on it. we would provide information. at some point the client came in and asked for money or do something and we went back to the agency, and they said ralph who? we don't know what you're talking about. that kind of thing. i'm exaggerating a little, but that was the reaction. it was very much of a one way, you know, conversation. i think, or i believe, we dried, and certainly i'll say during my tenure in homeland security, and i got the folks here whether it's james caverly, dan stoneking, folks that are still doing it, and, you know,

facilitated very often through the chamber, the ability to, you know, how do you get people clearances including secret clearances so that they can be let in on, you know, more important, more critical information? how do you do information sharing and analysis centers and coordinating councils? how do you get that information out there? at the same time a factor to keep in mind, and i went around with secretary levitt of hhs talking about pandemic, and he had a great line. he said, whatever i'm telling you now is going to sound like i'm trying to scare you. if this thing happens, you're going to say i wish you'd warn us more. the government is constantly walking this fine line when they share information between frightening people and not giving them enough, and so, again, it's just a very, very difficult situation that we

face. >> you know, i think there are a couple of things there. there obviously is an education that has to go to the people and government has information about what kind of education is useful for you. we hear this cry of access to information. part of it is internally we have to get better at understanding what is useful to you and how to get it to you in a fungsal way. the other side of the coin is we have things in government that are great interests and spend hours di secting it. we give it to you, and you say stop piling that junk on top of us. it has to be learn and shared, and it's a growth process. i suggest part of it is a generational process. as the governor said, we have a low mentality of i hold the information, therefore i'm powerful if you look at modern communications and modern social media, the value is in how you share that information. we have yet to internalize completely in the government -- there's people who get it, but

systemically, it's going to grow and take time. the other problem government has is if the media gets something wrong, they stop saying it. if we're wrong, we have to go out. that puts a question on us of being a little more sure about what we put out and how we say it. geep, it doesn't give -- again, it doesn't give us the agility we'd like to see because of some of those constraints. .. i think a big roybal on that we have is, some of the, some folks

think that we have information but we are not sharing, but i can assure you many times we don't have that information either, and nor can we confirm that the information is accurate, and so you do want to put out accurate actionable information. but there is a line where we can't cross when it comes to intelligence, protecting sources and those sorts of things, and i agree with you on what is it that you believe you need in order to be more effective and more efficient and more helpful in this effort of protecting the homeland? and i don't believe you know, i know its owners on the industry and i recognize that and we have spent many days talking about this issue in the past. but it is a huge challenge for the government to share certain

information that we are restricted. we can't share that information. so, our hands are tied and as well. but i do believe that after 9/1e law-enforcement and the intelligence community, there has been a greater effort to try to break down those barriers of sharing information. we have the same problems the state and local law enforcement. not just the private sector but sharing information with state and local law enforcement so these are issues that are going to have to be overcome if we are going to succeed going into the future. >> the one thing i wanted folks to hear in response to that question is that it has improved a lot and a lot of that has to do with trust. and a lot of it has to do with agencies that are working better together so we don't have to go to 30 different places to get information. they are sharing better

internally. there are becoming trusted partners that are actually allowed to help design some of the information sharing methodologies, and expectations. as the public sector and the private sector are able to look a kind of curtain a little bit of what each other is doing and get some other exposure, i look back six or eight years ago and what we used to have to do to try to share information or get information and i looked now. it is not perfect but it is great compared to the way that it was. >> their relationships in the state and local level, one of the things the governor and secretary ridge focused heavily on was the development of state fusion centers and i'm happy to say there has been great progress there. the sharing of information among law enforcement and law-enforcement related agencies, federal state and local and tribal has become much much better in the decade since 9/11 but it is still a work in

process. at the state fusion centers there are those opportunities to develop their relationships with the information sharing and intelligence operations of the major corporate citizens off those of those states to bring them in as an advisory committee to the governing board of the fusion center for example, to learn from one another how we can best share information with one another. i am very mindful as they work overseeing 65 partner countries around the world that our transnational and global businesses have amazingly sophisticated information sources that can be immensely helpful to the government so it is not a one-way transfer of information and it all enhances our national security. >> one quick data point on cyber, for a tangible information between industry and government is i think maturing rapidly with great promise and while i was at dhs i put up on the launching pad and industry

government cybercollaboration organization bringing cyberoperations from the i.t. communications, financial sector with multiple operations capabilities across the federal government. that was on the launching pad and the next administration undersecretary napolitano actually prepared it for launch and it is now known as the nk, the national cybercommunications integration's center is the name but i think it is a fine example of where trust is being developed between industry and government under the same roof, breathing the same air where we are. in fact learning what information is truly relevant and actionable to each other as jim mentioned. government learns from us what it is that we can actually do with that information and what information is really not relevant to us.

so this is overtime going to develop and bring in more private sector participants and more government participants as well and i think that loads well for the future. >> if the information sharing, not just the private sector people or anyone else is there any concern the data you are sharing now, you know, could be proprietary information with wikileaks or something? does that give you second posit how much you are sharing with the government if it is undisclosed somehow? >> i think that there is always concern in the private sector about releasing proprietary information that somehow gives or takes away a competitive advantage. i have to tell you in our decision-making about what do we share with the government and stuff, that is not even on the list when it comes to homeland security. >> next question. right here.

>> aaron fuller from cfc. about three weeks ago in colorado at another event focused on 9/11, there were lots of notables like yourselves on the panel and this one was focused on counterterrorism. a lot of the dialogue was about topics you would expect, the terrorists and the plot and so on. most of the notables ended up referring back to the 9/11 commission report. in fact they would say please, everyone should go read the 9/11 commission report that they also used it as a reference.not to look back but looking forward to in years later, either roads that still needed to be traveled, things we still need to do and so on. anything occurred to any of you that in the 9/11 commission report rather than looking backward, provides a useful lens for focusing, looking forward?

>> i will start with one the secretary mentioned, the voluntary private-sector preparedness program where the 9/11 commission said writ large you didn't believe the private sector was prepared to deal with something of that scale. dhs is rolling out that program but i think that fits into the larger sense out there nehr about resilience and it opens up the door to look at what those interdependencies are out there particularly as the governor mentioned when you look at time environment. there a set of risks that come with economic advantage in risk and i think something like a ps program focuses on business continuity plans in resilience plant voted to that point so i think there's a big path forward in that space is the environment has changed out there. i think congress very nicely made this voluntary program. we get to pick the standards but we are out of the business after that. that is important to the private sector to understand the government is not writing the standards and not reviewing it. that is one of the areas where

think the program is just in the process of being able to take off and has a huge maturation russ is to the benefit of the public and private sector, so that is one. >> another aspect which governor ridge also talked about is exit, the entry exit portion. that was the recommendation by the commission and they have even restated it this year before the senate homeland security committee that really needs to be done. secretary napolitano talked about the system they're using they are using now which is biographic using the arrival departure information system to match their departures with arrivals. however, that takes considerable manual checks of several databases and as she talked about, they had to get a sizable backlog decreased at the at the. visit to identify potential over stators and then give them over to i.c.e. to investigate and into court. homeland security has stated that a biometric exit would be

the highest fidelity system. it does come with a hefty price tag, but with the use of technology for example, using smartphones perhaps, i think it is worth exploring to pursue a biometric exit in large part because it does get at the issue of overstays which governor ridge also talked about. it is a sizable part of the illegal immigration community but the overstays and having exit also has -- having the knowledge of that exit brings also deals with and can tackle terrorism issues. for example, the gentleman who attempted to set off a bomb in times square. we happen to catch them on the airplane trying to escape. he used his real name so we caught him on biographic information. perhaps a terrorist want to use his real name and biometrics will come in but it also can

prevent sex trafficking, international child abduction, tax evasion, catch criminals broome also bullies for for having a biometric capability. >> i just, to comment, interoperability. i think everyone in the room recognizes that is something that we have got to continue to try to achieve going into the future. the issue of entry/exit. if you think about the challenges involved, i mean it is one thing to be able to capture information as an individual enters the country but if you think about the 420 -- 450 ports of entry out there whether they are airports, land ports or seaports, and that also means people will exit in that same fashion. in an airport environment it is a controlled environment. at a port of entry, it is a very uncontrolled environment on the

exit side. it also requires tremendous cooperation from our neighbors to the north and to the south. so i want to just say that it is not, maybe not impossible but at the same time i want to say it may be impossible to get a fully, 100% operational exit system that we know exactly who is coming and going in this country every day day in and day out. you may agree or disagree on that but to my perspective at u.s. customs and border protection trying to capture that information on the exit is just, it is going to be extremely expensive and extremely difficult to match. >> the land exit has been known to crack on exit, and the u.s. until recently started to build an infrastructure to do that. and there are real concerns with trade and commerce as a result. the u.s. has been in talks often on with canada over the years

about sharing information. if someone drives out of the u.s. into canada canada would share that information so they entry becomes our exit. you run into privacy issues around that, but i do believe with mobile tools, smartphones and gps and the smartphone technology can help tackle that infrastructure question. >> we will take one or two more questions before the break. >> okay, so there is a relatively small community of us that really gets preparedness and you always see the same people in the audience when we talk about this stuff. the public-private sector partnerships are a key element in promoting national resilienct large, they the people are critical to engage. i am wondering what you all think. how are we going to compel -- we

are talking about the see something say something. that is a pretty good concept that doesn't require the public to do anything but to look to go to talk to somebody that when you are talking to the public and trying to get them to me to plan our give a kid, we are doing some stuff in at the ready campaign. how are we going to move -- how are we going to compel the public at large to get that are prepared because all the stuff we are talking about only works if they are getting prepared as well? >> dan, do you want to take that? >> i agree with you 100%. i think you know the story but not all do that i caught on fire last christmas. when i did, i was at my sisters house and i did not have protection and felt some heat. i looked over my shoulder and i am on fire. without thinking i stopped, dropped enrolled. i am proud to say i did not spill my beer when i get it. i set my beer down, stopped, dropped enrolled. all but intuitively.

i work at the man i can't remember get a kit, get a plan, they informed. it does not change behavior so one of the things i've encourage my colleagues to host and i hope you do in the coming years to host a messaging summit with the private sector as well as the public sector so that we come up with the language and a call action that can change behavior. in a study of change in behavior says to keep it simple, make it easy and start small. i think if we start small but effectively it would be with the messaging. >> i would add that really, as dan said it is viral. the fact that the chamber is sponsoring or cosponsoring, if you see something say something, then it goes out to all of the members, corporate members of the chamber of commerce and all of those member companies are

encouraged to push that message out to all of their employees and it is a viral messaging. we'd do the same and bank of america with training and education ongoing throughout the year, every year in cybersecurity, in physical security, training our people about what their specific responsibilities are in their particular corner of cyberspace and dhs also has a similar campaign called stop, think, connect. very clear, sustained message. when you are on line and you are about to click on something. to a web site, stop, think about what you are doing and what information you are going to provide and what is the credibility of this web site or this e-mail? and when you assess the situation and you think it is safe to proceed, then connect. stop, think, connect. these are viral messages that can be pushed out person by

person, company by company and that is how we really get the critical mass. >> woman talk about building resilience we are really talking about voluntary human behavior and we know how to change voluntary behavior. we have done it before in our country. there are two places you can do that. one is in the school so you educate the youth to think differently and the other is in the workplace. the private sector workplace. i will offer up as a case example smoking behavior in the united states. i happen to have worked with the surgeon general of the united states working with fortune 500 companies talking about changing corporate policies with regard to smoking behavior at the worksite. if you change the behavior for adults in their workplace, if you change their thinking in the work place, and if you change the thinking and the behavior of the youth to come home and say dad, mom, please stop smoking. i don't want you to die, now i think we can adapt that to

building a resilient society. and maybe it is just something as simple as see something, say something, do something. what is to do something? prepared to take care of yourself and your family for a minimum of 72 hours. map your neighborhood. learn who in your neighborhood is vulnerable and need special assistance in the event of a catastrophic event. and i would take it a step further. do some act or acts of public service. we are talking about what it means to be a well-rounded citizen and build a whole of society responds to be that resilient society that we all aspire to. so i think we know how to do some of this stuff. it is just a matter of taking a holistic approach to a. >> i think we also need to recognize one other issue and that is oversaturation. we ask americans to care about breast cancer and stop smoking in all of these other things, then the 12 mantras we have within dhs competing with each other don't stand much of a chance so i think we have to be

realistic in the outreach. as one example i went to a major company and signed up for national preparedness month. my slogan is it takes 97 seconds because i timed myself and they did. then i went back to be greedier because i'm getting metrics forced upon me arbitrarily so i said i don't want just you to sign it. can you get your thousands of stores to sign up? the very farringer was wait a second, when i talked to my stores and tell them go out and meet your customers, i am telling them to follow your safety plan and i'm telling them to do all of these other things. i don't know if i want to go to my stores and asked them to sign up. so we have a mutual challenge of oversaturation of the message. >> let me mention two terms that have been effective, scalability and psychology. so, the number and you have heard me say it, so their 30 million businesses in america. let's not try to take 320 million americans, just 30 million businesses.

23 million of them are single proprietorships so no employees, just the one person. let's just focus on the 7 million. just think about that. just to reach all of those businesses and try to get them -- stan has tried to do it in my office has tried to do it. the task is pretty overwhelming so do something that just has to be sort of a maturity model over time. we have to think about the psychology. the average american thinks it is not going to happen, right? i mean it is really not going to happen. even if you live in the hurricane areas of america or the flood areas of america, you don't think is going to happen. if it does happen, does not going to happen to me. my house isn't going to get on down in my house isn't going to get flooded. by the way if it does happen and i get affected someone is going to come help me, mainly someone from fema or a first responder. we have got to change that psychology. >> if we reverse engineer the doctrine you are talking about,

countries only going to be as resilient as the private sector is able to get back on its feet after a catastrophic event. corporate america, business america's ability to get on its feet will be as resilient as its employees are able to take care of their immediate family emergencies and return to work. we want people back to work generating revenue as quickly as possible so it is not only a good act as a corporate citizen but frankly in the self-interest of every business to make sure its employees are resilient and prepared so that they can answer the call and get back to work and get back to doing what you will count on them to do. >> absolutely right. what we are going to do now is take a ten-minute break and when we come back we are going to talk about where we are going in the next 10 years, so think about that. where do we need to go? that made thank the panel. thank you very much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] a live picture this afternoon of motorcyclists arriving here in washington for a rally in support of 9/11 victims. some 2500 riders part of this convoy heading to the pentagon this afternoon, eventually making it to new york city tomorrow. this is hosted by the americas 9/11 foundation. it is an annual motorcycle ride to a fund-raiser that takes purses -- participants by the crash sites and pennsylvania, the pentagon in new york. the foundation uses the money raised to provide college scholarships for children of firefighters, police officers and other first responders. the riders left somerset pennsylvania this morning, the site of one of the crash -- crashes and they will travel through northern virginia, washington d.c., and by the pentagon.

sub 16 horns honking. background noise.

background noise. horns honking.

horns honking. is. [background sounds]

>> about 2500 motorcyclist taking part in its this annual 9/11 foundation bright. motorcyclist traveling past the september 11 crash site in pennsylvania, writing here to the pentagon this afternoon, and eventually landing in new york city tomorrow. [background sounds] >> i guess i would start with anyone who wants to answer this. >> up next we will hear for the discussion hosted by the u.s. chamber of commerce on homeland security since 9/11. the panel looks ahead to the future of homeland security. following a discussion former pennsylvania governor and the first secretary of homeland security tom ridge delivers closing remarks. >> are they changing, do they need to? what are they going to look like 10 years from now?

l your office is the purse private sector and we have linda millis from the odni private-sector office and we have northcom has a private-sector office. is that a good thing? >> we are starting a trend and that is the good news. as you say and i think we have set the stage here very well for going forward, so what i would hope is that we can, i will call it perfect those trusted traveler programs, those trusted shipper programs. all of those things that help expedite commerce and the movement of people, so when i was asked, what do you do? i would use the example of saying to people, you travel, right? everyone here gets on an airplane. what would you rather have? what do you want to have security or do you want to have facilitation, expediency, getting through? if you raise your hand you wanted security i would say i think that is extremely important. new rule, six hours before the flight you have to be there. everybody would say i can't do

that. the second side is i am in favor of facilitation and i want to get to the airport faster. okay we we are going to sign a waiver because we are a legal country and lawsuits are important that if your plane blows up because there is a bond you will not hold the airliner government or anyone responsible for it because this is one of the consequences that is going to happen so again the answer is that we have talked so much about public-private partnership but as we go forward, this is the kind of thing we have to do, working together and making sure that again, trade, commerce, our daily lives are not hampered. >> so i was watching hells kitchen last night and one person comes up with broadband in one comes up with -- and gordon ramsey kicks them both out. i'm sitting here thinking how is that possible? i can barely cook that i recognize rendezvous recognize burns. i realized the show has been on many seasoned there were 20 different cooking competition shows and i think with quantity

we can sometimes lose quality. and so to get to your question about five years from now where do i think we need to be, 10 years ago, public-private partnerships and any of the vernacular. now everyone is speaking and everybody has their own program. there are state and local and regional and national public-private partnerships and public-private partnerships that don't even have a public side so they are not really public-private. everyone of them has their own communications and everyone has their own mission statement and we have got gotten to a world where they are ubiquitous and nobody understands them and they are competing so they actually collectively don't achieve the ends that they each individually serve to get at. so i think it is not popular and someone won't like hearing it. i think we need to synchronize and in some cases compromise to get the best ideas to flow to the top so we all remain focused on survivors in communities and a resilient america.

.. >> have been absolutely true, but as i look forward, i think there are two things we need to accomplish out of the public/private partnership that's reached a certain maturation level. people joined those things for hot of different reasons -- lots of different reasons.

good corporate citizens, maybe there was a commercial imperative, if i want to do business with x, i have to belong with x. we've now gotten to a point where we need to start thinking about these public/private partnerships, how do we expand the people involved in these things into broader participation? so that' one thing. and then the second thing is how do we keep them from becoming regulatory in nature rather than be thug public/private partnershipship based and how to we an what's in many it for me? and i think it's our biest challenge in moving forward with homeland security initiatives,

but t also the biggest -- it's also the biggest opportunity we have. >> when you think of cybersecurity in the public/private partnership, five years down the road, we could look at it as one of an electronic one. and when we think about the technology that all of our critical infrastructures operate on, there an extraordinary amount of technological enknow vague, and that breeds more vulnerabilities, more threats, more ebb ploits, and there's sort of an intring release called -- sort of after future riskic look at how can we develop long-term with research and development and he can tronic and bear net-based ecosystem that is self-aware on self-monitoring on an, in an automated way.

and t really something to -- it's really something to think about if we devote resourceses to research and fete us to a point where we have an automated system for reck knewing threats, stopping them before they happen, keeping our electronic ecosystem, um, sure, resilient, and functional. >> i'd like to just comment about the fact of where are we going to be in five or ten years. it's more of where we're going to have to be in five or ten year. if you look at what is happening, 490 million -- 490 million people cross our borders every year. in the maritime t looking to

double by the year 2015. we're going to have to come up with a way of reducing the size of the hay stack. and concentrate our effort on truly what poses a threat. things like the trusted traveler program are going to be, i believe, essential if we're going to manage this huge amount of people and things. that are moving in the country. but that also entails people stepping up and be willing to provide information, and i know, eric, you don't like to hear about that, about asking for more information than we're already asking for, but that's a necessary part of the, in my opinion, the solution down the road. and what i would like to see the chamber do and initiate is a

program along with if you see something, say something, to encourage the members of the chamber. now, who travels the most in this country? the business community. that who's out there moving around the country. if we can get you to initiate a program to encourage the people in your companies who are out this traveling to join these trusted traveler programs, sign up for global entry, sign up for other program that that is goino facilitate them going think and going back to the issue it was all about what is the tier iii company going to get be they provide and if they acquire a tier iii capabilities? so the benefit is it helps you, it helps your employees, it helps the member and women out

there on the front lines try to separate the good from the bad potentially. so maybe the chamber could along with if you see something, say something, encourage your employees to join these programs and maybe even be willing to pay a few bucks for them to do that as well. i know that's asking maybe a little bit too much, but that is something i would like to see about that. >> and i would add operationalize. when we activate our state emergency operation center for any hazard, the association of washington business comes into our eoc and engages with us. i've told them i don't want you to wonder what i know, in the emergency center operation center, i want you to know realtime. welcome. you're part of the team.

we do participant in tabletop exercises, corporate tabletop exercises on request with high senttivity to -- sent at the time to -- i think it's healthy to have members of the business community observe and participate to the extent there's resources tad that. so we need to optionallize all of partnerships so they become trusted part relationships. >> and belead to to get -- we need to get more of the state to do that. washington state is sort of a leader in doing that. we need to get more of the states to have a planning and training together. >> t seats, not a seat. lots of parts. >> and i think one of the things the general point out, for a considerable element of the public/private partnership, it is a contingency relationship.

it's for when that hurricane happens, are that terrorist -- not all of it, how do we make that work? because people in many cases won't make that happen. it's building a more facile, agile way of having that supported in a period of time where there isn't something happening that requires you to focus it on this. obviously, post-event everybody's focused on it. how do we maintain the glue and keep those relationships going. we've got to find a better way that is less occupying of people's times to sustain them? >> we talk about public/private partnerships, and what we mean by that, and i think randy mullet has a great example from conway, randy, do you want to give people a little flavor of what that is like? >> >> one thing i'm going to give

you is what's going on because the case is being tried, and i'm not going to give you a whole lot of details on methods. i'm going to put my spook hat on today so everybody knows i won't share east. [laughter] i'll share as much as i can. early on conway was involved in a program called highway watch. we helped develop that program and trained thousands of truck drivers across the country. in fact, our whole work force was training under highway watch. that was early in the process, but since then through our corporate security and risk management and our recovery experts, pan deckic expert, all these things have blended into an all hazard type approach into training, and it has evolved

into something not as simple as see something, say something, but what thicks should make you want to push the button and move it up think our escalation plan. then t vetted a little bit more, and we work very closely with both local and federal law enforcement to investigate these thicks. and for those of you who don't know what ann's talking about, a shipment came through our system that we discovered down in austin, texas, addressed -- it was a chemical that shouldn't be moving to a private residence, those kinds of things. and we were able to report that to the right authority. it moved up the ladder, and ultimately, that was the individual who had aled to have

targeted former president bush's home. so we felt very proud that our system worked, but that was the result much like the homeland security efforts are at all businesses and in the public space years and years of evolution and moving to a new norm. and, um, i think that's a great lesson to learn, that while a lot of things that have to do with terrorism are strictly based on terrorism and don't interoperate with safety, these things are not totally interrelateed. business continuity plans, employee training, those sort of things are complimentary, and if done right, you can fete -- it can become part of your culture where it's embedded in your system and through encouragement we find that we do get involved

with a lot of these kinds of things that all aren't terror related. so thanks for bringing that up. >> with dan, do you want to talk about the private director's seat at the nrcc and how it's maturing? we've made a lot of mistakes at fema in trying to do the right thing with good intentions, and we've brought the private sector in. not just for exercises and meetings although we've done a lot of that, but we've created a position where a member of the private sector works on our team behind the iron wall, sees everything i see and give i a real-life gut check. we started a last november target, had katie dempsey for 90 days, and relate me stop this for a second because we created our own problem.

moe of them think private sector and retailer are private terms. so then we got brookfield properties, and that was pretty cool because everyone at fema said what was brookfield properties? we were able to educate about the role of property management firms. currently we have verizon, thank you very much. we have home depot scheduled later in the year. anybody who's interested, you can see me. but the point of the program is to, you know, i'm not a fan of platitudes, and you hear about the government being transparent. you can call any of them and their companies, and see the investment that verizon sees in it. we learned from each new row take, and they learn from us and have a better understanding of

what the mix site has. >> lora, you talk about immigration, especially the recommendations from the 9/11 commission. were there recommendations that have not yet billion impletted that you think should be, and also talk about the role of technology going forward in immigration and other programs. >> well, there were a couple relations. one is exit, but another one which is often overlooked is the idea of regular consequences. and this gets at why we have such a sizable illegal immigration population because people who do oversee their visas, they don't fear consequences. or if someone works here illegally, there often aren't consequences for that. so this gets at this overstay question, and, um, a couple ways that technology can help the,

one, the systems while we've come a long way in term of sharing information and trying to break down the stove pipe databases and long state department icis and doj, there's still are a ways to go. iley, where we want to go is for all of these agencies across these departments is to be able to see the same information across the agencies, particularly, um, realtime immigration status. because that terms and helps make the decision for what this person is either applying for if they're eligible for that next visa, if they're admissible into the condition, -- the country, f they're deportable. so we need to continue to connect those cay that bases --

databases. another aspect is agencies need to know who they're dealing with. they need to have trusted identities of the individuals. there's still a bunch of identity theft that's inning in the cyber world, and there is actually a promising private/public effort going on under what's known as the national strategy for trusted identities in if cyber space. and this came about because of as we sign online more and more to do different transit's actions whether it's to be able to ask for a movie on netflix, etc., having to manage more and more pass wood across all of these commercial entities. people tend to use the same pass words over and over again.

so this is to tackle that. but in addition to improving commercial transactions and increasing the possibility of identity fraud, there are real benefits on the government side including immigration from this idea. if government had trusted in the identity of people who were applying for visa, etc., then the prospect of fraud dose down, and a lot more integrity comes to the system. and iley, the government, these agencieses could get out of the business of having to be in the identity business. >> thank you. one last question before we open it up to the audience. for the panel, so ten year later are we focused on the right things, the right problems? we spent a lot of time on airlines, other aspects. what with are we dissed?

d missed? what should we be focusing on? is? well, i can tell you that we have focused a great deal of energy on aviation, we have focused t -- a great deal on maritime. but one of the great vulnerability is general aviation. we can track and regulate some of the commercial, but if you think about some of the aircraft that are coming across the border that we really don't know that much about and another area that i think we need to be focusing on is a uss cole type of situation. can you imagine the havoc that would cause if a tanker were attacked by a small vessel at the port of l.a. and sunk it in

the harbor? it would be devastating. i still believe that there is a great deal of interest on the part of the, our adversaries out there in aviation. but i think we're going to see more and more of this boutique type of terrorism where they're picking smaller, more strategic targets to go after that is not quite as optionally challenging. so the small boat strategies, i think, are areas this we're just not up to speed on. >> dan? >> >> i think we're meting the right topics. i think we need a lot more work on the process. and first off, if this is anish shy that is a public/private problem, then there should be a public/private solution. i recently got back from san francisco at the urban areas

securities initiatives conference. two-day track of public/private sessions, and they were 95% on the panel of public sector. that's the wrong answer. we these to bring the private sector in on the ground floor. not the 11th hour when with say, okay, you can give an opinion at the last second. so washington's one of 17 states -- they're all a little bit different, but only one of 17 states that has a form of public/private partnership. all the topics won't be addressed adequately. >> the thing that i would say, and greg raised it earlier. you go back to 1996-'97.

ing out of 9/11, you would expect us to be shifting our focus to physical protection. as we got to a new norm, we brought cyber back up to the issue. and i think it's important to recognize the cyclical nature in which we will deal with these things in respondent to some event that nearly happened or happened. and other over the course of the next year we've got to make sure we balance out because the risk economists beyond that spectrum. we're four or five here years ar katrina. fez what? -- guess what? another one will happen, we've got to keep the understood lying attention. >> so a concept that sometimes including i misswepted had i fit

heard it is the idea of resilience. we used to prepear, respond, recovery. i thought it was because english is my second language that i was having a hard time with the word. add we work on that, colliely, if you clearly understand resilience, it does have to do with the way you design the building and you design the systems to withstand and then to get back, and the general mentioned about getting the private sector up and running. thank god we haven't talked about taxes, but at the end of the day what you cant is private sector paying taxes. it's a similar policeic short soft thing, bewant to to bend and to be able to get back up and start, you know, working wod

paying taxes and going about our lives. >> general lowen berg? >> i think we need to focus on the evolving nature of the threat. the threat that confronts us is a residual of the threat that confronted us in ten years ago, and we need to have a national dialogue that identifies what the basic capacity or capabilities that we need in this country to crease -- address the evolving nets and focus on how we insure capabilities across the nation. we've talkin' a fractured notion, i would have a thoughtful piece that would ebb courage congress so it would be focused on holeland security instead of the 20-plus securities in the house. prison but beyond that, if there are certain capability that are necessary for social security and for our business security in

every state and territory, then that ought to be a national undertaking to do that. and i don't think we've really come to grips with that yet. we go back to interoperable communications sharing, etc., et, but the cyber domain is going to loom as a point of vulnerability for every kinetic undertaking anywhere in the country. if you can prevent oil from flowing or petroleum from flowing anywhere on demand, then or you don't have to use kinetic force. and we need to continue to think big. we need to be able to respond to chemical, biological events that northeast of most of us don't wt to think about. i've refer today lone wolves, and people said, no, the looming threat is not a lone wolf from a

pack, it's a stray dog. and the are stray doughs are right here in the united states. so what used to be the ability of only a nation state in term of catastrophic death and destruction can now be leveled by a single individual acting alone. so we need to focus on medical surge capacity which i think is the one thing was identified as sorely lacking and has not been addressed since then. and as the consequence grow ever larger, then our inability to respond to anything other than the a chain reaction automobile collision, it really is a matter of life and at the time for all of us. >> randy. >> well, a couple things. we need to watch how the threat is evolving and be able to change with that. the way we even think of the

private sector, we're still working on things that happened in the past, and we have a tough time shifting to some of those new thicks, and a couple examples i'll used, immoan yum nitrate is what timothy mcveigh use use in the oklahoma city bombing. we have been working for years on a transportation worker identification credential. and we talk about interop ability. it's a huge expense for the private sector, and that's not brought about by congressional oversight. we have a dod yes deck rnl -- credential. we've got an hme credential, we've got a fast or pip to be able to cross the canadian

border. we've got a badge for being able to get into airports. all those are based on the same security threat analysis and background checks. yet the agencies won't give that up. and so we've got those kinds of things. and we talked a lot about the most important thing is to allow the private sector to get back up and running. i told you my story why my company sent me to washington. i would say that when we start talking about our company, um, response and recovery plans, the biggest unknown that we still have is what is government going to do. and we're continually reminded that with we're going to shut dn the border. and we're learning from that.

but i think that's the single biggest hurdle we've got to deal with. >> a couple things, one is the northern border: most of the attention is the southern border. but in just listening to the republican debate last week, all they talked about was the southern border. and our enemies are smarter than that. secondly is interior enforcement. we cannot seal the borders. so from the risk management per spective, you've got to deal with people who overstay. so it deals with routine consequences for violations. one of the first items in there is more border patrol agents. and while that's important and needed, there needs to be more

focus on interior enforcement so there are those routine consequences, and we remove some of the hay to expose the needles. >> thank you. well, we're just about out of time, i'm afraid. i, first of all, want to thank you. this was a great panel, great expertise. a lot of folks that were formerly at dhs and how this gravitates around. thoughts and theories is, actually, very help of. i just want to thank you for being with us today, thank you very much, and we -- [applause] and i'll just ask you to just keep your seat here, and we're going to have a wrap-up from governor ridge at this moment. thank you. >> oftentimes during my tenure

as either assistant to the president for home loond security or secretary, people ask me how do you sleep at night? and my usual response was i sleep very well, i jrs don't sleep much. one of the reasons i slept well was because i knew people represented of the quality and the passion and the vision operated by the panel were going to work to make america more secure. and i knew how committed these individuals were and their teams and their coworkers were from september 12th on. so i do want to pay attention to the group that they represent and the homeland security family. i want to thank our sponsors, conway and csc. it's been a very important

dialogue and conversation. wayn't to -- i want to just share a couple of final thoughts. .. there >> it enhances your capability to make yourself more secure, your communities more securitiment the other thing that's essential is trust. there's still this incredible notion that i better not share it because it's wikileaks all over again. well, i'm going to tell you, that is a potential, and if it

occurs, then we ought to throw the book out, but if you can't trust americans to secure america, who else can you trust? if you can't trust the big city mayor or big city police chief? if you can't trust the vice president of security in this or that company, then we have a problem. i think one of the challenges going forward is recognizing we change the culture from need to know to need to share, but we need to share more, and we need to be more trusted. i love the conversation about the private sector engagement. we talked a lot about partnerships. the only thing i can say from my perspective is it can't be ad hoc. you can't just knock on the private sector' door before an incident, you have to be there long before. they have to be involved in the planning. they got to be involved in the policy development. they got to be involved in the training, the execution. now, there's -- the best example i think right now is the whole

cybersecurity legislation. to the partner's credit, randy's credit, talking to the chairman before, the resources available in the infrastructure necessary to protect and frankly, the government's infrastructure is only by the private sector, so if you want to secure the country's cyber assets, you better involve the private sector at the front end, not in an ad hoc way. i think that message, and i think the continued message of outreach. you need the private sector involved. everybody eluded to the employees which i think, al, you talked about with the impact of some of the psychology, a lot of folks talks about psychology of people in the mind set, see something say something. it's more than that. we want people to have a ready

kit. remember the duct tape? i wanted color coded duct tape, but i just count get it in. [laughter] there's certainly responsibilities everybody has to share, and the panel certainly projected that notion very well. going forward everybody talkinged about concerns, but they said they are all manageable. i had a budget secretary that said when you walked into his office when i was governor, and i'll conclude with this, nothing ends a conversation like a budget cut. if you think there's an agency who couldn't get along with a little bit less, maybe not, but now 1 the time given the economic restraints in country where we need thoughtful leadership, set priorities, build partnerships with the private sector to deal with the priorities. it can be done. again, i think this has been a very enlightening panel.

i hope you enjoyed the discussion on behalf of broader homeland security, thank you for participating, but i think the panelists deserve an extra round of applause. thanks, ann. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> c-span was in argue lton, virginia today -- arhington, virginia museum as the motorcycle riders reached here today. 2500 bikers paying tribute at the 9/11 crash sites in pennsylvania, the pentagon, and into new york city. here's a look.

[horns honking] [horns honking] [background sounds]

[horns honking] [horns honking] [horns honking] >> and the motorcyclists riding through the northern virginia

suburbs near washington, d.c. and the pentagon paying tribute at the september 11 crash sites in pennsylvania. the america's 9/11 foundation uses the money raised during the ride for college scholarships for the children of the firefighters, police officers, and the other first responders who were called to duty on 9/11.

>> earlier today, the chief of naval operations, gary roughhead, spoke about the current budget and spoke at the association of unmanned vehicle systems national conference. this is 45 minutes. >> as many of you know who may follow world cup soccer, our women fought value yently, but lost to the women's team of japan, our great friend and allies, but the navy sponsored soccer team defeated japan yesterday, 10 i -- so i think we're even in that regard. [applause] it's really good to be here. i was so pleased to see the response that this symposium

generated, and the number of people who signed up for the week. i think it's indicative of the interest, the passion, and the promise that unmanned systems of all varieties portend for the future. the last time i was with you, i talked about how i believed unmanned systems would continue to move into the spotlight, and today, i'd like to spend a little bit of time addressing our view and the approach that we have taken and the expectations that we have on our plate. the -- there's no question, those of you who follow national security issues, defense issues, that war fighting and fiscal realities, i believe, are going to drive us more rapidly and in a much more focused way beyond our traditional platforms and to

the inclusion of unmanned systems. i think that clearly in the navy's case without the work and the commitment that our office of naval research has done over the years kind of kept the pot stirred, if you will,ing we would not be in the position where we are today, but clearly, it was that sustainment of onr and then in the last couple of years in the case of the navy where we've reorganized ourselves, relooked at how we wanted to command unmanned systems, how we moved many of those programs into our n26 or directer of information dominance. i don't believe we would have been able to achieve the things that we have done, but it's also important to acknowledge the contributions, the interests, and the competence of the technical community, of academia, and how they have been able to bring that intellectual

power to bear in the world of unmans, and there's no question that industry deserves great credit for continuing to pursue many of the initiatives that we see operating in the battle space today, but i'd like to touch a little bit on how we see up mapped systems -- unmanned systems operating, and what i have been referring to during my time as the chief of naval operations, operating in that way that we can provide the nation with the best offshore options that are available to the commander in chief, and those offshore options are very active today. they are very busy today, and i would submit they are very pivotal today. a few months ago, i was giving remarks, and someone asked me about the maritime strategy we had issued about four years ago -- was it still relevant?

did it still matter in the world of which we live today? that was on the eve of our operations into libya. i knew we were going into libya, it was not in the public domain, but as i tried to formulate an answer, i had a vision of our navy at that moment in time. some of you may know when we laid out our maritime strategy, we said we would be a force that was forward. we would be a deterrent force. we would project power. we would control the see in the areas where we needed at that moment in time. we would conduct maritime security operations, and we would provide humanitarian assistance and disaster response. on that particular evening, our ballistic missile submarines were on patrol as the nation's most survivable deturpt force. two aircrafts were in the middle

east sweeping through the area, not a bad conventional force. we were forward in every ocean in the world and on every continent, so those two capabilities were check the. we were moving ships and is a marines into position to make the attacks into libya that took down the air division the those ships and submarines were also providing sea control in the area off of libya. if you went farther east, you could see the united states army working with friends with the somalia area. ronald reagan on its way to combat deployment in the middle east, within 24 hours shifted over and was providing humanitarian assistance to the people of japan in the wake of the sue -- suetsunami there. my answer to the gentleman who

asked the question -- yes, it is relevant. it is active. it is viable, and it does provide those offshore options that the nation will need in the years ahead, and it's able to be done without any footprint ashore. i'm often complemented for our navy because of how fast we're able to respond, and we are able to respond quickly because of the great skill and competence initiative of our sailors who are deployed today, about 65,000 of them, but the key to that speed of response is also the fact that we are always there. we are present in every ocean of the world. we are standing by in those areas where conflict or disorder is likely to occur, and it's that presence that gives the nation the spheed that will

become increasingly important, but in all of those things that i just talked about, i think it's important to recognize that in all of the operations that we conducted, your communications were not challenged, the command and control of our forces were not challenged, and there was no real threat to our ability to access those areas, and so we, in a way, were never challenged in how we wanted to operate and what we wanted to do in those particular circumstances. those days are not always going to be the case. there will be challenge. there will be systems that will be a raid against military forces that want to be able to come into an area, that will challenge the command and control, that will challenge our ability to gain access, and for

that reason, i believe unmanned systems will play an even larger, more critical, and more crucial role in the years ahead, particularly in those contested environments. that's not to say that what we're doing with our unmanned systems today is not important, is not reel relevant, and is not having an impact. i cite our bans aircraft dmop straiter that we sent to the middle east a couple of years ago just to see how it would work. it has yet to come home. it's not broken. it's just that no one wants to let it go because of the value that it provides in sensing the battle space there. with our fire scout unmanned helicopter, we deployed that two years ahead of this initial operating capability date. i think that is a significant

step and an important step that i talk about later, and, in fact, although that system for the navy was procured to operate off of our ships, it is operating ashore in afghanistan, and there's an additional demand for more fire scouts to support operations there. without those initial deployments, those early deployments, we wouldn't have been able to get those systems in the hands of our operators, the hands of our sailors so that we could learn operationally how to use unmanned systems. we've made good use of shallow water mind hunting systems into the vicinity of iraq and the waterways there as we participated with our iraqi friends in opening up the waterways in the harbors that are absolutely critical to their economic viability. we've also used them extensively and underwater searches.

for example, a helicopter off the shore of san diego. i have the pleasure of going to woods holographic institute seeing the work they are doing there and how they use leading edge technology to find the flight data recorders that disappeared mid ocean without any specific locating information. we were able to use those systems in that regard, and then, of course, our ocean community is using gliders in very extensive ways increasing our awareness of underwater battle space. even with all of that i think it's true to say, and i wouldn't sugar coat anything, that many of our unmanned systems still operate on the per riff rei. indeed, many of the unmanned systems operate on the prief yal operations of which we conduct. they are clearly not optimally

integrated into our ships, into our squadrants, and into our concepts of operation. i think the pace of development, the culture that we tend to have within the military, indeed with any large organization, and the need to this point where why we have not seen that optimal integration. they are the three things that in my time in doing this i've seen as impediments, but i do believe as i eluded to earlier that the growing antiaccess abilities we see coming on the importance of the activity in the undersea domain will cause us to have to focus and to put more energy and more purpose into bringing these systems to bear because quite frankly, we don't have the time to let things lang wish along and find their way into our operations at a comfortable pace, and we also

can't allow the work that we do, the exes peermtation that we do, the research we do with unmanned systems to be viewed solely as an unmanned problem. that was the main reason, indeed, why we pushed the early deployment of some of our systems because while we can go ahead and look at the technological needs that we need and look at how well does the system itself work, it is so important, it's so important to me that we get these systems in the hands of the operators so that they can blend them into the operations and into the environments and learn from that because there's an operational level of learning that has to go on in addition to the technical level of learning. i also believe that we don't have time to treat how we think about and how we move information around as an after thought to the system.

that has to be part of the architecture in which we envision and reimagine how these systems are going to play into the battle space, and from the outset that i have always believed it's not a question of unmannedded systems and manned systems and how do we program for and by and develop and research in those two individual lanes. for me, it's been an issue of looking at the battle space in which we'll operate, and then looking at the optimal blend of man and unmanned, and how does each complement the other and not take away from the other. those are the things that we have to think about. our approach has been one that looked at unmanned systems that allows us to move forward with systems and concepts and ideas that have a great deal of commonality, but then that we can take some of that and tailor it off and perform a certain mission, and whether that's in

the large diameter, u, v, the undersea surveillance system and some of the air and propulsion work we're doing, i think that allows us to take some of those systems, that broad commonality, but then we can also parch them down into the needs that the operators may have. i also would say that we press quite hard on bringing the x47b into our thinking in the navy. my staff knows that on the first flight of the x47b, i was like an expecting father. as in all cases when systems like that are fielded, you may get ready to fly, and then there's a little glitch that you'll pry didn'tly and -- prudently and wisely want to check out that could delay the flight a few hours or a day. i was on pens and needles, and i

have no idea why it was that particular event in my tours as chief of naval operation that caused me to be so focused, so excited, and so enthusiastic. probably because in my mind, it truly does portend a significant change in the advantages and the power and the versatility of naval carrier aviation because if we can blend the unmanned on an aircraft carrier an a man on an aircraft carrier, we've changed the dimension in a way that has not happened in decades, but i would also say that as an organization, and i eluded to this earlier, that culturally we are often slow to adapt. we tend not to want to pull these innovative solutions into

the way that we do things. we struggle to answer needs in new ways even though we know there's a compelling argument to get these systems out there, and that's why i believe the approach that we've taken, the reorganization and the great young leaders, some of whom you see here in the audience today are the ones that will carry us forward. i would also say we're wrapped up a lot in our defense procurement process, that if an industry doesn't bring new ideas to us because we don't ask for them, i think that that reveals an acquisition system that doesn't accept failure and is not eager to learn from its mistakes which i think is a huge shortcoming of our system. failure is not bad, not learning from the failure is bad, but failure is not bad. resistance in getting to what i

call speed to fleet -- how quickly can we get systems out there, and the time that it takes us collectively to get an idea into a system, get it out into the fleet, i think represents again a risk adverse culture and an old set of processes that are not geared to the age in which we live. i believe it's also worthy to note that even though we've had the fire scouts deployed from a ship, the fire scout deployed ashore in afghanistan to the rave reviews of the troops there that are using it, that the item of note was that a fire scout was shot down in combat, a negative. all of the positives tend to be glossed over. all of the lessons we were able to learn by deploying two years

early to shape our thinking for the future, that seems to be minimized, and i believe that that is indicative of thinking and processes that are not helpful to our future. i also believe that we have a belabored operational test and regime that, from time to time, more often tends not to be able to deliver the integrated and the inneroperateble systems we need. again, a stove pipe look at how we bring systems into play and not being able early on to determine the inner operatability issues and the solutions and the integration challenges that we know we will face. we have to think differently about how we do that because if we fail, what happens is those systems get put on