quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. as you know, people are coming down requesting amendments be brought up, and since i don't see any democrats offering any, i'd obviously defer to senator paul. he has an amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment number 1490. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. lieberman: reserving the right to object.

mr. lieberman: i have no objection. to the filing of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes amendment numbered 1490 to amendment numbered 1470. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: this amendment will address some of the situations that are concerning the american people. i think the ability to serve in the senate is a great honor. the ability to serve in the house of representatives is a great honor. but i am somewhat sickened and somewhat saddened by people who use their office, who leave office and become lobbyists, who leave office and call

themselves historians and leave office and peddle the friendships they have found here and the relationships to make money. i think it's hard to prevent people from being lobbyists but i think if people choose to leave the senate and leave the house of representatives and become lobbyists, they should give up something. these people are making millions of dollars, lobbying congress. i think maybe they should give up their pension. maybe they should give up the health benefits subsidized by the taxpayer. if you're going to use your position as an ex-senator or ex-congressman to enrich yourself, maybe you should have to give up some of those perks you accumulated while in office. this amendment would kay say if you become a lobbyist, you have to give up your pension and you have to give up your health benefits and you need to pay for them yourselves. i think this is the least we can ask, and i think we've got a great deal of coverage now talking about people who are

either lobbyists or not, whether they're historians. the bottom line is we have a lot of people peddling their influence for monetary gain and tot the taxpayers should be subsidizing that. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, madam president. madam president, i thought i would bring our colleagues up to date on what is going on since the evening is getting late. we are close, i believe, to working out an agreement for a

vote on an amendment that was offered by senator paul earlier. it has to do with extending to executive branch officials these same kinds of reporting requirements and ban on insider trading that would apply to members of congress and their staff. it's an amendment that enjoys the support of both of the managers and the principal authors of this bill. what we're trying to do is to make sure, however, that we narrow the amendment so that it applies to top-level federal employees and not to low-level federal employees who have no policy responsibilities. so we were looking at limiting it to senate confirmed positions. the problem with that is it

brings in all of the military appointments that are senate confirmed so we want to make sure that we exclude those individuals who are clearly not the target of the amendment. so we continue to work, the managers of the bill, the sponsors of the bill and the sponsor of the amendment, senator paul, in order to refine his amendment. it is still our hope that we can reach that compromise and have a roll call vote tonight. we'll keep our colleagues informed about whether it's going to be possible to complete the drafting that would be needed to modify his amendment. in the meantime, madam preside madam president, i want to just talk very briefly about another amendment that senator paul just filed. it's amendment 1490.

this is an amendment that would require former members of congress to forfeit their federal retirement benefits if they work as a lobbyist or engage in any lobbying activities, regardless, i might say, of whether they served 40 years in this body. and i would also note that the language in this amendment is extraordinarily broad. for example, the definition of reniewrreniewrmation includes s, any payments for services not otherwise identified as salary, such as consulting fees, honoraria, and paid authorship. think about that, madam president. as i read the language, the former member of congress who

writes a book would be in danger of forfeiting his or her pensi pension. in other words, this is going to apply to authors. it mentions honoraria, so if a former member of congress gives a speech and receives a thousand dollars for giving that speech, that former member is going to forfeit his or her pension? earned pension? i don't even know that this would pass constitutional must muster. but there's certainly a fairness issue, it seems to me. now, i don't know if the intent of the senator from kentucky, senator paul, was to draft this as broadly as he did to include and to define as renumeration

paid authorship -- in other words, if you wrote a book, wouldn't even have to be a book. what if you wrote a newspaper article? what if you wrote an op-ed for "the washington post" and received $250 for that? do you forfeit your federal pension? what if you worked in the private sector for a number of years, worked as -- in state government for a number of years and then worked for a few years serving the people of this country in congress? would you then forfeit your pension if you provided some lobbying activities? if you wrote a book? if you gave a speech for money? this is extraordinarily broad. i see that the senate majority

leader is on the senate floor, so i will stop discussing this amendment. but i did want our colleagues to actually read the text of this amendment before we ever vote on it. as i was saying, it defiance renumeration, not just a salary or payment for services not otherwise identified as salary, but consulting fees, honor rar , and paid authorship. in other words, if after being in congress you wrote a book or you wrote an op-ed for which you were paid, you forfeit your federal pension? ... because you did some lobbying activities? this just strikes me as a very

sweeping amendment that does not belong on this bill. thank you, madam president. mr. reid: i'm very happy that i had the opportunity to hear -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i am happy to hear what that amendment does. thank you. mr. president -- madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to consideration of s. res. 359. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 359, commending alan d. frumin on his service to the united states senate. mr. reid: i'd ask the clerk to read the entire resolution. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the resolution. the clerk: whereas, alan s. frumin, a native of new york and graduate of coal debate university and georgetown university law center began his long career with congress in the house of representatives, precedents writing office in april of 1974, whereas alan s. frumin began work with the secretary of the senate's office of the senate parliamentarian on

january 1, 1977, serving under eight majority leaders; whereas alan s. frumin served the senate as its parliamentarian from 1987 to 1995 and from 2001 to 2012, and as parliamentarian emeritus since 197 whereas he revised r riddick'dick's parliamentary procedure, whereas lain s. frumin has shown tremendous dedication to the senate during his 35 years of service, whereas alan s. frumin has earned the respect and affection of the snorks their staffs and all of his scheetion for his extensive knowledge of all matters realing to the senate, his fairness and thoughtfulness, whereas alan s. frumin now retires from the senate after 35 years to spend more time with his wife jill and his daughter allie.

now therefore be it resolved that the senate expresses its appreciation to alan s. frumin and commends him for his lengthy, faithful, and outstanding service to the senate. resolve that the secretary of the senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to lain s. frumin. -- to alan s. frumin. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask consent, madam president, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. i would ask members of the senate to join in sponsoring this amendment. -- this resolution, i'm sorry. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered.

ms. collins: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: madam president, i just want to join in saluting alan for his many years of work. he is someone that all of us know to be an honest broker, who calls them as he sees them, who withstands at times tremendous pressures, and who has just extraordinary knowledge that all of us have come to rely upon. so, on behalf of the republican side of the aisle, i'm sure that i'm speaking for our members as well in saluting alan and wishing him well and thanking him for his many years of dedicated public service. we wish you well. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i would be we

miss if i didn't just, because i'm in the chamber, say a word of thanks to alan frumin for his service to the senate. when i first came to the senate in 1989, had the privilege to occupy the chair, i had two great mentors. one was the great senator from west virginia, robert c. byrd. the other was alan frumin. and both were steadfastly reliable. i was just one of many who sat in the chair. we're often asked questions, whose answers did not immediately spring to mind. and there was a voice sna i heard. in this case it was not from above but from slightly below, that clarified exactly what the rules of the senate required. so this is -- alan has been a true and faithful public servant, really held himself to the highest standards and helped

us inherently -- helped this inherently rul unruly body to be ruly. i thank the chair. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask the comboarl be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: the stock act, it's a bill that i cosponsored and the notion behind it is that members of congress should not use their public service or information gained in their public service for private benefit. it basically outlaws the type of inside ever trading and conflict of interest that should be a standard and will be a standard after this is enacted into law. amendments have been proposed to this measure, and there is one in particular that i heard about earlier and asked he for a copy. this is an amendment proposed by

the senator from kentucky, senator paul and it's an amendment which talks about members of congress forfeiting their federal retirement benefits and the conditions under which they would forfeit their federal retirement benefits. understand that these are members of congress who have completed enough service in the congress to qualify for a pension. it's my understanding that is about six years. at a minimum ox years of service members of congress receive some pension benefits. certainly those benefits increase the longer they've served. this bill would disqualify them from pensions that they have been credited and earned as members of congress under three conditions. first, should they decide after they have served in congress to serve as a registered lobbyist, that in and of itself is breathtaking, to think that if a person should decide after service in congress to become a

registered lobbyist with or without compensation, i might add, for perhaps a nonprofit organization, they would forfeit their federal pension. that in and of itself is inexplicable. it gets worse. this goes not to on to say a member of congress retired forgets his pension if he accepts any kind of remuneration which could be a salary, a consulting fee, even an honorarium for giving a speech from any company or other private entity that employs a register lobbyist. think about that for a second. if a retired member of congress in illinois should give a speech to a gathering of the management of caterpillar tractor company in peoria about their experience in congress and their views on issues in washington, give a speech, and receive any compensation for giving that speech, they would forfeit

their 23er8 pension because caterpillar tractor company has a paid lobbyist in washington. then it gets worse. the third provision says a retired member of congress would forfeit their pension if they accept that remuneration from any company or private entity that does business with the federal government. is using the mail service doing business with the federal government? would most businesses in america therefore be doing business with the federal government because they use the mail service? and if so, if i take compensation from that company, i forfeited my federal pension? what is the purpose of this? other than to just basically harass members of congress in their retirement? there are certainly situations where a person could forfeit their pension. based on misconduct, for example, or convictions for crime. that's understandable. but this has gone way too far. i hope that members of the senate will read this amendment. it's very brief, two pages

long. and in reading it realize that this is something that should not be offered and if offered, should be defeated. it does nothing to make this a better place to serve, it raises serious questions about the rights of individuals who have served their nation in congress, and what they're going to do after they leave the service of the united states. i urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment offered by the senator from kentucky. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, mr. president. i rise today to speak about the stock act, and i want to start by thanking the leaders on the floor -- senator lieberman, senator collins for their hard work and leadership in bringing this to the floor. mr. president, there should not be any question that members of congress should be held accountable to the same laws that every other american are held to, and that's why in november, senator gillibrand, senator tester and i introduced the stock act to prohibit

members of congress from engaging in insider trading. this bill is common sense. the american people deserve to know that their representatives in congress are doing what's right for the country, not trying to strike it rich by trading on insider information. my constituents are certainly wondering why this isn't law already, and that's a good question. it certainly is a question i asked myself last year when there were news reports raising this issue and i was very pleased to join immediately with my colleagues to put forward this legislation to make it absolutely clear that insider trading by members of congress is a violation of the law. i want to thank, as i indicated before, the senator from connecticut and the senator from maine for moving this bill through their committee, bringing it to the floor. i appreciate very much the 93

senators that voted last night to move the bill forward. it's i think a very important example of bipartisan support, and i'm hoping that we will be able to move this forward for a simple up-or-down vote this week. that we will not see extraneous issues or obstruction or delay involved in this issue. this is very simple and very straightforward, and i'm hopeful that we will be able to move it forward and accomplish this goal. we need to move forward to make sure that it's very clear that the same laws that everyone else adheres to also are held to be true for members of congress, and it's important also to note that our bill creates new reporting requirements for members of congress and their staffs, with the reports

available online with searchable database. this is very important for transparency. and it asks the government accounting office to investigate the so-called political intelligence consultants who contact members and staff to get information on how legislation could affect their business clients or stock prices. mr. president, this bill really is very simple and very clear cut. we all are engaged in conversations on a daily basis that make information available to us, and we need to make it very clear our responsibilities for handling that information and operating in the public interest. so i'm hopeful that we will be able to keep this bill focused on the intended goal so we can actually get it passed, get it over to the house and have the

house do the same thing. it's important while there may be a number of different issues we all care about that we would like to offer on amendments, i'm hopeful that we will be able to keep this focused on the issues in front of us and that we will be able to get this done as quickly as possible. so i -- our constituents are certainly looking to us to be able to do this. this would be an excellent way to start the new year, working together on a bipartisan basis to close a loophole that's created confusion about the responsibilities, the ethics and the legal responsibilities for senators as it relates to insider information and potential insider trading. i'm hopeful we can get this done. i appreciate everyone who has been involved in helping to get us to this point, and hopefully by the end of the week, we will have something passed that we

can all feel very good about. thank you, mr. president, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president?

i ask unanimous consent -- are we in a quoru quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. reid: i ask that it be vitiated. officer without objection. mr. reid: how many amendments are pending? the presiding officer: there are 15 amendments pending. mr. reid: we started this morning about 11:00. we had to invoke cloture on this bill, which was supposedly a bill that everyone wanted. it is too bad we had to invoke cloture on it, but we d we've been working all day to set up roll call votes. all day. we naught we had one a few minutes allege, buminutes ago, s came over and said, there will not be a vote on that unless there are votes on mine, even though their amendments are not relevant or germane to the subject matter here. i appreciate senator lieberman, susan collins, they're fine legislators. they understand what this body is all about and how important this legislation is and how

important they are as managers of this bill. so they're negotiating on several the amendments. but at some point, mr. president, this becomes ridiculous. to have senators come over here and say they're not going to allow a vote on an amendment unless they're guaranteed votes on nongermane, nonrelevant amendments and then people criticize me for not having an open amendment process? it becomes a circus. this isn't the united states -- this is not the united states senate. that we've had or should have. at some point we need cooperation of members on both sides of the aisle to set votes and dispose of these amendments and move on to pafnlgt bill. -- and move on to passage of the bill. i don't want to have to file cloture on this bill. if we -- i just want to alerten. if we continue the way we're going, where people are saying, you can't have a vote on any

amendment unless i'm guaranteed a vote on my nongermane, nonrelevant amendment, what am i supposed to do? -- to protect this body? so, i would hope that tonight will bring some common sense to some senators. it's really -- i won't say "embarrassing," but it is a little bit to have these two fine bipartisan -- they've worked together for years on a bipartisan basis on some of the most sensitive issues this country has, protecting the homeland. we couldn't have two better people work on a bill that would create some bipartisanship. but this is unfortunate and unfair and not right, and i, as the leader, am not going to let this continue forever. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i want to thank the leader for his statement, thank him for his painches i tell you, to have gone through -- i know people

are critical of the way senator reid has been forced to operate here to try get anything done. but if you go through a day like we've gone through, you understand why he's had no choice. senator paul, the senator from kentucky, introduced an amendment. we had a very thoughtful negotiation with him about modifying the amendment. we came to a meeting of the minds. and ready to go and then another member says, i won't consent to you voting on senator paul's modified amendment unless you promise me a vote. as senator reid well knows, in the early years i was here, this kind of behavior has sometimes happened just before the final vote son a bill or perhaps before a recess was about to be dislaird. but to conduct one's self in this way before -- at the very beginning of a debate on a bill about which there's bipartisan

support -- yesterday it was clear on the cloture motion, only two senators voted against it -- it is a real good government bill and to hold it up in this way is frustrating, and i quote the majority leader who is a straight talker, it is ridiculous. so at the end of a long day, we've got nothing to show for our labor. you know, i apologize to the members of the senate, but it requires some reasonableness from our colleagues to proceed. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. udall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. udall: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to ask unanimous

consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res 286 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 286 recognizing may 16, 2012, as hereditary angioede ph*eu s awareness day and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection the committee will be discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. udall: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the inouye amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the resolution as amend be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and any related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the

senate proceed to the immediate consideration en bloc of the following resolutions which were submitted earlier today: s. res 360, s. res 361,s. res 362, s. res 363 and s. res 364. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate and any related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, february 1, 2012, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks the senate be in a

period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. and that following morning business the senate resume consideration of s. res 2038 the stop trading on congressional knowledge act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, i understand we hope to have votes in relation to amendments to the stock act during wednesday's session. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

>> michele flournoy gave her last major speech monday at the reserve officers association symposium. she will step down from the post

on friday. this is just under an hour. >> welcome back, everyone. we will continue with our program, continuing with excitement. today's presentation titled dod policy, and look back and a look ahead will be in just a minute. before we begin the key speech we would like to present the roa chaplain, lieutenant father vincent roberts, chaplain of the year award. father was the only chaplain to receive the medal of honor. he was killed in action in vietnam in 19 cities and come and we mean the award for him about 10 or 15 years ago. presenting this award is major cummings, the reserve officers

association national chaplain. accompanied by chaplain colonel christina mueller, united states army reserve command, command chaplain, and the reverend ron ruffled, the endorser of the chaplain of the year with the international ministerial fellowship. this award is given annually for extraordinary contribution to the welfare, moral, morale and effectiveness of the military reserve services. chaplain karen hallett served the 411th engineer brigade as the brigade chaplain. originally enlisted in the army in 1983, enlisted in the army, went on to graduate from the united states military academy

in 1988. chaplain hallett is an ordained and licensed nondenominational minister of the gospel, with credentials and endorsements from international ministerial fellowship, minneapolis, minnesota. she has more than 20 years administered to an missionary experience, which in addition to military service as a chaplain includes organizing and directing missionary efforts in the united states, and gonna, west africa. the recipient of this year's chaplain of the year award goes to chaplain captain karen hallett, united states army reserve. [applause]

>> you hold it. now let's get everybody in the picture. >> you may be seated. >> no, no, no. don't run away. don't be shy.

members of the association, it's with great honor that i'm about to announce to you that our outreach, our congressional outreach this year has grown much food as relates to our strategic partnership with the united states house of representatives. for the first year, all of our schedules have aligned to where, when our members are on the hill listening to the legislators, chaplain hallett who has been chosen to be the guest chaplain for the house of representatives i heard congressman, the honorable scott garrett from new jersey. [applause] and with that note, i would like to encourage all members, and anyone who will be in the vicinity of the house of representatives on wednesday to

please ask your members if they could, or their aides, if they could escort you to the gallery to show support for chaplain hallett as she becomes part of history, inducted into the congressional record with her beautiful prayer, and a one minute speech by her congressman, praising roa and the contribution that my esteemed pure and colleague has made on the half of the republic. chaplain hallett, we congratulate you, and thank you for representing us in such an esteemed accomplishment before our legislators. thank you. [applause] >> chaplain hallett, a few words, please. >> you know, people have asked me what this award means. first of all, all glory and honor goes to the lord who called me to this position and has allowed me to serve our soldiers, and, of course, our

joint coalition forces, our airmen and our sailors and our marines as well. secondly, this is an absolute credit to my command, to the 411th engineer brigade, the commit of that brigade, and to the commanders and the staff that allow me to do whatever it is that i need to do in order to serve our soldiers. so credit to those two folks. i have just really done my job. [applause] and i now turn the time over to general davis who will introduce our keynote speaker. >> well first, i want to make it absolutely clear that we have five eagle rings, army navy air force marines and coast guard.

i had a question of that in the hall. if you look at the numbers if you're in the marines or the coast guard community much better chance of winning a ring. [laughter] so update your profile. about a month ago the "washington post," the newspaper of record for washington, d.c. and the political trade journal for the united states of ameri america, had a full-page story on the most powerful woman in the defense establishment. she is our next speaker and guest today. i'd like to introduce the honorable michelle flournoy, undersecretary of defense, for policy. she has a bachelor's degree from harvard and a masters in international relations from oxford. great schools, but are two

speakers were ph.d's from princeton. what's next? or predispositions have included president of the center for new american security, one of most important of the nonpartisan think tanks in washington. principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, and threat reduction, and deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy. we were just chatting, and secretary flournoy 10 years of service as undersecretary position will end on friday. we hope that that doesn't diminish your ability to speak for rightly, boldly, and with some controversy and invite all the questions that we can off the floor.

again, if you have questions, start writing them as soon as it pops in your mind, pass it to the center, and we will continue the q&a after the secretary's prepared remarks for secretary flournoy. [applause] >> good morning. thank you for the kind introduction. the most important qualification so for me to speak to this crowd, and that is i am the wife of a navy reservist. [applause] but it's really an honor to be here with all of you today. and what makes this particularly meaningful for me as was noted, this is my last public speech in office as the under-secretary of defense for policy. and i really can't think of an audience that i would rather sign off with than this one. the roa is a really remarkable

organization, not only a professional organization of some 60,000 members from all of the uniformed services, and an advocate for the 1.5 million americans who are now serving in a reserve component. but also an educational body that seeks to foster better public understanding of national security issues. as many of you know doubt know, the roa's corporate charter was signed into law in 1950 by president harry truman. there's something very fitting about the fact that an organization dedicated to promoting public awareness of national security issues would be so recognized at that particular moment in time by that particular president. after all, it was a moment of profound transition in the world, and in our own defense establishment. the second world war had ended only five years before, and a

new cold war with the soviet union was just beginning in earnest. moscow had just carried out its first successful atom bomb test in august of 1949. another wartime ally, china can have just seen the end of a long civil war, and mao's forces were now being the world's most populous nation. on the neighboring korean peninsula, the year 1950 would see an invasion of the south by the north, an event that quickly to end the forces of the united states, and our allies and partners around the world. in response to these and other changes in the security landscape, president truman and a truly extraordinary group of senior advisers, responded by embarking on a series of programs, reviews, initiatives that brought about fundamental changes to our national security and our foreign policy systems. just think about it, the marshall plan, the establishment of the department of defense, and an independent air force,

the formation of the cia, the developers of multinational bodies like nato, the united nations, the development of the containment policy towards the soviet union. this multidimensional response drawing upon a range of american diplomatic, economic, cultural and military resources proved to be quite successful in containing the soviet union, and setting the stage for ultimate victory in the cold war. with that victory, some observers hopefully declared that history had come to an end. and that we could look forward to an era, a lasting era of relative global harmony. that obviously did not come to pass as the attacks on 9/11 and other events made all too clear. in the years since, we have passed one signpost after another, marking the arrival of an even more complex strategic

era. the swift growth of china's economy and the broad-based though quite opaque modernization of its armed forces, the emergence of asymmetric and hybrid forms of warfare which pose new challenges for states and militaries, the arrival of cyberspace as a domain of potential conflict, one that forces us to revisit long-standing ideas of deterrence and culpability in the very definition of warfare itself. the potential proliferation of the most dangerous technologies in the world, particularly to irresponsible regimes. north korea has already tested nuclear weapons, and iran continues to seek its own nuclear weapons capabilities in violations of its treaty obligations in established international norms. the emergence of broad geopolitical trends, national security consequences are potentially enormous but still

somewhat unclear from the arab awakening to global climate change. and as if all this were not enough, in 2008 we suffered the most acute financial crisis since the great depression, shaking the very foundation of america's national security, our economic strength. this is required some painful adjustment, and as you know the budget control act passed by congress requires that 487 million be found in savings from the department's budget over the next decade. several observers, both at home and abroad, have looked at all of these factors and concluded that we are embarking on an era of long-term u.s. decline. a steady erosion of american leadership in the world. i'm here to tell you that i strongly strongly disagree with this thesis. while our challenges are undeniable, they are no greater,

frankly, than those that previous generations of americans have faced. including harry truman and his advisers early on in the cold war. that generation of statesmen and officers met the challenges of their time by thinking strategically and seriously and practically about how to sustain u.s. leadership at a time of great change. and that's exactly what prompted this president, president obama, secretary gates and panetta, to undertake a comprehensive review of our defense strategy and our force structure at this time. the title of the guidance that the department recently released, sustaining u.s. global leadership, principled for 21st century, it was chosen very deliberately. the emphasis throughout the review from president obama to secretary panetta on down has been that the size, structure

and capabilities of our military must be driven by strategy, not the other way around. to protect our country and maintain u.s. leadership, we need to set smart, sensible priorities for the future. at the outset of the review, secretary panetta laid out four main principles to guide us, which in turn also guided our budget, a budget plan which was just rolled out last week. first he said, we must maintain the world's finest military, one that supports and sustains the unique global leadership role of the united states. second, we must avoid howling out the force. a smaller, ready and willing equipped but there is probable to a larger force without adequate investment and readiness or modernization. third, savings must be achieved in a balanced manner. everything has to be on the

table. no sacred cows, including potentially sensitive areas that will likely provoke opposition in congress, industry and some advocacy groups. fourth, we have to preserve the quality of the all-volunteer force, and not break faith with the men and women who serve and with their families. i think the strategic guidance remains true to all four of those principles. the force of the future that it outlines will remain capable across the spectrum of missions. while it will be smaller, it would also be flexible, agile, and above all, ready. this force will be called upon to help meet a very broad range of challenges, and object is your the new guidance laid out a suit of strategic elements, including the following. increasing our emphasis on the asia-pacific and sustaining our forces in the middle east, while keeping america's article five

commitments in europe. the protection of investments in vital areas, such a special operation forces, isr, precision strike, and cyberspace. ensuring that the u.s. can still conduct combat operations and you effectively with aggression in more than one theater at a time. let me be very clear. it's not a question of whether we're able to confront more than one adversary at a time, it's a question of how. and are operational concepts are evolving and changing to meet the threats of the future. a shift away from ground forces size for sustained large-scale stability operations, and towards somewhat smaller and more modernize ground forces equipped to respond to a wider range of threats. the protection of our ability to search, regenerate, and mobilize to counter any threat around the

world, and that is a degree of what we call reversibility come to ensure that our forces are not caught offguard by unforeseen or swiftly developing threats. this is critical, given that we have to have a certain humility about our ability to predict the future. in the weeks since the president and secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs, staff and the chiefs stood altogether at the pentagon to introduce the new strategic guidance, this document has generated a fair amount of speculation. this is washington, after all. are we adhering to the to or force size constant or are we at ending a? as we shifted asia-pacific will other parts of the world be neglected? by shifting away from our, for sizing our ground forces for long, large-scale counterinsurgency and stability operations, are we turning our

back on the hard-fought lessons of the last decade? and most important of all, by slowly -- by slowly the historic post-9/11 increases in the trees penny, as congress requires us to do, are we signaling somehow that we are entering a period of of american global retrenchment and retreat from the world? as i mentioned earlier, the decision to title the new strategic guidance, sustaining u.s. global leadership, was quite deliberate. we are retaining full capability to confront more than one aggressor anywhere in the world, even if we are engaged in large-scale operations, we will be able to quickly denied the objectives of an opportunistic adversary, or oppose unacceptable cost in another theater of the world. even as we we balance our posture towards asia-pacific and continue to place a premium on

our presence in the middle east, we will uphold our nato commitments, including through new potato deployments of additional ground and naval forces as an asthma secretary annetta a few weeks ago. and other regions of the world as such as latin america and africa we will continue to develop small footprint, innovative approaches that maintain our presence, invest in our relationships with partner nations at relatively low cost. the use of an austere base in djibouti for the recent soft rescue of two aid workers held in somalia is just an example of how effective such presence can be. and even if we no longer size our army and marine corps for large-scale multiyear stability operations such as those in afghanistan and iraq. we are establishing ways to retain a key expertise and the lessons learned so that

subsequent generation of americans does not have to painfully relearn them as we did after vietnam. the underlying theme that runs through all of this is an emphasis on flexibility, agility, readiness, on retaining capability across the full spectrum of missions. this is the key to sustaining our leadership in an era of complex challenges and hard fiscal choices. consider, for example, one of the most discussed words in the strategic guidance, and i mentioned it before, reversibility. some have seized on this word as a sign that some of our principles are not firmly fixed, or that our decisions on key programs are subject to rapid change. in fact, reversibility mean something completely different. it refers to our ability to make course corrections in response to tishri jake economic or

technological change. for example, even as we reduce the overall size of our ground forces, we will keep a relatively high proportion of midgrade officers who would be at a particular premium if we needed to build up the forces quickly. in this context the guard and reserve will play an extremely important role. it is your expertise, your dedication, your commitment and your readiness that will enable our military to have the built-in adaptability and resourcefulness i have just described. we expect the reserve components to continue to provide both an operational and strategic reserve in the future. they will continue to be a source of innovative approaches, to building the capacity of critical partners around the world. and here i want to take a moment to highlight the state partnership program, which pairs national guard units of a given

state with a particular partner country. one of the first such partnerships and relationships was established back in 1993 between illinois national guard and the polish military. since then, illinois guardsman and polish forces have deployed together to both iraq and afghanistan, and the troops from the land of lincoln have helped the polls with such matters as to build a stronger nco for a long the american model. as for the reserves, we have already begun to see a further expansion of missions and responsibilities to help the nation needed urgent national security needs. in the national defense authorization act of fiscal year 12, for example, there are provisions allowing service secretaries to call up, up to 60,000 reservists in active duty for as long as a year outside of times of war and emergency. this allows greater access to reserve components for

preplanned missions for the combatant commanders. in addition they also allows the secretary defense to activate reservists up to 120 days, upon request from a state governor for disaster or emergency. before this, as many of you know, this was impossible. this deprived as all of greater access to the great expertise every service can bring to bear in emergency situations. these provisions reflect an awareness on the part of leaders in the administration on the hill of just how important the reserve can be to our security across the range of potential situations. while the guard and reserve will be essential components of our future, there remains many questions about your future role. for example, how should reserve component in its returning from combat be reset? how should we reset their

equipment and training in light of the new strategy? recognizing that we can't afford to place equal emphasis on all scenarios and mission sets. what types of skill sets and units should be considered as candidates for the operational reserve that we would expect to be activated and deployed more frequently than normally is the case. what types of units, if any, can be held in lower levels of readiness, and mobilize only in time of larger scale protected conflict? and how can we as a department and as a community come as a nation, do a better job of ensuring that our god and national guard and reserve members are not unfairly penalized by current and potential employers in what is already a very difficult economy. the obama administration is extremely serious about expanding career opportunities for veterans, and we have launched a series of initiatives to help out, but there's certainly much more to be done in this arena. i'd like to conclude mine

remarks on a note of optimism. one of the reasons i so strongly believe that we will indeed see a period of sustained american leadership is that when circumstances are difficult, we as a country, as a people, to find a way to come together for the broader national interest. we've seen a very practical illustration of this in the recent strategic review. times of fiscal hardship often beget action to very intense and reservists rivalries in contention. while they were certainly honest disagreements in the review process, i think the people involved, civilian and military alike, found the process to be remarkably collegial and the strategic trump the parochial time and time again. if anything, the secretaries commitment to open communication, to shared, only intensify the process, only

intensified as the process went forward. this is a remarkable thing to witness, and i've seen many reviews in the pentagon before. it gives me a lot of faith, frankly, in our survey and military leadership to make sound decisions as these very difficult choices have to be made in the months and years ahead. no doubt those choices will involve some sacrifice. for example, as part of the total force, the reserve components will experience some and strength reductions commensurate with their active duty counterparts. in addition the department has to seek greater efficiencies and are basing infrastructure, rationalizing it to meet the needs of a small and more flexible force. and to ensure that we have the resources to invest in readiness and modernization. critical initiatives like this will require us to look beyond our narrow interests, the narrow interests of any particular

office or department, state, region, party or branch of the armed forces. there are those who believe that we have lost the ability to do this year the process that generates a strategic guidance though gives me hope to think otherwise. i think we are better than our skeptics would argue. the truth is, we must transcend partisan and the parochial. our national security depends on it anytime of austerity. so as i step down from my current position, i feel a great sense of honor to have worked with so many outstanding men and women, military and civilian, and many of them i see in this room today. and again, i thank you for your service to this country, and i wish you all the best. god bless, and i look forward to your questions. thank you. [applause]

>> in retrospect, as you leave office this week, what, looking back on when you took office, was your greatest surprise? >> you know, i think -- [inaudible] there are many surprises, but i think right before i came into this office i had actually written a report called the inheritance, which is really documenting how daunting the set of challenges that the new president, and at the time we did know it was going to be, how daunting the inheritance of challenges was going to be for this american president . and i think what surprised me is how much more challenging things got. i mean, at the time we wrote that report we documented the fiscal crisis, the rise of new powers come or liberation of wmd, new domains like cyberspace

and so forth, but we didn't anticipate the arab spring. we didn't anticipate some of the other developments that have happened. and so i think what's been the biggest surprise is that just when we thought we had it bad, it got even worse. but truly what's remarkable, then how this current civil military team has really pulled together to grapple with these changes, to try to do it in a very integrated way that more often than not takes a whole of government approach. >> could you comment for those of us who really don't have the experience, how is policy developed in the department of defense? and then beyond the department of defense. >> well, it's a great question. first of all i'd say policy is developed, policy and issues may come from within the department of defense, but if they are significant for our national

security, they almost always get brought into a broader agency discussion. and process. and so i think it works a couple ways. there may be a bright idea that comes from the bottom up, perhaps from the field or perhaps consumer in the department, but typically in my role i will bring that in the deputies process search of a deputy national security advisor, you have members of the intelligence community, state department and usaid, treasure, the whole, sometimes homeland defense or homeland security if that's appropriate, and we massaged the initiative and develop options for the principal and ultimately the president to consider. other times you'll have a top down initiative, where the president sees an opportunity, wants to go in a particular direction, and that process will be harnessed from the top down. but the good news is that there's ample opportunities, and i think there's always to sort

of, to lead from where ever you said by putting good intellectual capital, well thought ideas on the table. >> some have suggested that it's not as nimble as it might be, and that when policy is formed at the department level, beyond the department and in the interagency, it becomes broken. can you comment on the? >> you know, i spent a lot of my time in between stints of government writing about how the interagency process needs to be improved. because when you think about the challenges we face, it's hard to think of one where only one instrument of national power gets to a solution but it almost always involves the combined efforts of multiple different agencies and resources. and so, it's very important that we have a process in place. we all love to complain about

processes, but i will tell you that i think, because of these tremendous challenges we face, because we are in country still at war where you have to be responsive, i think we have developed a process that really tries to be responsive needed. it's not always successful, but i think it's more successful now than i've ever seen it before. that means that i spend a lot of my time over, you know, with my colleagues from other departments working together, several hours per day trying to hammer out in the agency solutions to some of the challenges we face. >> you touched on changing roles for the the reserve component, and included could be variable readiness for mobilization for different missions. so if i'm interpreting this

correct, we are looking for expanded use of the reserve force. we have come out of a period where reservists, director petraeus had folks raise their hand and we had people in the audience you have been mobilized three times over the last 10 years, unprecedented service. the same time there's discussion, you said that everything is on the table. what is the current policy thinking about incentives for service, in particular the reserve service, health care, retirement services, et cetera? >> first of all let me clarify, i think if you look at the height of the demand for reserve utilization, which when we are at the peak in both iraq and out afghanistan, i think that if you take that as a peak, the demand is going to come down gradually.

we have completed the mission in iraq. we are still working very hard in afghanistan, and we are making progress towards our 2014 transition goals, but you can expect that gradually over the coming years that limit is going to come down. so overall i think demand is going to be coming down. though the question is, we have organized the reserve components and the guard to be fully operational reserve and the last several years to support that very high demand. that demand comes down, the question of whether we keep that uniform level of readiness across the entire force, or whether we look at different possibilities within the guard and reserve, where some on a volunteer basis want to deploy more often, raised their hands and volunteer to do so and have a higher tempo, if you will.

others who really want to reset to more of a strategic reserve and so forth. so the truth is, that is, those are questions that we need to work through with you in the coming years to figure out what is that while that is going to be responsive to the needs of the future, what does that look like. i think going forward in terms of paying compensation, we are taking a total force look at this. let me be clear. no one is planning any pay cuts. i think the secretary, the chairman were very clear on this. what we are looking at is a gradual slowing of the growth of increase of compensation. i think you've seen since 2011 something, 2001, i'm sorry, something like a 40% increase in military compensation -- just getting my figures are right -- even though the number of personnel only increased by 8%. we absolutely want to protect

funding for wounded warriors, for family programs, for transitioning veterans. and you will see us continuing to invest in those areas. but we have to look at areas like compensation, like health care, where we still have some very perverse incentives in place. many of you may know that even if you are working age retiree and have access to tricare as reserves or a garden, or what have you, or even as a retired active duty person, you may still be able, even if you have the ability to get health care with your employer, your private sector employer, you can still stay on tricare and not take the private sector coverage. that means that the department of defense is caring a lot of health care costs that would otherwise be borne by private sector employers. and while in principle, you know, you could make an argument for that, the truth is in reality what happens is that is money that is not being spent on

capabilities, on equipment, unreadiness, one of the kinds of programs for our personal. and so we really need to look at this in a holistic way. similarly on retirement. no one is going to change the contract on someone who is already serving, but we have asked congress for an authority, for a commission to sit down and look at his holistic lead to ask the question of whether we can have a better system. the majority of our military members don't stay on 20 years. most of them spent many, many years in the military and walk away with nothing in terms of retirement. is that the right model for us going forward? so i think these are the kind of questions but there are no easy answers. they are very, very politically charged difficult issues, but we owe it to ourselves and the country to sit down and tried to wrestle with these to try to come up with a better approach. >> we in the reserves already enjoyed the gray area in our retirement, 60 years old is a

similar period being contemplated for the active? >> again, really we are looking forward to the establishment of this commission, and i don't have any particular proposals that have been put on the table yet. >> i was chatting with a junior officer this morning, remember back on my reserve service in the 1970s, after coming back from southeast asia. and there was a period where we were running through the woods yelling and banging because there was no training ammuniti ammunition. the funds have been cut out of the carter year defense budget. and it took 15 years to recover the capability of the reserve force for desert storm that evolved into the current operation with the current reserve. what's being thought as there's a defense drawdown to guarantee that we don't have, as more

missions go to the reserve and the guard, was being contemplated to ensure that we have the resources, training and equipment to do those missions? >> it's a great question, and we do not want to go back to the days that you described. i think that was the reason the secretary, in this guidance up front, emphasized that second injunction, that we don't want to go to a hollow force but we don't want to keep more for structure that we can keep to modernize and make ready. and i think take a total force perspective, that certainly goes to the guard and reserve, particularly when we are relying on you all to be part of this notion of reversibility, being agile and being able to adapt to unforeseen constituencies or circumstances of the future. so one of the things we're doing management wise, paying particular attention to how the services are resourcing

readiness, both acted upon and reserve and guard going forward. and we will continue to do that. i heard a discussion yesterday, army senior leaders seminar that suggested that in some units that vehicles are not being taken off multiple because trucker dollars for fuel. down on the grassroots level, policy shifts the sure that that doesn't have an? >> again, i think that monitoring that, tracking it, i think making sure that kind of example, i can tell you that the attention cashman into you at the top is to make sure that we hold people accountable for keeping the force ready. and i know that's sort of the secretaries intention to he and the chairman are working very hard. >> there's been a recent thrall with use of special operation forces, typically a nation that

has never gone to the reserves. i commanded a marine reserve battalion and desert storm to become special operations capable. as soon as we got home, that was off the table. is there any thought in the restructuring of the forces to migrate special operations? ability to the reserves? >> there actually are in the army. there are special operation reserves units, sf in particular, that the maintain certain linguistic focus, regional focus, and very much play in the partner capacity building mission and that sort of thing. so, you know, what i don't know is whether so, plans to expand overtime. but again, i think, you know, given we think of these written culture witness and the country, it's a particularly good way to tap into that in many ways. but again, i'm not sure on the

particular plan, whether the element will expand. >> new strategy guidance, how will it influence the 2014 quadrennial defense review process? it's going to be a fool of qdr, or is there a chance to make course corrections with potentially a new administration or a new shift in the administration? >> i think, you know, what that connects qddr, water and defense review looks like events on a couple things. first, whether or not we are in an era of sequestration, god forbid, or whether congress does its job and makes the necessary hard choices to avoid going down that path. if we are in a more sustainable budgetary trajectory, then

obviously the changes, the fiscal environment, the change in the fiscal environment will be less dramatic. and, frankly, much better for our national security. in terms of the other key factor is who wins the election. if president obama is related, typically they qdr's of second term present our less dramatic than the first term because they are adjusting off their own baselines. if someone new comes into office, typically they do a more fulsome qdr that really goes back, reduce everything and makes more, you know, makes changes based on the. so it really depends on some circumstances we can't foresee. what our job is, particularly in the military, and the joint staff, is to really prepare for either case, and to ensure that we have done some of the intellectual work to key of options for our future

president, whoever that may be. >> you use the word reversibility. how would that apply to the industrial support base for defense, which has been pinched in the recent year, and foresees an even greater constriction, reese's judgment resources for acquisition and r&d. >> for the industrial base it means a couple of things. one is an effort to protect our investment in science and technology and research and development as much as we can, even under a tightening fiscal situation. because that is the seed corn of her future. it also means that in some particular areas, where, if you lost a particular part of industrial base, it would take you years and years and years to recapture it, if ever. that fact has been factored into some of our programs and budget

decisions. so even though particular program may have been week or something we thought about doing away with, if in doing away with that we would completely lose a capability or the ability to have that capability in the future on a tiny over responsive basis, that influence the decisions of what you do in that case. so it's a complex calculus, but we are quite serious about this notion of reversibility because of this expense we've had a talk about at the beginning, that it's very hard to predict the future of this current environment. and it's too important to keep this institutions ability to be responsive to the unforeseen. >> the second she has an appointment at a white house on speed another deputies committee meeting, and agency coherent.

>> this last version will be a bit of an on the this question. i have several cards that have acquired of what our position policy ought to be towards central and south america, and israel. can you comment, and i would throw in iran and korea as well, spanning the globe as they used to say in the wide world of sports -- >> see how many of those i can cover. >> where are we going? >> okay. try to write all the ones you mentioned. okay, sometimes south america, very interesting, this is the region do we have some very strong partners, where we of common ideals and objectives with a number of the countries who, in an earlier era, merged as the mockery, sought to embrace for economics and so for that our military engagement is a very important part of a hole

in government engagement stretch. one of the things that we have seen, you know, is that we have a real focus on building hard to capacity. take a case like colombia, where colombia, you know, several years ago, 10 years ago was really under siege with a very, very led insurgency. we invested, again, not just defense, department of defense the whole of government and colombia to help them fight off that insurgency and build their capacity to secure colombia, take care of themselves. what's happened to that experience is that colombia has become a net exporter of security in the region. they are now training our friends in mexico on flying helicopters. they are now training militaries in central america on how to deal with counter-narcotics, missions and so forth. and so, you know, they have really given a lot of reality,

and some great example to this notion of building capacity. and not only for us but for security and stability in key regions where we may not have the forces available to do it all by ourselves all the time, particularly in the last decade when we were so occupied in south asia and the middle east. with regard to israel, we remain a staunch ally of the state of israel. we have a vital national interest in ensuring their security and their existence long-term. we have an extremely close relationship and dialogue with them. that dialogue is very conference. it is very candid. so we talk frankly about peace process. we talk frankly about the dimensions, the security dimensions in the region, the trends and events and so forth. and there's a lot that we agree

on and where we disagree, we have very frank dialogue with them. but the u.s. commitment to israel has been something that has been sustained across many administrations, republican and democrat alike since the country's data, and that is no different today. i am running out of your lives. north korea was the next one? >> korea, iran. >> i mean, obviously with regard to north korea, our principal concern has been the potential, has been the proliferation of nuclear weapons to that country, and the potential that they could spread the technology to others, whether they be rogue states or terrorist organizations.

we have sought, working with others, china, russia, south korea and so forth, to engage the north koreans in six-party talks to try to get them back into compliance with their treaty obligation, to denuclearize and so forth. but in the absence of progress there we have, with u.n. sanction, imposed along with the international community, some pretty severe sanctions on many of their activities. we have just witnessed a leadership transition, or we are witnessing a transition underway with the passing of power from the father to the son. and we will come it remains to be seen sort of how things will move forward. we have sought to let north korea no that we want to see them come back to the negotiating table, that sanctions will remain in place until it happens, that we do not

want to see any further provocations on the peninsula. our commitment to stability on the peninsula to our south korean allies is rocksolid. and, yeah, the ball is in their court. to see the fact that is in their interest, to enter into negotiation with the international community to try to resolve this situation. >> we conclude our world tour. thank you very much, secretary. [applause] >> with talk of possible legislation to improve the nation's cyber defenses, former cia director john mclaughlin discuss again with national awareness, to cyber threats from aspen home and security group event. i have an alarming thought about all this, which is in some ways the discussion about cyber mayors of it the discussion we used to we used to have a about

terrorism back in the '80s and '90s. there was a great deal of difficulty coming to a national consensus about what we were to do about it. and the to read 9/11, which then crystallize everything, and we knew what to do. we haven't had that kind of an insider you. we imagined we talk about it. the attack on zappos, the attack were i lost my credit card, the only good thing that comes out of those is there's i think a few more of those and to be growing public awareness that this is a serious vulnerability. and i think we will overcome some of the private sector reservations about working with the government on this. >> watch the rest of this and more about homeland security online at the c-span video library. archived and searchable at c-span.org/video library. >> thursday, president obama takes part in the 60th anniversary national prayer breakfast. the event is chaired by senator

mark pryor of arkansas and senator jeff sessions of alabama. you can see it live starting at 7:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span2.

there's millions willing to sacrifice for change, but they want to do it without being threatened and do it peacefully. they are the non-violent majority, black and white for change without violence. these are the people whose voice i want to be. >> we look back at men who ran for office and lost. go to c-span.org/thecontenders. >> our ancestors came across the ocean on ships you wouldn't cross a lake on. they did it with neighbors helping one another, not federal grants. [cheers and applause] they came here because they wanted to be free. they wanted to practice the religion of their choice, and after 200 years, too many of us take those