>> he ends up spending most of

his time at a base just outside of her size. so it wasn't the hard punishment that perhaps joe thought it might be. >> she helped him through that and probably is what you're saying. >> i think she does. i think she does by being the supportive mother that she always was for her children and maybe not able to admit to herself the more inconvenient truth about his wife but she does talk free will in her oral history and in her journals about how the boys would misbehave and how they were in courage by the path to come telling the truth. >> the funny stories. >> but also telling the truth and then she would say, then my husband would take care of it. she didn't seem to see the conflict between her victorian gold of having all the children be responsible, the r. word was often in her writings and her letters to the. she didn't seem to see the conflict between having joe at the head of the clan to take care of all the misbehaviors. so there were times in glasgow

where teddy would crash the car, noted by the way and charlottesville for going over the speed limit and being arrested. but he also crashed the car in europe. what did you do but take care of it. he was the fixer in the family. >> was teddy the one who is closest to rose or was that bobby? >> i think of the boys, it was joe, jr. to begin with because he was the number one son. he was the fair haired boy. when he passes, ma i think that role goes to bobby because he so much younger. rose and her mother would say oh, he's going to become a sissy because he's surrounded by girls in the birth order. rose even says later on after his death, she's approached by a documentarian who wants information about bobby for a film and roast literally writes that can either we were too much about his boyhood because he was

the seventh child and is in the midst of all these other children. i can't really give you details. having said that though, he was the sensitive one. he was the smallest of the four boys in stature. he was the most religious, the most moral. so i think there's a beautiful clip, you can see it on youtube of bobby campaigning for senate in new york in 1964. his mother on the stage and they have this great mantra and dialogue going that i think really shows how close they were. when bobby is killed, it then goes to teddy to be the youngest son, a baby, but now to be the patriarch. i think he really gets his mother for the rest of his life and he knows just how far he can push her in teasing and he knows just a much he has to take of her ongoing letters about don't say this, or this is a grammatical error or your dressing improperly, or this is how you should speak. he takes as much of that as he

knows he can and then teaches her about the rest but he knows just how far he can push or. he was really very lovely with her. >> we are close to the end of our time. finish with about what rose's legacy is for the country would also our contribution to this whole kennedy myth. how would you characterize that? >> i would say that her legacy certainly for the country is not only that she produced this potent dynasty, she literally produced a dynasty and probably the most potent dynasty in american history and politics. for all the good that her sons did come and we should add her daughters and let's not forget eunice kennedy shriver and special olympics and let's not forget jean kennedy smith was named ambassador to ireland during the clinton administration for five years in a row and was by all accounts very important in the peace process. so it was her daughters as well. she produced this very powerful

family, given very much back to the nation which is what their goal was. and certainly in the mental retardation area. and rose as i've made the argument in the book and today, i think is very much a part of the queen mother of camelot. it is she who contributes promote these children are born to this legacy which we should point out many politicians today from bill clinton and barack obama have attempted to draft behind the candy image and became a day -- in the legacy. >> we're out of time to thank setauket always fun to talk about the kennedys. kennedys. >> it's been my pleasure. thanks so much. >> this morning on c-span2 the author of a biography of joseph p. kennedy. and discussion of protecting the electric grid from cyberattacks.

senator carl levin speaks at a symposium of the reserve officers association. >> on the next "washington journal," the national oceanic >> with more coverage of nonfiction books in the book industry every weekend on booktv. including this saturday at 6 p.m. eastern,.

>> what you did your father by the book? >> 1933. you just gotten out of the government. you been out about three weeks. he had been governor of the federal reserve board and started the reconstruction finance corporation under hoover, and the state of the federal reserve chairman for a little while under roosevelt and then he was gone. because he didn't like roosevelt's monetary policy. the post came up three weeks later for auction on the steps of the building, and he bought it anonymously. >> what did he pay for? >> $825,000. >> how many newspapers were in washington for? >> there were five, and the post was six in the field of five. and so it had about a circulation of 50,000 in a broken down building. so he started in. he was a businessman he thought he knew how to turn around businesses but he really had never had any newspaper

experience, and encountered the most horrendous difficulties in finding its way out. but he didn't get the job of starting with nothing. >> along with our schedule you can see our programs any time at booktv.org and get the latest updates throughout the week. follow was on facebook and twitter. >> david nasaw's biography of kennedy family picture of joseph p. kennedy recount is great in business and politics, including his time working on wall street, in hollywood, and as an ambassador to great britain during the fdr administration. this talk from the philadelphia free library is an hour. >> thank you all. delighted to be here. as i tell my history students, i teach at the city university of new york --

[applause] thank you. as i tell my history students until they want to choke me, the past is a foreign country. you can visit, try to learn the customs, translate the language, fielding error and the like, taste the fragrances can recall a foul odor, but we are foreigners in a strange land. this is true as much of the recent past, as it is of colonial america or 12th century venice. writing about the recent past is not easy, as i learned this time around. first, there are people you have to talk to. [laughter] and while i was blessed from beginning to end from having some passing people to talk to you about joe kennedy, including large numbers of kennedys, i must prefer working from written documents to listen to people talk and try to figure out

what's real, what's imagined what they know, what they think they know because someone told them for what they think they know but they don't know at all. the other difficulty about writing about our recent past is that it's not always easy to establish one's distance from it. to construct passion of the past that is so close to us, and yet this is what historians have to do. our job is to complicate, to take apart our commonsense view of the recent past, to interrogate what we think we know, to demystify them to move beyond the clichéd about winners and losers, saints and sinners, about the wisdom and courage of our forefathers. especially those of the greatest generation. our job as historians is to tell a different story.

when grounded in evidence. a life of joseph p. kennedy was for me a sort of anti-fun house mirror which, if i look at it long enough, would reflect back to me often in hazy indistinct distorted form images of events people, places, which organized and arranged told the story of 20th century america. has a history and i'm interested in origins so i will tell you about the origin of this book. i was a college of arthur schlesinger at the city university of new york. he introduced me to the kennedy family at a summer event or whatever was, reception, a dinner. i met with jean kennedy smith,

ambassador smith, for the first time. and i had recently, i was finishing up my first book, and in that biography i've used a treasure trove of materials that jean kennedy smith's daughter who was riding a collection goes compiling letters from her father to her aunts and uncles had put me on, and in the treasure trove of material, letters from william randolph hearst to joseph kennedy, and back and forth, i glimpsed a man he was different from anything i had heard about. so i told jean kennedy smith at some point that her daughter should write a biography of her grandfather. and that the man was absolutely fascinating. it's a good word to use when you don't know if you're going to be writing about the villain or a

hero. was fascinating i said, and somebody should do a biography. about a year later i saw jean kennedy smith again, and she approached me and she said the family wanted me to do it, to write that biography. that they recognize that there was need for such a biography. and i said, well, i'm in the midst of writing another book the i'm writing a book about andrew carnegie. she said when he going to be finished with you can't say no to a kennedy. i said, i don't know, six months maybe. six months to the day, we got a call at home from someone i was convinced was a ted kennedy impersonator. i don't know if any of you grew up in new york or listened to don imus. i listen to in the morning.

he had to take a impersonator and it sounded just like this. so i listen to the message, and after listening to it the second or third time i realized it was not an impersonator. it was the sender asking me to come to washington -- the senator asked me to come to washington to do a book about his father. i went to washington and the senator and i and his two dogs had lunch together. on mondays is talking to the senate with them because the senate wasn't in session and they could roam, play in the senate. it was a weird site, believe me. we were brought into a tiny little conference room, the two dogs, the senator and me, with a card table in the middle, and the senator who was always on a diet. they believe his back, he would feel better the thinner he was.

had the most but drag old sandwich i've ever seen, a sliver of tuna fish that looked as old as he was, and only piece of bread. i had two pieces of bread and potato chips. and we talked for three, four hours. and what i would never saying over and over and over again is you don't want me to write this book. because i am a historian, and i'm going to find stuff. and whatever i find i'm going to put in the book. and who knows, but by the time this book comes out there might be a kennedy running for office. little did i know that that kennedy's name would be joseph p. kennedy iii. who ran four and was elected to congress. the election came before of my book came out, but i was worried and i thought it was a legitimate concern, and the

senator should know about it. he said, don't worry. he said, you know, what are you going to find? he said everybody knows that my father had an affair with gloria swanson. and he said, and i know my father wasn't an anti-semite. and one of you fine and whatever you write is going to be truer to the man i knew and loved, and what's out there. so i said, okay, i want full access to everything. i want full access to the family, to all the documents, everything that is stored at the kennedy library in boston but has been closed to researchers. and you'll see the book, you in the family and your lawyers and representatives will see the book when it's between hard covers, not before. and i won't be coming back to you for permission to cite anything.

whatever i find, i'm going to use in the book. he said, okay. then it took 18 months to get this all in writing. and i was off to i was off and running. and i found some more remarkable stories and i had even imagined i was going to find. i found the story of a man who spent his life moving back and forth from being an outsider to insider to an outsider to insider. i found the story of an irish catholic who was not ashamed of his heritage, but didn't want to be defined by it. of a third generation immigrant who cared little about the country his grandparents had been born in, who had no desire to visit ireland or to read about it, who considered himself 100% american and couldn't understand why anyone would think of him as less than that.

who was a catholic, who went to mass every sunday and went to confessions. and the catholic church in boston was the anchor of his existence, and everywhere he went he would find out where the church was. when he went on vacation in danger, he sent a note -- in new hampshire, he sent a note to the innkeeper was a friend of his and said find that when they do confession on friday. and also, find out if poodles and millicom he was married at the time, if poodles and millie would be a round. i mean, this in one sentence. he grew up the son of a very respected businessman and board leader in east boston.

he was the ultimate insider in east boston is the ultimate insider in boston latin. and even when he went to harvard, because half of this class what with him from boston latin to harvard. there were about 10% of the students were catholic, and a much larger percentage in public schools in and around boston. he still considered himself an insider. they didn't let him into some of the clubs, but that didn't bother him nearly as much as the fact that he was too slow to make the varsity baseball team. he got his letter but was never a starter. he graduated from harvard and his life began. he wanted to go into banking, into finance. and he discovered that every

door was closed to him because he was an irish catholic from east boston whose father had been awarded leader. every door. his friends, his classmates were not irish catholic cut in use, got jobs, major banks, major financial institutions. he got nothing. nothing, not an answer, not an interview, nothing. he was still going to go into banking so we took a civil service exam and became assistant bank examiner. and he traveled around the state examining the books of banks and learn more about banks and he ever would have had they gone directly into a management position. he wanted to get rich, and he wanted as he said over and over again, to make enough money so that he could leave every one of his nine children a million dollars trust fund in $1920.

and in order to to do that, he realized that he had to do more than be a banker. he had to make deals. he had to float stock options for companies. he had to raise money for the larger industry in and around boston. and begin, he realized as an irish catholic from east boston he didn't have the connections and he would never have the connection in any of the major american industries. so what did he do? the looked ahead, and he realized that the boston brahmin financial institutions were paying no attention to the industry that was about to take off. movie pictures. fame paid no attention to brought the. are now paying no attention to moving pictures so he moved in. and he began making his own deals and his own contacts.

he tried to come when babe ruth was still in boston, he tried to put babe ruth in the moving picture. that didn't work, but most of this, because babe ruth knew his money and demanded to be paid in front and kennedy never paid anybody up front. but every other deal went through, and eventually he ended up in hollywood as the owner, as the studio head of what was a minor studio, but that wasn't going to stop him. he realized and recognized how they could convert is outsider status, how he could make it an advantage, a benefit rather than a liability. so what did he do when you arrived in hollywood? he positioned himself as the

non-jew. as the boston banker. at a time when small towns and cities all over the country aided and abetted by a lot of rabble-rousers were beginning to say that movies are dangerous to our children. they are dangerous because they are controlled by these aliens, by these jews who don't understand christian morality. and towns all across the country in states all across the country were beginning to institute censorship laws. and hollywood have brought in will rogers who had been in the harding cabinet and you know, mr. protestant. and kennedy now positioned himself as the non-jew, and he

made himself indispensable to the industry as such. and studio after studio hired him. at one point he ran for major studios. and at each of those he demanded to be paid in stock options. by the time he left hollywood, after only a couple of years, he was a multimillionaire, because he knew how to manipulate the stock options. he knew how to turn those pieces of paper into dollars, millions of dollars. and he did. at age 50, having learned how to make advantage at a disadvantage, at age 50 he had those millions and millions and millions of dollars. and at age 50 he knew the way the -- he knew the way the stock market worked, and he knew that a crash is coming and he pulled

out all his money. so that when the crash did come, he was left with his millions in an extraordinary position. and yet with a crash, with that crash, we are suffering from a recession now, and a lot of people are suffering. we all know people who are suffering, but it doesn't compare to the depression of the '30s. can be was scared to death -- 1080 was scared to death, that the country that give him lots of opportunity that he converted into dollars, he was convinced that unless something was done to write the economy, capitalism was going to go down, and with

capitalism, democracy. and with democracy, everything that made this country great. and he was convinced that the only man who could right the ship, who could save capitalism and democracy in the nation was franklin roosevelt. so in 1932, he signed on to the franklin roosevelt team and was one of the only bankers to do so. and was one of the only irish catholics to take a prominent position, and was one of the only hollywood man with hollywood connections to back roosevelt. hollywood then was solidly must also become solidly republican. they loved herbert hoover in california. the outsider was on his way to becoming an insider, and yet he

refused to play by the rules. he refused to become part of the roosevelt team. he refused to unabashedly say whatever you and your brain trusts want to do, i'll back it, i'm with it. and yet he was so important to roosevelt as a banker and as an irish catholic, and as an incredibly smart man, that roosevelt appointed him the first chairman of the securities and exchange cmme time rooseves colleagues, the new dealers, were horrified. you know, why are you putting a fox in control of the chickens?

and joseph kennedy was the greatest chairman of the sec we have ever seen. he knew every trick of the trade, and he passed so many regulations, such tough regulation, that when he was finished he had to get out of the market. because every device used to make his millions he had outlawed last night and from the moment he left the sec he began investing in real estate, like the merchandise mart in chicago, the largest building outside the pentagon in the country. and he bought, you know, block after block in new york. i don't think in philadelphia. he didn't get this far. he was concentrated in new york and chicago and westchester and albany. he was not yet where he wanted

to be, in the demanded much from roosevelt and roosevelt gave it to them. and roosevelt named him the first ambassador, the first irish catholic ambassador to the court of st. james. he became ambassador to great britain. and it was one of the worst decisions roosevelt ever made. he knew but some have believed he could keep candy under and kennedy in but he couldn't. he couldn't. kennedy was to man when he talked to his children he was a cheerleader, he was an optimist. but in his relationship to the world around them and to the 20th century, he was a cassandra. having made his pile of money, he was convinced that it was

going to be taken from him. he was convinced that democracy and capitalism would be taken from the united states. if the united states entered the war, entered world war ii on behalf of the british. nothing was more important to him than making sure that there was no war. keeping britain out of the were first, then keeping the united states out of the war. and he did everything he possibly could. he violated protocol. he didn't follow orders. he met secretly with the german diplomats. he was convinced that as a businessman, he knew how to negotiate a deal. and that if he were put in a room with hitler, the two of them would negotiate a deal. he refused to see that hitler was a madman. that hitler didn't care about,

nina, about the german people. that hitler had other fears that drove him to keep the hitler would be a rational actor. he told weissman, the leader of the zionist community and the first president of israel, he said i'm going to go meet with them. i'm working it out. he became so anti-churchill, anti-british, antiwar effort that the british opened a file on him and spied on them, which i found in the national archives in britain, called the kennedy anticorporate and the german archives, there are records of his conversations with the german diplomats wanting to get to berlin. no, to negotiate an end to the war. and to negotiate a settlement that would prevent war, and that

would rescue the jewish refugees. again, not for the first time he had gone from being an insider to being an outsider, because he didn't know how to be a team player. he returned to this country in disgrace. he supported roosevelt for reelection in 1940, which is all roosevelt wanted from him and is why roosevelt did not fire him, as he should have. he retired and he kept blabbing away, giving interview in boston in which he said the british are finished. this is during the battle of britain. the british are finished. any money we give to britain, british is, you know, wasted, thrown away. and then he went to hollywood.

he was invited by jack warner to speak at the studio about the future of films, what were the film copies going to do if they couldn't export, right, to europe. but instead of talking about that, he lashed out at his audience that was almost all jewish. he lashed out at them and he said, you guys have got to stop making and that hitler films, the great dictator, charlie chaplin some the great dictator just cannot. and as you start making anti-hitler films you are going to cause the next war. millions of american boys are going to be killed. blood will be spilled and there will be the worst outbreak of anti-semitism this world has ever seen, because everybody is going to blame everybody in this country is going to blame the jews.

by 1940, he was a total, absolute pariah. nobody wanted to touch him. if he had wanted, he could join the american first community, nina, and signed up with lindbergh, but he did what to do that because he knew if he did that the there would be no placn politics for his children, ever, ever ever. so we didn't. he stayed quiet. the miraculous part of the story is the part i'm not going to be able to tell you, you're going to have to read. [laughter] in 1940, he was the kennedy name was dirt. it was dirt among the isolationists in the lindbergh people because and he didn't come out against roosevelt.

again, because he wanted to protect his children so they could be insiders. it was dirt among the roosevelt people, the new dealers, the jews, everyone who wanted or who believed that the americans had to support the british in the war effort. and 20 years later, his son was elected president of the united states. once again, the outsider had performed magic, and become the ultimate insider, the father of the president of the united states. and i thank you your and i'm delighted to take questions. [applause] >> thank you. there's a microphone here, to hold up your hand and don't speak indeed get a microphone,

i've been warned. >> wonderful speech. isn't it true that roosevelt sent him to england just almost to get medicine because he considered him such a pain in the neck? >> in part. it's a great question. in part, but he also sent him, roosevelt didn't trust anybody and roosevelt was a brilliant charmer and conniver. the greatest president we've ever had, but roosevelt always had -- said three people to do one job. play them against each other. and he believed he needed kennedy because can you do with anything break reports to him directly rather than to the state department and that kennedy was smart enough to be his eyes and his ears. what he didn't know was that kennedy would quickly develop this obsession that making useless as a reporter on

conditions in europe. and roosevelt for the next two years would send over a variety of personal representatives to do the job that kennedy should have been doing, and report on british preparedness, on whether mussolini was going to enter the war on the side of the germans, the staff that he had hoped to kennedy would do. he kept him there, however, because he was worried about him. he was worried he would come out and support the republican, or run for president himself. >> okay, there's a question here and then over here. >> like the dog that didn't bark we haven't heard anything about blues. -- booze.

[laughter] >> one of the things i hoped about i would read about this book would be leading. what could be more fun than write about booze and bootleggers and al capone and meyer lansky and all the rest? regrettably, it ain't true. none of it is true. kennedy gave, and i'm sorry, kennedy supplied his harvard reunion class with liquor that may or may not have been illegal. he got it because his father was an importer, and when prohibition came in your allowed to take all your liquor and put it in your basement, and his father did and then some of that got to the harvard reunion. aside from that, no. no bootlegging whatsoever. the only, this does the bootlegging don't begin until the 1970s when nixon runs against jfk in 1960, nixon

brings out researchers. he hires researchers all over the country to find every bit of dirt they can about the kennedy family. and they find plenty of dirt about joe kennedy but no one accuses him of being a book like. it's only in the 1970s when writers are trying to figure out the assassination, and they figured it can't be oswald. that's got to be the modicum but why would the mafia go after jfk? and these explanations are put together, and all sorts of retired mafia, retired -- can you retire them off your person? [laughter] some in miami come in israel, in europe, in the bahamas, they all come out when asked and they said oh, yeah, joe kennedy was a good friend of mine, we did a lot of work. and writers seeing a good story wouldn't let it go.

and i'm reading this stuff trying to track down every rumor, every story. and you know, the credible witnesses include al capone piano tuner who gives an interview in which he says he was tuning a piano when al and kennedy met together. they include the ex-wife of a chicago mobster who says yeah, yeah, my husband was a good friend of joe kennedy your they included people who came out of the woodwork to talk to me, including someone in a penitentiary in canada who insisted that his grand uncle had been killed by kennedy, who was in partnership with truman as a bootlegger. [laughter]

having bootlegging, where do they get the booze into kansas? none of it make any sense. there was one incredible piece of data, one credible, and that was the canadian, canadian government was great during this whole thing. they didn't give a damn. this aborted as much booze as possible coming across the border, as long as the shippers were paid in excise tax before they slip into the united states. joseph kennedy limited vancouver refused to pay the excise tax, and you know, people have said oh, there's the proof. there's the smoking gun. well, i found this kennedy. i look at the business records and the tax records and the business directories in vancouver. and i discovered that it david joseph kennedy who lives in vancouver, had been born in

vancouver, died in vancouver. so not my joe kennedy. so no, no bootlegging of any sort. >> here and then we will go across. >> could you talk a bit about the relationship between joe kennedy and his son, john, and to what extent john kennedy knew of his father's relationships with multiple women and by the influence in to follow that same path? >> yes. [laughter] >> yes. and i think there are no kennedys in the audience here, arthur? i think jack was much more predatory even than his father was. joe kennedy spent his, joe kennedy and rose had an arrangement, much like roses

father had if it had an arrangement with rose's mother that i don't embarrass you and i do whatever the hell i want, says joe, and he tried not to embarrass rose. i don't think jack had that same code. i think he embarrassed jackie in a way that you know, is inexcusable. gloria swanson, one of the things i've found is i went to austin, texas, to see their gloria swanson papers. you know, i teach thd students. i'm probably the only historian who has made the trip to austin, texas, which has these great archives including the lbj library, to look at the gloria swanson papers. endemic lori swanson papers i found her hand written notes

that she gave her, whoever wrote her autobiography. the autobiography had none of this stuff, and the autobiography was written without much participation. remember when, who was a? wilt chamberlain or charles barkley for some and was asked, was it pashtun was a berkeley? yeah, he was asked what's this doing in your biography? in the autobiography. he said i don't know, i haven't read it yet last night lori swanson, gloria swanson in these handwritten notes said that she tried during and after her affair with joe to figure out how to get out of catholic who went to confession and went to mass -- devout catholic, could cheat on his wife like this. and she said, and gloria wise, you know, had her own prejudices. didn't like jews very much.

i don't know if she liked catholics very much. she said it was because confession was like washing his hands. you go to confession, wash his hands and start all over again the next day. this is part of the story i was asked to tell. yes, sir. over here. >> would you elaborate little more on why you, i think he said that you didn't think of joe kennedy or can find evidence that joe kennedy was anti-semite. how hard did you look? >> no. i didn't say that. what i said was that his son said that, ted said he is not an anti-semi. now, let me tell you what i, this was not easy to figure this out. and it wasn't easy enlarged part because we look at washington in the 1930s and especially the state department come everybody is an anti-semite to me, the state department is frightening.

and washington, outside the state department is only a little bit better. so when you start talking about is an anti-semite, the better question is what kind of anti-semite, okay. i had to define for myself what anti-semite means, and i defined as someone who believes that there's something in the genetic makeup come in the blood of jews that makes them sinister, corrupt, and unable or committed to destroying the christian morality. lindbergh was an anti-semite. henry ford was an anti-semite. lady astor, ma kennedy's good friend, was an anti-semite. according to this definition, which became my definition. breckenridge long who was in the state department and ran the

refugee program, and kept out hundreds of thousands, as much blood on his hands as most germans, was an anti-semite. kennedy was not in that sense, but what kennedy was was kennedy, as time went on, absorbed every anti-semitic myth, every anti-semitic mythology. he used language, made speeches that were virulently and frighteningly anti-semitic. he believed that the organized jewish community, not all jews, but the most powerful ones, including those in the white house, frankfurter, or close to the white house, frankfurter,

brandeis, sam rosenman, they were all, they're doing everything they possibly could to push the united states into war against germany to somehow get revenge against hitler. he believed that jews were warmongers, he believed they were looking after only their own tribal interest. they were not patriotic. in a funny way, he accused the jews of everything that billy graham and the protestants accused his son off when he ran for the presidency in 1960. he didn't believe it was possible to be a jew and to be a true patriot at the same time. and those who oppose his son's election, because he was roman catholic, said that, billy graham among them, right up there in front said that you couldn't be a catholic and a

true blooded american at the same time. because the vatican was going to give you orders and you couldn't turn him down. over here. >> is it true that kennedy's views about the future of the stock market was influenced by -- giving him advice on a market and supposedly kennedy said on his way to his office, he thought something was wrong when a bootable i can give me advise? >> that's a great story. i found no evidence of the. it may be true. there's some stores i found evidence for. i didn't include it because i couldn't verify. that kennedy did neediest bootblack to tell him that. kennedy was really smart. and when you look back at the crash of 1929 as we look back at

the crash of 2008, you find that their are a lot of people who knew it was coming. and that nobody was listening to. bernard farouk knew it was coming, and he got his money out of the market. kennedy knew it was coming and he took his money out of every kind of speculative stock. because if you had come into the insiders who had to have known that the market was oversold. i mean, you know, groucho marx who was wiped out listen to insiders so he can be installed of being stupid, but the people who work as brokers had to have known that it was coming. kennedy certainly knew that it was coming, and he got out. >> [inaudible] his marriage to rose kennedy in marrying into

boston's older coal, royalty, i guess is the beginning of catholic irish bar in boston and i have a little story which you may or may not know. one of my mother's friends grew up partially in palm beach, and she would be about 95 if she were still alive now, and there came a time when she stayed home, didn't go to school. and everyone in palm beach shunned her, but bobby kennedy came and said, our father said that we're allowed to play with you. spent i wish you had told me that before. [laughter] yeah, it rings true. it makes sense. it makes perfect sense, because nobody liked the kennedys in palm beach. and kennedy at that time said to

hell with you, you know, we will make our own way. and this, he did his own entertaining, you know, in his own house when he wanted to. he went to bradleys which was the casino that he claimed had the best food in palm beach. the question is, the question is did kennedy married rose fitzgerald because she was the daughter? did he make her his girlfriend and go out with her and then marry her because her father was the mayor? yes and no. he was the most, she was the most eligible girl. she was smart. she was pretty. she was vivacious. she had this carefree attitude. she was an extraordinary young woman. and i think kennedy was drawn to

her, and kennedy knew, you know, i don't know what -- kennedy certainly knew that his girlfriend was the mayor's daughter. and that by marrying rose, he was going to climb to step it one of the difficulties was that kennedy's father, is also very important in irish politics, had been punished it's his opponent. so for longtime honey fitz didn't want him to be married. not because joe kennedy didn't have bright prospects but because his father had been anti-honey fitz in election after election after election. joe kennedy's father believed that catholic, irish catholic politicians didn't have to appear as clowns. honey fitz was a clown.

curly was a clown, you know, and they were boisterous. they were loud. they were rabble-rousers. they were the worst kind of populist. joe kennedy's father was not. and one of the reasons why joe himself didn't enter politics was that he was totally fed up with his irish catholic, what he had seen as a dumb an irish catholic posturing to the people, you know, to the don't vote for that guy, he's not irish catholic. only an irish catholic can look after you, so said honey fitz and so said mayor curley, and then they look after their own populace. >> any comments on the lobotomy story with his daughter, rosemary, being done so that she would not embarrass the kennedys

and keep the boys from being president? >> yeah. i spent a lot of time. i get an awful lot of research and found all sorts of stuff. no, but i mean, you can blame kennedy for lots and lots and lots of stuff, but not for this. he loved that child. when he moved all the other children back to the united states when the french, when germany, when world war ii began, he kept rosemary with them in england, because she was doing really well at this school, and he looked after her. and when you see the pictures and read the letters, i mean, he loves his job but everybody knew she was slow, but that was okay. i mean, it was okay here but as she grew older and as she was

slow but smart enough to understand that her brothers and sisters were going out in the world, are going dancing going sailing, playing golf, that, you know, our brothers and sisters 10 years younger to play by themselves on the front lawn and she couldn't, she wasn't allowed to. she became increasingly angry, violent. she had a temper. she was no longer this sweet little girl. she wasn't angry big woman in 1920-21. and kennedy as he did with all his children took charge. rose didn't. he did, and he went and he sought the best medical advice, and the medical advice was get her a lobotomy. in this period of time, the lobotomy was the preferred intervention. there were critics, of course, but the man who did the

lobotomy, the inventor of the lobotomy won a nobel prize for medicine. the man who performed the lobotomy on, the team that performed the lobotomy was a neurosurgeon from yale, and ahead of johns hopkins. and they said to kenya, she still going to be slow, but we're going to do this operation and she's not going to be angry. she's not going to be unhappy. she's not going to be discontent. she will be a happy child again. and the lobotomy went dreadfully wrong. and she came out of it a vegetable. she eventually learned to walk, but she never spoke again. she didn't communicate, she didn't write. her intelligence had been that of a six, seven, eight year old. now it was that of a six -month-old. and two years after that kennedy was the only one who kept in touch with her.

rose didn't write her. n. rose's round robin letters to the family, rose would write to the whole family and say x. is doing this, why is doing this. rosemary disappeared from the family corresponds to kennedy continued to visit her, and he finally found a place for her. he wanted to put her in boston in a place in boston, a home for children. and cardinal cushing said don't do it because you can't protect the families private and you can't protect your privacy. and you can't protect her privacy, most of all. so they moved her to a convent home in wisconsin. all that i understand. what i don't understand is that once he put her in his home, when she was well cared for, he never saw her again. and the family only begins to visit rosemary aiken after

kennedy had his debilitating stroke, and they never told. the only one that makes sense of this to me is tim shriver. eunice, units began her work for the mentally disabled, you know, because what the family went to. and tim shriver is an extraordinary young man. he runs the special olympics now, and he said, you know, you've got to understand the shame that the family had. because they couldn't do enough for their sister. they couldn't do enough for her. they couldn't help her. they couldn't do anything. and kennedy convinced himself and convinced the rest of the family that she was better off by herself with the nuns making her own community for herself in jefferson wisconsin. i don't, i still don't

understand as much as i want to. one last question. >> what was his relationship with his sons? and what did they think of him? >> his kids absolutely loved him. they adored him. i thought it was an authentic in the beginning that they're making it a. i couldn't believe, you know, i hope my boys speak of me one half as well as his boys, and his daughters, who had more of a reason to dislike intricate loved the guy, and his only after i did my research that i discovered why. he was an extraordinary father. one can be an sop -- watch my language, and a thousand ways and be an extraordinary father, and he was an extraordinary father. he supported the boys. i'll tell you just one story, the bay of pigs. when we now know that jfk was

absolutely distraught, jackie in her interviews with arthur schlesinger which were recently published, talks about seeing her husband, you know, just cry, a grown man just sob. because of the loss of lives. you know, he said -- he had sent these men to die on the beach or be captured. it was a major, major major crisis. and kennedy, the president, and kennedy the attorney general at one point were trying to make sense of this. and bobby said, jack, let's call that. he will make us feel better but he always makes us feel better. so bobby picked up the phone to call dad in palm beach, and i got on the phone. and he said, look, guys, this is terrible, this was a fiasco.

this was a debacle. but it was at the beginning of the for your term and at the time you get to the and everybody was forgotten. and the fact that you apologize, jack, the american people love that, you watch your polls go up in two weeks. and kennedy was right. kennedy the father. and bobby was right. they felt better. and the poles did go up in two weeks. that was the kind of father he was. and one of the reasons i enjoyed writing this book, there was lots that distressed me from beginning to end, anti-semitism, the appeasement on the isolationism, the ruthless stock market, racketeering, the lobotomy that i never understood, cutting rosemary off. but his relationship with all the children, including rosemary up to that last, those last years, he was truly remarkable.

so on that of note, i thank you all for your attention. [applause] .. >> and he couldn't bear to see women mistreated or really badly treated in any way, so his gallantry was involved with what he saw as the abuse of this woman. and then when they fell in love, they decided to elope to spanish territory at that time. they stayed, oh, several months, close to a year, i believe.

and when they came back, they simply said, oh, we're married now. and her whole family, including her mother, said, yes, this is our son-in-law, andrew jackson. and who's going to tell them no? who's going to say, oh, no, what about that other husband in people just accepted it because the family, neighbors and friends accepted it. >> the encore presentation of our original series "first ladies" continues tonight at 9 eastern on c-span. >> tuesday federal regulators and energy industry executives discussed how to protect the electricity grid from cyber attacks. this was part of a forum hosted by the bipartisan policy center in washington. it's just over an hour. [inaudible conversations]

>> that's good. >> clean up up here on the dais. good morning, everybody. wait a couple of minutes to get folks back into their seats, but wanted to introduce this panel, introduce myself. my name's scott aaronson, we are the trade association for the investor-owned utilities, and very happy to be sponsoring this event today. also want to appreciate all of you. this has been a great turnout. i think it's a testament not just to the importance of this issue, but it's a testament to bpc's ability to bring the right people together. and i think the panel previously, i want to thank them. they really started to talk about the industry progress that is being made. they showed all segments working together, the co-ops, the munis, the investor-owned utilities. and they really reinforced the

value of public/private partnerships and coordination. the i zacks, the -- i zacks, sis pa, all of these steps that are being taken to improve cooperation. the flip side is the panel we have today, i'm pleased to be moderating a group of leaders who have worked on the government side both currently and priestly to improve -- previously to improve that coordination. government-interagency coordination. the popular refrain from today that i'm at least getting from this is protecting infrastructure that is critical to national and economic security is a shared responsibility. neither side can do it itself. you know, last i checked none of my membership or electric utility has a standing army. we don't have intelligence-gathering capability. we need the government to help us with that. the flip side of that is last i checked the government is not

particularly good at operating an electric utility system. so our expertise, the expertise of the panel, the four cios, chief executive officers and leadership to make decisions is invaluable. so one of the things i've noticed in both the discussion here today and the debate as it's materialized within capitol hill, in the executive order, in the media is this discussion of information sharing. information sharing is great, and it's certainly a component to improving critical infrastructure protection and cybersecurity for critical infrastructure, but it misses the mark a little bit. really what we're talking about is close coordination. we are talking about government and industry working together not just to share information, but on a set of deliverables that can help with that defense in depth concept.

general hayden, who i appreciated his remarks earlier, referred to the leadership of the electric utility industry as trail january blazers in a way -- trailblazers in a way, and i appreciate that comment, but i can speak to one of the reasons why this industry has been such a leader in this space. the sector at a very senior level, and i mean ceos working with deputy secretaries and folks from the white house, have found common cause to work together to protect critical infrastructure. i also borrow another statement from general hayden that i've heard him use before, but he talks about north-south and east-west. that bidirectional industry to government information sharing. east-west is that broad crosssector coordination. somebody earlier, and i can't recall who it was, i think it might have been kurt that this sector, the electric utility

sector is the most critical of the critical because all the other sectors rely on us. but we also rely on all of the other sectors. you can't operate an electric utility system without water to create steam or spin our generation or to cool our systems. you can't operate without telecom. can't operate without pipelines or transportation to move our fuel. so that interdependence, that east-west coordination is another place where the government can be incredibly helpful in improving our readiness and our cybersecurity. the ceo leadership working with deputy secretaries of doe and dhs and also working with the national security staff of the white house also identified three areas that we can be focusing on for that defense in depth. the first is deployment of tools and technology. the colloquial way i'd put that is the government has some

pretty cool toys, and the industry would really like to put those out on our system. sofa sill tating -- facile tailing -- [inaudible] and, again, this is the misnomer of information sharing, it's really information flow. making sure the right people get the right information at the right time. ceos need a certain class of information, operators need a certain class of information, the government needs a certain type of information. and because we're talking about things that move at the speed of light, we need to get the humans out of the equation entirely and start sharing information at a machine to machine level. and be, again, that goes back to the value of tools and technology. and the last place we are working together both industry and government very closely is when it comes to incident response. basically, if there were something that happened tomorrow, what would you do? and previously, the answer was largely it depends and to borrow a phrase from some of my

engineering friends, that is suboptimal. what we need to be doing is formalizing processes for working together, practicing them, exercising them and getting better. the old eisenhower quote: plans are useless, planning is invaluable. so we are going through the exercise of planning and planning and planning, government/industry coordination. and this group here today who i'm going to cede to in a second have been a big part of the progress that has been made and also allude to some of the work still left to be done. so i'm going to introduce each of them because i think their backgrounds are salient to their perspectives, so i want to give a little bit of bio and context to who they are and where they come from. i'll do that individually, we'll get 5-10 minutes to each of them, and then i will asks -- ask a few questions. larry zelvin is the director of the national cybersecurity and

communications integration center, more easily known as the nccic. he was responsible for the coordination of national response to cyber and communications incidents. before that he was the senior manager of the national security staff at the white house during both the deepwater horizon and haitian earthquake. finish clearly, he needs a little more excitement in his life. he's a graduate of boston university with master's degree from the u.s. naval war college. so, larry, take it away. >> well, thank you, scott, and thank you all very much. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. in my opening remarks, if i may, i'll just give you a little bit about the organization i have the honor of leading. so as mentioned, i lead the national cybersecurity communications integration center at the department of homeland security. the organization is made up of four components. we have the united states

computer emergency readiness team of us-cert, we have the industrial control systems cert and the national coordination center for telecommunications, and finally i have an operations and integration function. all totaled, i have about 500 folks primarily centered in arlington, virginia, but our industrial control cans system is out in idaho falls, idaho. what do we do? well, i tell my folks we have three pillars that we strive for, and one is information sharing. i know the term gets batted around, but that's the one i'm going to center on. but on information sharing this year alone between all the components that make up the nccic, we've had 200,000 reports of cybersecurity incidents. and we measure by fiscal year. last year i had about 190,000, we've got two more months to go. last year i put out 7500 actionable alerts, this year i'm

well over 10,000. the numbers crunchers tell me as they look at thear w're about a 68% increase from where we were last yr. people often ask me is tat because there are more incidents or more reporting? i say the answer's easy, yes. so who are we sharing our information with? is first one is the 16 critical infrastructures, energy, financial services, i.t., you know them all well. we also utilize greatly the information sharing and analysis centers also known as the isacs. we share with the federal departments and agencies, and we also deal with other 200 certs worldwide. on any given week i am sharing information with upwards of 140-160 certs worldwide. so that's information sharing. second, we try and keep a global situational awareness and deliver that to our customers as well in cybersecurity. we must be able to see not only what is going on in a business,

in a city, in a state, in a region, but also in a country and around the world. we don't want to get focused in one area for too long because we may be missing a bigger picture elsewhere. so trying to look across that entire ecosystem that is cyberspace is a big priority that i put on the center. lastly, analysis. analysis the ability to look at very technical information, understand what is happening, but most importantly, knowing what to do with that information. how do you increase your mitigation capabilities. it is also the ability to look forward be using technical information at least from a cybersecurity perspective to see where your adversaries may be going. my expert, my an cysts are -- analysts are as good as anyone in the private sector, and i'd gladly put them toe to toe. they are absolutely extraordinary. as i conclude my opening remarks, we've been working very closely with the department of energy and with private sector

energy partners on coming up with deliberate planning. president obama, i'm presidential policy directive aide, put out a call for national preparedness, and in national preparedness the president said we should really be looking at capabilities. what are our capabilities to respond to a number of events, albeit manmade, natural disaster, even cybersecurity. so we early on in dhs working with our interagency partners have been inventorying what are those capabilities in cybersecurity, and we've quantified those between eight or nine categories, and i get confused because we're on version 47, and my lead planner says how many more of these are we going to do? and i say, a lot. planning never stops. the point is we are looking at capabilities in cybersecurity, we have quantified those into capabilities such as the ability to be able to do forensics, able sis -- analysis, information

sharing and the ability to put capabilities out to where they may be needed. so once we got all the capabilities identified, we then needed to look at the how do you apply them, and we've looked at the sectors -- energy, transportation, i.t. as i've mentioned before -- and then we looked at some of the major cities around our country just as a starting point, and we're starting with the ten urban area security initiatives. but that's just where we're starting. well, the challenge i put before my staff is let's just take man at manhattan, and i said let's pretend all the power went out from 40th street to the battery, and somebody said, hey, the cause was cyber. what do we do? where do woe go? what are we going to be asked to do? the first responders in this instance will be the private sector, the owners and operators of these systems. we in government need a better understanding of what are you doing, and then if you need help, what are you asking us for? and then do we have it, and can

we get there many a timely manner? -- in a timely manner? it is best to know what your capabilities are and for you to know what our capabilities are so when there is a crisis that requires us to levy support or aid, you know what we're capable of and how much of it we have. with that, i'll turn it back over to scott. >> next up is mike smith, and, you know, the electric grid is one of the ways we're lucky to have a good relationship with doe. mike, at doe, is the seniorer security adviser to assistant secretary pat hoffman within the office of electricity in march of 2008 where he now leads a wide range of energy sector cybersecurity initiatives across the department and across government. mike leads the department's participation as the energy sector-specific agency and has been charged with implement impg

1336. mike is the cybersecurity risk information-sharing pilot program managerrer, that is a tool that my industry is very interested in deploying. prior to coming to doe, mike wuss a consultant with booz allen hamilton. mike retired from the u.s. army jag corps in 2004 following a 16-year career. he has a ba and jd from the university of hom and received a master's of law from georgetown. so, mike. >> thanks, scott. well, obviously, the reason for this report and this conference highlights that cybersecurity for the energy sector has emerged as one of the nation's most serious infrastructure protection issues. cyber adversaries, as we've heard, are becoming increasingly targeted on the energy sector; more sophisticated, and their tooled are widely available. cybersecurity practices must address not only the threats and

vulnerabilities of traditional information systems, but also the unique character of electric grid technology such as the extended life expectancy of our control systems and the technologies that developed to protect business i.t. systems and networks can inadvertently damage energy control systems. to address these cyber threats to the grid, parallel efforts are needed to effectively protect the grid that secure specific components along with a broader strategic approach, and recent events in california have highlighted the need to do that. cybersecurity standards, while they aren't the ultimate solution, they can provide an effective baseline to address known vulnerabilities. finish managing the risks from the unknown vulnerabilities and dynamic threats that we see in cyber can best be addressed by timely information sharing of relevant actionable threat

information, the use of proven risk management policies and effective incident management and response capabilities. our office's role is speaking for the department in a wide range of national requirements under the national infrastructure protection plan, ppd21, other directives. our focus is on four priorities: accelerating information sharing to enhance situational awareness, expanding implementation of cybersecurity capability maturity models and our risk management process -yard guidelines. as many of you know, the capability maturity model provides a tool that allows the electric sector to assess their own cyber strengths and weaknesses and inform their investment decisions. third priority area is developing and deploying cutting edge cybersecurity solutions in the sector. our road map to secure energy

delivery systems has been in place for years and as hank, the leader of that office will tell you, it's not our plan, it's the road map for industry. and fourth, exercising and refining energy sector cyber innocent response capabilities. now, how do they all fit together? research fees, operational capabilities and and real world defense feed research requirements. planning, exercising and responding and recovering from events reveal best practices and feed new standards and produce new best practices. so all of those areas that i have mentioned, we tie them together in that fashion. the road map that i mentioned, the latest version in 2011, provides a vision, a strategic direction for the be next ten years to enhance the cybersecurity for the sector. the mission or the statement in the road map is by 2020 resilient energy delivery systems are designed, operated

and maintained to survive a cyber incident while sustaining critical functions. all of doe's cybersecurity efforts align well with ppd21, the new eo and our road map. >> thank you very much, mike. next up we've got matt blizard from nerc. he works to insure the security bulk power system, and we've had a great opportunity to work with nerc and him and his team as well as with the isac, so we've appreciated that opportunity. at nerc matt leads a powerful and experienced team of cyber and security personnel professionals. he and his team have worked on critical infrastructure protection standards and have built a very capable electricity subsector information sharing and analysis sector that we all value. he and his team also support

exercises like gridex and gridex ii coming up in november. matt came to nerc after 30 years commissioned with the u.s. coast guard where he had multiple commands. among his many assignments were stints in law enforcement as well as information technology, c4it as it's known. his coast guard career or culminated in the assignment as deputy director to the commandant. he holds a bachelor's of science in engineering from the u.s. coast guard academy and a master's of science in electrical engineering from purdue university. always nice to have people who are double e ez doing this work -- es doing this work. as well as an ms in national security strategy and resourcing from the industrial college of the armed forces, national defense university. very capable and very well educated. matt is a professional engineer with the state of washington and

has taught at the u.s. coast guard academy and at the naval war college national defense university and with that, matt, take it away. >> that's quite a mouthful, scott. very pleased to be here with you today and look forward to your questions after this. i took one slide out of about 30 slides to talk to you about today, and i thought it was important that i try to provide this in a strategic context of what the bulk power system, nerc and our government partners are all doing here to basically secure arguably the most important and largest manmade machine in the world, and that's our bulk power system. so i'm going to talk about six main focus areas. basically, our strategy to secure the power grilled and insure that it is, indeed, reliable. so the first main pillar that i'd like to talk to you about is standards, compliance and enforcement. we're one of the few critical

infrastructures of the 17, as i understand it, that definitely has mandatory and enforceable standards that are designed and built by industry for industry. and as we heard earlier from the industry panel, we are now headed towards cip version five. it's been an an evolving journey to develop those standards. they just don't happen overnight, they take a while to develop and bake. and i'm very proud of where we're at. we're currently enforcing cip version three. cip version four, took it to a bright line criteria, and cip version five is going to be high, medium, low impact rating criteria, basically risk-based standards. the next area that i'd like to talk to you about that's very important for e -- for reliability is having adaptive controls. adaptive controls in this case is information sharing and

analytics. we're going to hear a lot about it, and we'll continue to do so. but we do that at nerc and with the bulk power system with the es-isac. and about a year and a half ago we really decided to roll up our sleeves and become the one-stop shopping for the bulk power system as the industry pointed out, earlier panel. the importance of going to one place where they can have valued analytics on the information that is coming through from the intelligence sources and pulsing a bulk power system -- putting a bulk power system lens on it. basically, the isac over the last year and a half separated with extreme measures from the compliance and enforcement realm of nerc so that we could truly be a trusted partner so that industry would feel comfortable sharing their concerns, issues without my type of -- without

any type of fallback or fallout from it. so our board of directors two timings now has reinforced the issue of separation between the isac and compliance enforcement so we can have that discussion, that bidirectional flow of information from the industry to nerc, to nerc to government, from from government down to nerc back through industry. and it's so very important that we have that trusted environment. we also have a secure portal that we developed. we spent a lot of time on that. it went through its first phase, the next phase it's, it'll be similar to the national isac, so we're going to be moving the portal to another maturity level in its build. and we plan on doing that next year. so right now what else does the isac do? well, it coordinates the industry's response, any type of national incident or incidents

whether it's a hurricane or something of national significance. it is that coordinating body between industry and government. and we are, we're seasoned now. we just went through hurricane sandy, i know paul stockton's going to talk about the response of the sector with that. but the isac was that tool that was used for that coordination. it is the sector's coordinating arm, so to speak. the next big pillar that i'd like to talk to you about i think is probably one of the most important things, is private and public partnerships. and over the last year and a half, the sector and government have been involved in things, and i'd just like to list a few of these. first of all, we have our coordinating council, and that is a very robust and dynamic entity, organization. it did high impact, low frequency studies, it did the gmd study, information sharing study recently, cyber attack,

spare equipment, database and resiliency are some of the products that came out of the coordinating council along with the technical committees that support the coordinating council. also we have something that we started working with paul stockton on on his last job was the electricity subsector private/public partnership also known as esppp. and what is that? basically the bulk power system working hand in hand with department of defense to look at how we can assure mission insurance for our national security. another example can the pcis. we're very much involved in that. it's a cross-sector group. so look at all 17 critical infrastructures. we're very much involved in the executive order, ppd21. there's eight work groups that the industry is fully supporting from our subsector. we also developed the cybersecurity capability maturity model also known as c2m2 working very closely with

our sector-specific agency and experts from industry to look at a model of how to assess the maturity of your cyber systems. also we, as scott in the previous panel brought up, we were involved in the risk management process in this framework. we did that with doe and industry. and womaning up we're going to do -- coming up we're going to do gridex and what i'd like to mention about gridex ii, what's going to separate it from two years ago, is we're actually going to look at the policy triggers, the really tough questions for a national security event caused by cyber. and we are going to actually peel back an event that if the grid were to go down for a month or two months, what would be the policy triggers? when would the stafford act kick in? posse come at the it is a? all those type of things that we really need to explore that was mentioned in the first panel. and also we do things like personnel security clearance

task force report and information sharing task force report. these two reports are going to be presented to the board of directors in montreal here next week, and i'm pretty sure they'll accept those reports that were built by industry for industry. and lastly, policy and coordination is one of our last elements of our strategic plan at nerc, and that is we work with our country here on all the activities that they have going on; the executive order, ppd21, and so forth. and so whenever there is any type of input they need from industry looking at it from an industrial viewpoint, we'll get the subject matter experts from industry lined up to talk to government and insure that partnership continues strong. so that's basically it. standards, compliance, enforcement, information sharing and analytics, private/public partnerships, our technical

committee work, outreach, training and exercises and, lastly, policy and coordination. those are the pillars for reliability and security for the bulk power system. thank you. >> thank you very much for that, matt. i think, you know, from the his comments you can really see how a lot of this fits together if you think about the mandatory enforcement standards that we have to abide by and then all of it comes with coordination with each other, with the government, with the other sectors and then, finally, preparing for incident response. this is a unique relationship that this industry has with its sec-specific agency through nerc, with the regulator or jurisdiction and across the board. so thank you for that, matt. last but certainly not least, dr. paul stockton, currently managing direct or of sonic con, but dr. stockton served as the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and america's security affairs from may 2009 until january of 2013. in that position he was responsible for dod

initiatives to strengthen security in the western hemisphere and help partner nations build their capacities to meet emerging security challenges. dr. stockton created the first first-ever mission assurance strategy and launch add range of initiatives with the private sector and the d. of homeland security to help insure the availability of energy to dod facilities. he also divided the protection plan, dcip, served as dod's crisis manager, and it was in this capacity that the legislature got to know dr. stockton very well during the response to superstorm sandy. prior to his work at dod, he served at the stanford university center for international security and cooperation and associate provost of the naval postgraduate school. he will be published in the stanford law and policy review and has been published in international security, political science quarterly, homeland security affairs, and other peer review journals and edited volumes.

he holds a ph.d. from harvard and a pa from dartmouth college. so with that, paul, take it away. >> thanks very much, and thanks to all of you. i'm going to ask you today to dig a little deeper into the response challenge that we face that was prefigured by general hayden's comments this morning. and that is if there is a successful computer network attack that brings down the grid over an extended region -- perhaps even an interconnect wide failure -- if more a significant period of time, what is the response challenge going to look like? i'm going to argue today that there's going to be a twin challenge, and we need to think about the integration of two lines of effort. the first, of course, is in the cyber world, and, larry, i have to thank you for all the progress you and your colleagues are making in partnership with industry and the rest of the federal government to be prepared for after an attack occurs to scrub the malware, to do everything else to deny can

continued access by the adversary to our critical cyber systems, computer systems that govern the electric grid. simultaneously, of course, there would be let's call it physical response, because with the loss of electric power critical lifeline infrastructure is going to fail. hospitals, transportation, food and pharmaceutical distribution, they are going to be massive threats, unprecedented threats to public health and safety. and here we're going to fall in on traditional kinds of disaster response, the kinds that we saw in hurricane sandy although potentially, as you just noted, matt, of a much more severe duration. we're going to be conducting two very different types of response simultaneously. and, obviously, there's a risk here of gaps and seams and

challenges for coordination. and there are also some terrific opportunities for mutual support to leverage between these two sets of response requirements to make sure that both of them go forward much more effectively thanks to the pioneering work that's going forward today. let me talk to you about some very specific challenges which i'd like everybody to think about what is the way forward, what are the contributions that everybody in this room could make. first of all, what are governors going to contribute to this process? a primary responsibility for governors, maybe the primary responsibility for governors, is the safety of their citizens. and we saw in hurricane sandy governors are front and center in protecting their citizens, they're absolutely vital at the lead -- as the lead partners for

the department of defense in a hurricane sandy type event. you can imagine how prominent a role governors would play in this kind of scenario that i've just outlined for you. they're going to take a leading role. what does that role look like in the cyber response realm? how do we provide for integrated approaches by state-level governments to both of these simultaneous kinds of response operations? that's a big, important question. we ought to be thinking about that now. ranging from immediate response operations to strategic communications. secondly, authorities. and, man, i'm so grateful that you, larry and many of our other panel participants are looking at how would you use the stafford act to provide for reimbursement, to provide for the authorities in law that we're going to need in order to conduct both types of response activities.

how about the defense production act? all kinds of opportunities for government support to industry in ways that had never been envisioned when the act was written and enacted into law by congress but now provide a basis for leveraging those longstanding capabilities, authorities into a new realm. there are terrific opportunities here to think creatively about the inheritance of the statutory authority and applying it not only to the cyber realm, but to bridging the two realms in order to provide for unity of effort as both types of response go forward. finally, i want to talk about the critical role of state utility commissioners. in the first panel, we heard perspectives on the importance of having national level guy dance, sort of national coherence to these initiatives. i want to argue today that state

utility commissioners and their staffs on a state-by-state basis also have a vital role to play. every state is going to face it own challenges s and as we build on the inheritance that we have, our terrific understanding of how to provide for electric reliability, what is the delta now, what do state commissioners need in order to ais access resilience -- assess resilience projects, in order to decide on recovery, cost recovery for resilience projects knowing that a key difference for resilience is going to be how effectively, how strategically can power be restored in order to limit damage? that's a key component of resilience and, again, it gets back to the critical role that states, that regulated utility commissioners are going to play in building the response side of things over and above traditional approaches to reliability. these are just a few examples of

opportunities to think hard i now about how we're going to have not only continued excellence in the two with realms of response, but how to make sure that we eliminate potential seams and bring these two enterprises into mutual support. thank you. >> thank you, dr. stockton. and thanks to the entire panel. so i'm going to ask a couple of questions but would encourage all of you guys, this should be interactive, and you all have sick of -- you all are sick of hearing from me, and we'd rather hear from you. i'll get a chance to call on you. paul, i'm going to start with you just to unpack a little bit more some of your experiences that i alluded to in working with the electric sector following superstorm sandy. i think it came up in the previous panel, doug myers said mutual assistance is in our dna, and i think that's a true story. you know, you see events like what happened in the gulf with the deepwater with horizon, and

it was really a government-led response whereas you see something like superstorm sandy, and folks from the east coast -- or from the west coast and all over were sending crews to the northeast facilitated and supported by the government. can you talk a little bit about your experiences through that and how that may have helped and maybe some of the things that it translates to signer and the things we could be doing better with respect to government and industry coordination, to use tim roxy's language, right of boom? >> well, i'm going to start with the last question, scott, and that is what can we be doing better. and be it goes to a point that you made in your introductory comments. we need to capture the lessons learned from sandy, we need to regularize, we need to formalize these support procedures, we need to exercise them, we need to train to them instead of making things up on the fly, building the aircraft as it is in flight in the case of c5as

and the terrific support that we are able to provide to industry for power restoration, we need to understand what are these protocols, what are the support requirements that would be most helpful from the perspective of industry, and how do we build and regularize that system so as personnel turnover a -- occurs, federal government as a whole and above all at the department of homeland security for tritt call infrastructure -- critical infrastructure and in industry as well, how can we institutionalize these ways of supporting industry? it's vital to do that, and we need to continue to work on it. let me just say one other thing very buckly. a harsh lesson learned for me in sandy is we thought we understood what the critical nodes were in the energy sector. in the east coast. we thought we knew where we were going to need to provide emergency power generators and fuel for those generators in a

blue sky environment, understanding, well, what are the critical nodes, what are the single points of failure. my friends, in a disrupted environment you will find new critical nodes emerge. we had no idea that the kinder morgan terminal was going to be so essential to restoring energy functionality. so as you think about where to invest in resilience, blue sky environment not enough. think about what it would be like in a severely disrupted environment where by surprise critical nodes will emerge. >> let me ask one quick question of larry, mike and/or matt, whoever wants to jump on this. with respect to the deployment of tools, so similar question to what i asked of paul just now, what could we be doing better, what are some of the institutional, technical, procedural, legal hurdles to deployment of these budgetary constraints as well and, again, what can we be doing better to

get more of these detection technologies that in some cases are proprietary government technologies and. in other cases commeiale but making sure that they are as broadly deployed as necessary? >> perhaps i'll start and then ask others to join. i'll tell you, i think tools are an interesting part of solving the challenge. but one of the greater challenges is that the general hygiene of cyber needs to be improved. that far too off we are making it so easy for our adversaries to attack us. we are not doing the basic, most simple things that we need to do to secure ourselves. some of it is as basic as coming up with passwords that are not crackable. those of you who know of brute force attacks, it's basically computer programs -- and i'm being very general here -- take the dictionary and then throw it at your login and see if any of those work, okay in it can also be patching your software systems. there are a lot of applications

out there that need to be updated with the proper security protocols because they have identified vulnerabilities, and they have solved them. knowing your network architecture, knowing the vulnerabilities of your network architecture are critical. there are 20 of these wonderful critical control system capabilities, and we in dhs are working within the federal government to come up with some continuous diagnostic monitoring so welcome look at these mitigations -- so we can look at these mitigations to make a sure we are identifying that that these vulnerabilities are identifying. you would also need commercialically and privately available the commercial to understand better what is coming into your networks. but i tell you, that's got to be part of a company's risk management. do you outsource this? do you take that in? since september of 2012, our financial services have been under near constant distributive denial service attacks against a group called the qassam fighters very unhappy about a youtube

video insulting to the prophet muhammad, and these attacks have been significant. and as they've grown over time, they've really changed our view of the risk calculus of the cybersecurity threat we are facing. so a lot of new investments are being made not only in resources and tools, but also in personnel throughout the financial services sector because they've been under almost weekly attack. i worry about the other sectors that could be facing these attacks now that they are so far more mature in the other sectors and the amount of buildup we would have to do to get them to the same preparedness. >> scott, i think one fundamental hurdle or challenge in taking government-developed tools and technologies that we use to defend our networks and transferring them to the private sector is the fact that we have a lot more leeway. we have stronger authorities, clearer authorities for what we can do or must do to defend our own networks.

so when you develop these tools to do that and then try to move it to the private sector, it's not always an ease i transition. easy transition. ecs, enhanced cybersecurity service, is an example. came from einstein which came from some other technologies. we're working on the cris program that you mentioned in the bios, similar thing. it started out a technology developed to defend doe networks in our labs, and it's very aggressive. and payoff that aggressive nature -- because of that aggressive nature of it, the things you can do to defend your own networks in the government aren't the same, you know, authorities and leeway you have to do with the private sector. but i think we've worked through a lot of those issues, and we're -- there are ways to get around that. one of the audience members mentioned minimization. that's a key thing. if we can do that in a machine speed and remove any sensitive

information that a private sector entity wants to share with us, if they want to share just what's relevant, the actionable cyber threat information and not random e-mails from their e -- employees. so coming up with a way to do that fast is the goal. >> scott, i'll chime in here a little bit. usually at these type forums i'm usually asked where do you spend your next incremental dollar for security, and, you know, it's a good question these days especially when we talk about costs. and i really think it has to be towards the work force, you know? in the military circles, we have our cyber warriors, but i think the analogous is in the bulk power system our critical infrastructure. we actually have to keep, do the same type thing with our work force. and, of course, teach them all the skill sets, but then you've got to retain them. i know during the rise of the

dot.com when i was coast guard, i ran a command, and, gosh, everybody that wanted to leave and double their pay i sat 'em down on my couch for about three or four hours and did everything i could to try to keep them to stay. then the recession hit and, boy, i kept 'em all. so right now the work force, i think, is the best tool you can do. and along with that, working with our government partners to try to take that technology that the government does build, the cris, the cfm, the conrad type of machine-to-machine stuff that we heard the industry panel say, hey, we'd like to see. i think if we could figure out the barriers and drop those in the budgets and figure out how to get it in play, at least prototype it out there in industry is what i think we'd all like to see right now. >> thanks for that. from the audience. >> hi. my name is sean lingus, i'm a reporter with smart grid today. my question is for mr. , mr.

izard and anyone else who wants to answer. it's been said with regards to isac there aren't enough security clearances in the industry for everyone who wants to participate. does nerc acknowledge that this is a problem and, if so, what's being done to address it? >> hi, sean. thanks for the question. we, industry recognized that we needed to get security clearances out to those that really need it, so then you do the simple math, i want to say there's 4,000 entities, and you come up with a model that maybe three or four clearances are needed for entity. you do the math, it's just simply not achievable with the budget with constraints, the handling of that many background investigations, etc., etc. so who really should get those clearances? well, the cip committee, the technical committee that reports directly to the board of

directors tackled this problem for about the eight months. we formed a task force, and we built a product. that's one of the reports that's going to the board here next week, and if it's approved, accepted, i should say, by the board, it'll become public. so that is one model for the clearance issue. and i look forward to getting that in play with our government partners and seeing what they think. so, you know, not everybody can, you know, needs a clearance, and i keep telling everybody you don't need that top secret clearance. a secret clearance will do and then, well, who should get the secret clearance. so we look forward to trying to fix that because not everybody can have one, but certain people do need to have it. >> so if i can offer a few other thoughts. in the executive order, the government was tasked by the president to expedite our ability to provide security clearances to the private sector. that is a very useful thing, but

ultimately, there will be more people who will want to know than are capable of knowing for a number of reasons to include the financial costs. i think one of the most important things we can do is declassify information, to really get out information that industry needs to go out and protect and mitigate the cyber challenges coming to it. the ability of government to get that information in a timely manner to those who need it is, i think, a far better process. i will also tell you don't undersell the information that you already have outside of government channels. in my experience very often the best information for cybersecurity is in the private sector, and it is unclassified. so government has a role. we can provide information that might be accessible, but i'll tell you that is not the norm. the norm is that the private sector has that information because they're owning and operating these systems, and they're able to see the threats as fast as they're coming. so i think there's a balance

that we'll never get rid of the need to have security clearances because we need to protect our intelligence and law enforcement assets, but ultimately, we need to have a higher prior percentage of information that is unclassified and is also shared between private sector partners and also through government. >> i'd just like to follow up real quick too. working with the nccic, the isac who have top secret clearances work side by side with the nccic experts, and we do look at how to get it below the terror line and get it out so actionable and realtime. >> anybody else want to add to clearances? the only thing i would say that through this work that deputy secretaries have focused on, information sharing, one of the action items out of that was to get some more clearances for folks in the industry, and to the government's credit, dhs and doe have been aggressive in working to identify the right people to make sure we can at least get some of these, beyond

the declassification issue, but to make sure there is access to classified information and classified meetings and briefings. question over here. >> hi. stephanie davis from competitive power ventures. matthew mentioned the u.s. is one of the only nations that actively enforces standards within the bulk power issue, but the version five as written enough to mitigate and identify cybersecurity attacks, do you believe a different set of standards or regulatory policies are necessary within the evolving nature of cybersecurity attacks in regards to the electric industry, and if -- or are you expecting that to come outside of the regulatory arena? >> i got your name, stephanie? no, okay. i'll try the first whack at that. [laughter] i'm a firm believer that you need standards and compliance enforcement for a set of foundational controls. and they give you a good bedrock

for approaching security, but they are not the answer to the solution in that we're going to have this all encompassing, continually evolving standard. you have to let them, let the industry have a chance to, you know, get into that, get 'em adopted, get 'em in place, get the work force to really know what they are, how to do 'em and truly protect those. the adaptive controls is the information sharing and analytics that is really going to ebb and flood with those threats and vulnerabilities that get exposed. and those adaptive controls are really, really important. that's what we've got to really focus on right now. because we've got cip version five, and that's coming. >> anybody else care to comment on the standards? okay. just to add on to what matt just said, standards are by nature

static. they don't address, you know, the dynamic nature of cybersecurity, and the fact that we're on version five is good, but i have an anecdote from capitol hill, somebody asked at the time why are you on version three, why didn't you get it right the first time? and that really sill straits the -- really illustrates the fact you don't get it right the nurse time. so this is a dynamic threat and an evolving threat, and i think standards are a good way to create that baseline level of security, but it goes to those other components, the incident response, tools and technology, sharing of information, coordinating with each other that really allows you to respond appropriately to the cyber threats. question over here. >> good afternoon, patrick brown from the canadian electricity association. one aspect that is worth highlighting for the discussion today is something that actually builds upon a comment that one of the industry panelists made about the interconnectedness of the grid, certainly not only

interconnected across the continent of the united states, but also the international border at about three dozen different points. one of the reasons our associates and members have been longstanding supporters of the nerc model is it allows for the asset owners and operators to operate with a common set of standards that can be applied across the north american grid. i think that raises an interesting governance question that's worth exploring. in view of the interconnected nature of the grid across the international border, i'm curious to hear what you believe is essential for purposes of making sure there's government-to-government coordination across the international border, and perhaps if the nerc be model is something that can be applied to other critical infrastructure sectors that have access across the border as well. and recognizing in light of the connected coordination that has to take place, if there's any concern around potential disparity of resources between

what nccic has at its disposal or what other international partners might be able to a achieve. just curious to hear your thoughts on those kinds of questions. >> so perhaps i'll kick off. as i mentioned earlier in my opening comments, there's over 200 certs worldwide we deal with. and i will tell you, they're all over the map as far as their technical capabilities. in some cases they are very new, and trying to figure out what is their role within their own countries. is it supporting their government, is it supporting the private sector? so in cases they're trying to discover and learn from us and others as far as what is the appropriate role for a national cert. in other cases it's very mature, such as ours. and they work very closely with their industry partners, and they work very closely with their governmental partners and across borders. but those are not the norm. they are, they are rather the

unique exceptions. so as you look at, you know, the canadian/u.s., we have a very strong relationship. we actually just had this meeting in ottawa a about two months ago with four other accelerates, and we continue -- certs, and we continue to look at the challenge of responding to a cross-border incident and also ones that go across ocean. the other challenge is each nation has different laws and different policies as far as government's roles. in some cases it is government has a very direct role in cyber security. in other cases they have an extremely limited role. in some cases it's undefine canned altogether. so, you know, this is an interesting time in that people are still trying to figure out what do you do, when do you do and how do you do it, and what are those capabilities to bring? but we're not quite there yet. so as you look across, there are a lot more questions than there

are answers. >> i guess i'll add a couple thoughts. one of the best threat briefings i ever received in the last year was up in canada, and it was a joint effort between the united states and canada, just happened to be held up in canada with them as the host and the primary lead for the threat briefing. but it was very easy for me to send up my security clearance information, and it was recognized by the canadians, and i was brought right into rcis, the royal canadian intelligence service. and they were right on target, and it was very open and truly, it felt really good to have those folks as our neighbors. and then the coordinating council, to point out, is also made up of canadian membership with u.s. industry expert -- or

ceos. and so we have that going. and then they're always involved and always invited in our technical committees and so forth. so almost on every one of those pillars that i talked about for strategic actions we are arm in arm with the caid -- canadians. and gridex coming up is truly north american, and for the first time we're going to have mexico involved with us here, so mexico, u.s. and can da. and we'll have it -- canada. so we'll have it from industry and government. so i think we're broadening our look. >> great. paul, i want to bring you back into this. with respect to -- there's been a lot of talk about ppd21, the relationship that each of the critical sectors has with its ssa and then by extension with dhs, given your former life at dod and some of the critical

facilities that, the od operates -- that dod operates as well as some of the access to intelligence that comes from there, can you talk a little bit about the relationship especially in light of what's happened with edward snowden and the nsa, that relationship with, between the foreign-facing come poems, the national security facing come poems of the american be government and its relationship to owners and operators of critical infrastructure who traditionally operate domestically? >> well, there are two trends, scott, that are important. upside pinnings of your -- underpinnings of your question. first of all, oh the last decade -- over the last decade increasing lu the department of defense relies on facilities here in the united states in order to operate our forces abroad. and so when you look at the dependence of dod facilities, military bases here on

privately-owned infrastructure, especially the electric grid for purposes of today, you can see the imperative for dod to be able to partner effectively not only with industry to assure the flow of those vital electricity services, but, of course, also with the department of energy and the department of homeland security which will always be with in the lead for the federal government, never the department of defense for these kinds of issues. so building industry collaboration under the leadership and the federal team with doe and dhs is absolutely vital for the department of defense. this is especially true because potential adversaries know about this against of dod on domestic critical infrastructure. and so what we need to do in order to assure that dod can execute the missions that the president calls upon dod to execute, that we're prepared for that, and we deny the adversary

easy options, potentially attractive options to adopt a deeply asymmetric strategy. and instead of hitting our forces when they're fully up and deployed abroad, find some easy way, some asymmetric way of attacking us here at home. >> thank you. so we've got time for one more question if there's anybody in the audience who wants to ask it. please. >> i'll leave this one as a rather amorphous one. my name's larry -- [inaudible] i'm a consultant. but hearkening back to our opening with general hayden, talking about american social norms, values, identity, a nation of 300 million individuals who happen to occupy a common piece of geography and share a massive government with, that does amazing things for us. you've add a very technical discussion, and i feel very good about what you're doing collectoffly as a --

collectively as a technical community. but how do we engage the public in these conflicting natural tensions in the society between privacy, the defense establishment, how much we trust those institutions? how do we bring that public dynamic into public policy and private policy for that matter that you folks are in charge of? >> and if you'll allow me, i'm going to piggyback on that question and it dovetails with one that i wanted to ask as well. i think it's an important question about the public's perception of critical infrastructure and its role in protecting society and our responsibilities in doing it together. one of the things that came out of general hayden's comments also was this sort of declaration that i don't disagree with that sis pa is likely dead -- cyst pa is likely dead and really legislation in general without painting congress with too broad a brush,

you know, it does not have the easiest path. so in addition to this engaging of these important issues that the gentleman raised with respect to getting the public sector or the public's buy-in, are there some things happening with respect to policy or things that are happening in the absence of legislation that we are able to do and already are doing that lend themselves to maybe a broader debate, that maybe necessitate going through congress, or are there things we are doing in the absence of legislation that really don't require a whole lot of legislative movement? and i'd just ask each of you to sort of pontificate on those amorphous questions. [laughter] >> so let me begin by maybe offering a few thoughts. one's the public, one's potentially the other legislative on the public. see something, say something. i get a dollar every time i say it. [laughter] see something, say something. it's kind of goofy, but it has saved lives.

it has resonated with the public. when you see something, you should alert authorities. stop, think, connect. stop, think, connect. it's not quite resonating. i will tell you, if you go to my ipad, you'll see a lot of applications that i have not updated because i am fearful that i'm going to corrupt my ipad. however, my children click on everything in sight. so where i think my credit card is secure, apparently i buy a lot of xbox games -- [laughter] i don't have an xbox. so my credit card information is very much out in the wild, and my kids are clicking on everything in sight. so i'm taking extraordinarily, probably ridiculous measures, and they are going absolutely crazy. my mom got a laptop from my brother-in-law who works as an i. t. consultant in new york, and every time she gets a pop-up she goes, honey, it's broken. we've told her a number of times, just click that little x, and it'll go away.

no, sweetheart, it's broken. there's a lack of understanding in our society to the threats you face in cyberspace. there's even a further lack of what you do about it. and i think it was scott who mentioned when he was talking about standards, as soon as you have something, it already becomes overtaken by events. there is an old adage 245 in spear -- that in spear fishing if something is mispelled or doesn't look right, don't click on it. they are so sophisticated now, you cannot tell. in cases it is very hard to tell the public what they should do and should not do because it changes, and our adversaries adapt. i worry, i am concerned -- i will tell you i grew up in new york, and a lot of my family's in new york, and hurricane sandy -- and i lived in florida for more than a decade and as a victim of many a hurricane where there has been no power and no emergency -- energy, but that's a story for another time. if you talked about hurricanes in new york prior to sandy, they do go no big deal.

you got their attention now. they're very much aware of what hurricanes can do, and they'll prepare. i worry as a nation that we won't really be able to take the precaution we need til after an event. very briefly on our ability in government. i think government serves a need. one of interesting things for me is i came into cybersecurity is when you have a natural disaster or if you have a terrorist event, everybody comes together, okay? you want to go to the disaster scene, you want do go to the crime scene and help the victim. everybody works together. in cybersecurity, it's different. it is a competitive business. there are people who are offering services for fee, and they might be so willing to share that information because it may inhibit their ability to do their business. so that competitor nature of it makes this a little bit different than other places. i'm not saying if it's a larger event like a katrina or 9/11 people won't share, but on the smaller things there's not as much willingness. the other challenge and my last point is we have a number of companies that would like to share information with us

throughout government, dhs, fbi and others. and one of the challenges they face is there is no basis in law for them to do so. so we'll talk i.t. professional to i.t. professional, policy person to policy person and go, yep, we'll share, and then et gets to their general counsels, and i'm not picking on lawyers, they keep you out of jail, but they look at it and go, hmm, don't see anywhere it says we can, don't see anywhere it says we can't, so we should err on the side of government and not share with the government. we need statutory clarity. i sincerely hope we can focus on that because from what i'm hearing there's broad public and private support for clarity on information sharing because absent that we are going to be greatly reticketed on how we can -- restricted on how we can offer all of you the advice you need to better protect your businesses. >> thank you, larry. anybody else?

in well, clearly, our laws have not kept up with our situation. and whether we'll be able to solve that, i mean, we're applying telecommunications laws by analogy to cyber because we just don't have that framework in place. and it's, it's relatively new. i mean, during the clinton administration -- [inaudible] the first government official put in charge of the internet when we realized, you know, this is a national security asset that we may want to start thinking more strongly about. so that's just a few years ago. so the private act, the computer fraud and abuse act, those were all written before we had the internet and had everything riding on the internet and connected to it. so we're not going to solve that problem with legislation that tinkers around the edges even though it's necessary. i just think our better with approach is focusing on resiliency concepts. and we know the enemy's in our

networks, we know that we have to do more to prepare for and assume that something will happen. training, exercising, basic fundamental practices that security network is the best way to go. and it's not as expensive as fancy tools and technologies, but it gets you in a better place. >> yeah. just personal experience watching the isac grow and its capability and capacity this is a fundamental -- there's a fundamental reason why, you know, that it's going to be successful, that it is successful, and that's about trust and confidence. when the public in this case the industry has information and they're deciding whether or not to share it, to get that bidirectional flow of information, they have to know that on the other end that their information is going to be safeguarded, their name, their company name, etc., etc.

is going to be safeguarded. it's not going to be shared. it's basically anonymous. and so i would say it goes down to fundamentals. if you really want to get information sharing, you've got to have the trust and confidence. and if that comes about through policy that larry talked about to get those safeguards, that safe haven so to speak, then we'll need to do it. but right now we've got to garner that trust and respect. >> there's an important component of society as a whole, and i call them rate payers. if cost recovery is going to go forward, rate payers need to understand in concrete terms what they're getting for investments in resilience. we need to be able to explain in terms of jobs, in terms of economic effects what value is there to faster restoration of grid functionality. this can be explained, it can be

proven through objective analysis. let's be able to tell the story better and have sound method logical approaches to do so so that citizens who pay rates can understand whether or not a rate increase really is justified. >> thank you for that. i appreciate you guys, especially on that last question, really bringing two nebulous topics together, this idea that there needs to be a public debate and discussion because i think the more education and explanation that goes out there with respect to the value of government and industry coordinating in defense of national security even though it is a new paradigm, a new, a new domain to use general hayden's terminology, i think this is an important discussion to have, and so i appreciate you all lending your expertise to it. please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we're going to take a break for lunch now. i think there's about 15 minutes. i think -- [inaudible] >> some people say, well, if we cut the military, at least we won't have the temptation to go fight as much, you know? and if the japanese want to fight over the islands against the chinese, let them do it. we're better off staying out, and if we have a smaller military, we'll be disinclined to stay involved. leave that aside. if you look at when we fight and when we don't, i don't see a

correlation between higher defense budgets and greater likelihood of intervening. so the world wars began when we were unprepared. the korean war began when we were unprepared. the vietnam war was a little more complex, and you know that case extremely well. but if we fast forward to the reagan years, in ways the reagan years are still -- and people can correct me if they wish afterwards or whenever -- but still seen as the golden years of american defense policy because we built up the budget, and we didn't really use the military. and isn't that a wonderful outcome? now, i'm not saying it's always ronald ray began's great judgment that led to that. there were some happy circumstances as well. but there was no correlation between increasing the budget and increasing the proclivity to intervene militarily. >> a brookings institution discussion on upcoming defense department budget cuts. saturday morning at 10 eastern on c-span2's booktv, eric stack l bach on the history of the muslim brotherhood.

that's saturday evening at 7:30. and on c-span3's american history tv, a look at the interment of japanese-americans during world war ii and the political battle for redress sunday at 4:15. >> major adrian -- [inaudible] and council chairman vincent gray faced each other in one of the most contentious and expensive elections in d.c.'s history. fenty raised nearly $5 million. vincent gray raised only $1.2 million. he beat fen si. but shortly after gray took office in 2011 -- [inaudible] brown who would also run for mayor told the washington "the washington post" that he was paid and promised a job in exchange for disparaging fenty during the election. federal investigators soon discovered that much of brown's story was true. they also uncovered an even bigger secret, the shadow

campaign. basically, you had a campaign that was going on, it's the regular campaign you see, and then you had another set of folks who were in an office right next to the gray campaign. now, during the campaign there's so much going on. you have several workers actually complaining, several official workers complaining about the other workers because they felt that they were getting paid more, and this was a lot of confusion as to -- there was a lot of confusion as to who was paying them. it wasn't until a year later that folks started putting things together when federal investigators began asking questions, and they realized, wait a minute, the folks who were next door, we can't find any record of them in the campaign finance records that we see. so how did those folks get paid, and who was in charge of them? >> nikita stewart looks at corruption in d.c. city politics sunday at 8 on c-span's "q&a."

>> and live this morning the reserve officers' association continues their annual national security symposium here in washington d.c. this morning we are expecting remarks by armed services committee chair senator carl cal levin along with a panel discussion. they are expected to focus on the impact of automatic defense spending cuts on military readiness, combating sexual assault and force posture outlook following the drawdown in the afghanistan. this was expected to start at about 9:15. they are running a little bit behind. a few people showing up this morning. we're now expecting it to get underway at about 9:45, and we will have live coverage here on c-span2 when it starts. while we wait now, at the closing session of the global education summit, usaid administrator rajiv shah talks about efforts in somalia and south sudan. he said the educational efforts provide a different and

complementary approach for national security in the and is a more profound and long-term strategy for american peace and stability than shutting down embassies. after his remarks, he took questions from the audience. >> dr. rajiv shah leads the efforts of more than 9,600 usaid professionals in 80 missions around the world. before becoming usaid's administrator, dr. shah served as undersecretary for research, education and economics and as chief scientist at the u.s. department of agriculture. at usda he launched the national institute of food and agriculture which significantly elevated the status and funding of agricultural research. a week after he became add marcher -- administrator, he was faced with the devastating earthquake in port-au-prince, haiti. his legacy will include his leadership of president obama's feed the future food security

initiative, reforming usaid's business model, focusing on procurement, science and technology and monitoring and evaluation. in this audience he's known for his willingness to elevate education to a poor development objective, to join other world leaders like former prime minister gordon brown and ban ki-moon, secretary general of the united nations, to insist that we collaborate to assure that every child in the world has access to a quality education. it is his leadership that led the education sector to a focused strategy to commit to numeric goals for the first time and to stress research, upon to having and evaluation. i'm honored to introduce a visionary development leader and my boss, dr. a jee shaw -- rajiv shah. [applause] >> good morning. how are you all? i know this is the end of a long day, so i appreciate your having

me here. i want to take a most just to -- a moment just to thank christy vilsack. we at usaid are fortunate and very excited to have christy the leading the charge for our international education efforts and insuring we build out the kinds of expansive partnerships that this country should be known for all around the world. thank you, christy, for your great leadership. i also want the take a moment to recognize the rest of the team, eric postell, natasha, alexis and so much others who are really worked hard to pull this together and have worked very, very hard over the last couple of years to get room to learn up and moving and to help build more evidence basis for how we do and carry out our education mission around the world. i know that you've had a chance to hear from some extraordinary leaders like secretary arne duncan and gene sperling and presidents ellen johnson sur

leaf and others, and i hope you feel inspired because the work you do so incredibly important. i know many of you are in from missions around the world and probably many more wanted to be here and couldn't, but i just want to take one moment to note one of my first education opportunities as administrator was visiting a program in south sudan and sitting with young girls and young boys who were getting education through a school that was, where we had those -- i know they're not radios, but they were like mp3-enabled curriculums for teachers to help improve outcomes for the students. and they had outstanding data on this program and very professionally-run effort in a very difficult environment. and i just want to take a moment to recognize the folks in our education team that work in critical priority countries. these are countries currently experiencing conflict, crisis and security risks. could you all just put your hand up if you're from the cpc, and let's take a moment just to thank you.

put your hand way up. [applause] i, you know, especially at a time when we've had to had ordered departures and shut down operations this past few days, it just heightens the awareness of the risks that we all take, but you all really take being out on the front lines and especially in those cpc environments. so thank you for your service. it is exciting for me to be able to be with you and to look out on this group of researchers and scientists, education aleck perts and policy -- educational experts and policymakers. this conference and agenda was a little intimidating in the number of topics you all covered and have yet to discuss. and i know you've heard about and spoken about some of the central elements of our education efforts going forward; the importance of focusing our efforts so that we can deliver results where it matters the most, of infusing education with

technology not because we like technology for its own sake, but because of programs like that the one in south sudan that show that technologies can help better engage students and improve learning outcomes. the importance of continuously measuring our impact so we can demonstrate that the scarce taxpayer resources that we're using for this work -- especially at this point in time -- are delivering some profound impacts that will contribute to our own national security and our own economic prosperity in the long run. and in ways we've elevated education as a core development objective, done more to engage international partners to build global momentum for reaching kids who are both not in school and helping to improve learning for others that are in. but despite all of that, what you're doing here this week is, i think, the key to success. the fact that you've all come together to basically ask each other what's going on well,

what's not working, how can we help each other out. that's the spirit of what our communities of practice and communities of excellence should be about in every work and every business line that we take on. and several years ago our education office decided to do something brave with this effort in opening it up to include members from outside of usaid so we could benefit from your expertise, and we could have you see what we're seeing and appreciate the struggles that we're struggling with and all work together as a single community with the best ideas moving forward. this past year well over a thousand people from over 60 countries requested to attend this event, and that's really extraordinary if you think about it. the thirst for knowledge and information about how to do education well is made quite clear in the demand for participation in this program. for usaid this emphasis on

learning within our own organization kicked off in earnest several years ago when we took a hard look at the state of education around the world through the strategy review process. many of you know david barks who ran that effort when he was with the program. we all appreciated the significant and astounding progress and results, and even as we saw record numbers of new kids coming into classrooms all around the world, we saudis mall aloe -- saw dismally low records in conflict countries. today with less than 1,000 days to go until the end of the millennium development goal, 57 million children are still out of school. now, you're all here in this room because you know who those kids are. and i know you know what those kids are doing when they're not in school. whether it's in brick factories or other forms of labor, being trafficked or just being kept

out of an opportunity to improve their lot in life, they're missing out on a chance to build a future for themselves, their communities, their families. and so the work that we're going to do to get 50 million of those kids into schools in conflict and crisis countries will have a profound impact on the future of those societies. today across africa a child has a 40 percent chance of being illiterate even after five years of schooling. so we know that even when we get kids into educational environments, that's going to naturally translate into learning in its own right. i had a chance to read some of the comments eric postell had prepared for this conference, and i want to applaud eric for asking some tough questions. are we really using the best evidence to define what should be done for those kids who are in school? are we deploying our resources which, while con strained, still

place us in the number one spot in terms of funding international education efforts globally. are we using those resources to improve learning outcomes with the rigor and science and evidence that you all have collected in your minds and in your research papers for this conference and in this room? those are the kinds of questions we were asking when we launched the education strategy a couple years ago. at the time it was the first of its kind for the agency. and it set bar high. instead of measuring ouring by the number -- our success by the number of children in school or the number of teachers we trained, or my favorite, the number of people we touched -- [laughter] we're actually measuring it by the number of children who can read by the time they leave school. you're developing sophisticated monitoring and and evaluation tools to give us data about student learning so we can learn what's happening to these kids. and instead of working

everywhere on everything because, frankly, it is all incredibly important from adult literacy to early grade reading, we're focusing on three central and specific goals which i know each of you know well. so we're now at the mid point of the strategy, and we should be asking, as we have been, how are we doing. in the past few months, we conducted three portfolio reviews in nigeria, south sudan and the drc that brought washington and the field together for in-depth analysis. the results are still coming in, but what is emerging is a clearer picture of the barriers that stand in the way of progress and the steps we need to take and often only we can take to address them. in the drc, for example, we realized that one of the greatest barriers to education budget necessarily the threat of endemic violation or widespread displacement which, by the way, are often the political excuses for not doing more there. but rather, something much more

common: simple school fees. because the government can't afford to pay teachers, parents have to partially shoulder the burden, and that's a fact that keeps millions of kids out of school every year. .. and you want to improve learning outcomes for the 100 million other kids who are already in school. in april, we joined gordon brown and the international community

to another effort to intensify our programs in these three countries, in the drc, nigeria, south sudan. and i'm glad to see that you're establishing metrics and milestones, and taking a partnership approach, asking for the best partners? who can reach the toughest to reach kids? probably the highlight of my week last week, i a chance to talk with our education officers in south sudan by phone. if you and your from that called rx no. but they describe described fore any program they are about to launch is going to reach 500,000 kids him and they talked about how it was structured, the kinds of infrastructure we were going to build, to form the support for teaching and instruction and material and community support we were going to offer. and most importantly, the data and information that came from prior efforts that showed us the path forward. what was exciting about that was, about the call was it highlights when we're at our

very best. we're at her best when we bring that knowledge of what's going on right at the border there between sudan and south sudan. together, with the expertise and knowledge representative of this room about what works and what doesn't work. so i'm just thrilled you're helping each other out to get this right and everyone of our programs going forward. and i'm particularly inspired by the conviction i have that you're not going to shy away from sharing what stuff in this setting, because by admitting to colleagues that not everything is working, reaching out and asking for help, that's how we're going to help reach those kids and do a better job in carrying out our extraordinary nation. but i'm most confident that we can get there because since the launch of our strategy, nearly 30 nations have designed a new projects to improve early great learning. in malawi we use the early great reading assessments, i made

brief reference to earlier. today, second graders who receive interventions like these have comprehension levels four times those in control groups. and just the fact we are comparing interventions in control groups is a great advance that helps not just help everyone in this room, but it helps those of us have got to go to congress and talk to your colleagues, explain why we're confident that these efforts make a difference. we launched the grand challenge for development of all children reading, which received over 450 applications. half over when proposals are ride from developing countries. i had the most fun when i get to walk through these technology fairs or innovation fairs. sometimes what passes as technology or innovation doesn't seem particularly new, it's pretty low-cost and a lot about human interaction but it drives the result and it's not been deployed to scale, it counts and we are going to have to learn from it and do the best we can to make sure it gets out there.

this includes an organization in the philippines that is enabling teachers to send performance data-driven to the department of education their through text messaging. i don't know when arne was or if you told him about the. in order to ensure we're delivering against the goal to s with opera software deploying creative and innovative ways to monitor this work. and i'm pleased that some of the new techniques are borrowed from the office of transition initiatives. i had a chance this past year to visit mogadishu, and it was the first major us-visit mogadishu that was publicized in quite some time. 20 plus years they told me when i went. and you know, the first their forgetting kids, girls in particular in school, quickly as a sign that peace and stability can quickly lead to changes in people's self experience, that's what president shaikh has at the

top of his list. because you get those kids in school right away, families see that with teeth and governance come some real benefits that will pay off over time. and nothing is more powerful than the human aspirations to have their child lead a better life than they did. i'm excited you're going to use the third party monitors in the undefined what's working, what's not working. is anyone from the team here? great. i was thrilled to learn that when you did that, you had an early red flag problem, right? a lot of red came in, because there was a lot of information about efforts that weren't working. and i understand our partners weren't thrilled with that system when it was all glaring red. but over time, as you worked through the problem, create new solutions, see those reds go to yellow, go to green, that's progress. in fact, we had a great business

leader, alan from ford motor company, talk to the whole organization at usaid last week, or a couple of weeks ago, about that's progress. win organizations can sit down, ladies can sit together and say you know what, i can industry but how great everything is but i can also get a story about what's not working and i need some help on these things, and let's get our best people together and solve these problems fast. that's what allows for greatness and that's what allows us to serve in places like somalia. so i know it can be done. it can be tough for each of you kind of carrying forward these great moral aspirations at a time when our congress doesn't appear to be able to get a budget passed in the traditional sense. and at a time when our -- which is getting a budget passed by the way. [laughter] or at a time when, you know, where we're looking at budget cuts in many of our programs, many of our activity areas. i know when i walked in my friend abdul was speaking. with a chance to be together, in

yemen just a little while ago. the reason why it's hard sometimes, unsafe to do the work that you do. but yemen is a good example. because it highlights that what you are carrying forward is a different and complementary approach to creating security and stability for our own country. each you can get those programs going in yemen, in somalia, in afghanistan, and other parts of the world, if we can get all these girls educated, all these kids in school actually learning and aspiring for a better future, that is a more profound and more long-term strategy for american peace and stability in shutting down our embassies when we get red alerts. so i want to thank you for the mission you take on. i want you to know that we are going to be here to support you whether your programs are red flags or yellow flags.

sometimes as a culture in washington that you can tell folks about red and yellow flags, because in congress gets tough on you. that's probably going to happen, but we can handle that. [laughter] we can handle that because we are carrying forward a mantle of leadership that yield some extraordinary results. let me just close with a picture for you. when we landed in tanzania with president obama, we arrived at the airport and had a seven-mile trip to the palace where the president was hosting a meeting force. to anyone from our tanzanian team here right now? no. okay, well, on both sides of the street, shoulder to shoulder for six and a half miles were tanzanians to welcome and sheer the arrival of an american president. they were eight deep in some

places. they were 20 or 30 deep. i, friendly, thought they were a little close to the motorcade, it might not end well. but it was an extraordinary reception. they renamed pennsylvania, their version of pennsylvania avenue they rename from ocean drive to barack obama drive. and the next day we are together with president bush in the usaid mission, of all places. it just shows you that if you're willing to do the tough work of showing us the red flags, of doing the work to turn those into green through excellence and evidence and a focus on results, the politics will, in fact, come together to support you. and i really believe that i really believe that even in the toughest of budget environments we can aspire to be really old things, especially on behalf of these kids who otherwise don't have a shot. so thank you. thank you for your service.

[applause] >> i think i have time to take a few questions but i don't want to keep you either. let's see if you guys have some questions. please introduce yourself and where you're from. what you're working on. >> good afternoon. thank you for that inspiring talk. [inaudible] >> thank you, good. >> [inaudible]. in the light of those contexts can you talk about what you believe both the challenges and opportunities are of working with local partners? >> yes. well, thanks for raising the. i think the challenges, well, you guys know the challenges and opportunities far better than i do. but look, i mean, from where we

sit here in washington, the challenges are sometimes it's hard to get the money moving as quickly as you otherwise could, with i'm obligated balances. sometimes people whether this is accurate or not, will run to capitol hill and say, oh, you know, every local partner. sometimes every local partner probably can't fill out all the forms we make folks is a lot to prove that we can track every penny of our expenditure. but having pored over in detail, you know, reports that are this bit from aig and from our own teams on spinning in afghanistan i can assure you that the things we call compliance systems are really not dramatically more robust than the common sense that you can apply at the point of engagement local partner. so that's probably what is the.

probably also more work, right? is in a more work for you guys when you do that? so thank you. last year we moved $725 billion for more than 1200 local partners around the world. the report came out in march. i'm tremendous about of what this agency did. knowing full well that it was more work for people, but they did do more work because i think folks see the upside. the upside is we're building institutions that can replace this overtime. we are treating people with respect by saying, you know, where representatives of the american government, the american people, and we respect you enough to come to your institution, work directly with you. we are saving huge amounts of money that in places like liberia and malawi and ghana are able to expand the scope of the programs to reach more kids which is probably the most important immediate thing. and overtime we're doing what president obama has said over and over, which is laying the conditions so that aid is no

longer needed to south sudan, that's going to longtime but we've got to start practicing that, walking the walk now. so i just want to thank you, because sometimes the resistance to doing the stuff is very washington century. i know it's more work, which would got to figure out to be more helpful. but despite all that you guys out in the field have performed and it's been hugely impressive to watch. next question. >> [inaudible] thank you so much. i me[inaudible] [laughter] >> i love morocco. i've been there a couple of times. never in this role, and i'm

eager to do that. i would project a trip out there in the next coming year sometime. [laughter] but look, rocco is a good example. especially if countries evolves on the income scale. your capacity to work in partnership with those countries and really demand that they are putting more of their own resources into these types of priorities is critical, i understand our friend gordon brown is working on that challenge with a number of heads of state. politics matters, and people have to see education as a political priority, and then do something about it. and then we can kind of ride in behind that and do some extraordinary things of real skill. you are working in environments, south sudan, parts of afghanistan and pakistan sometimes where you don't always get the sense that this is a top priority for our international partners. and so, so i hope you're all working to engage your

ambassador, make sure they are carrying the torch as well. this is a shared responsibility. >> maybe one more. or we can be done. okay, thank you very much. keep up the good work. [applause] >> thank you all for coming come and thank you, doctor shah. this part of our day is over but we hope you will go out and continued the conversations where ever you may be deceiving. and that you come back refreshed and ready to talk about economic development and workforce development's, so thank you so much for coming to have a good evening. [applause] >> live pictures from the

reserve officers association as they continue their annual national security symposium here in washington. this morning will show remarks by armed service committee chair senator carl levin. there will also be a panel discussion with reserve chiefs of all the military service branches. they are expected to focus on impact of those automatic defense spending cuts on military readiness, combat assault and force posture outlook after the drawdown in afghanistan. live coverage on c-span2 beginning in just a few moments. we will have it for you here when it gets under way. while we wait, more now on -- [inaudible conversations]

>> it appears they are about to start and just a moment. very quickly, the reserve officers association was established in 1922 and it acts in advising the white house, congress, and public on national security issues. it should get underway in just a moment, live here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> may have your attention? just reminder to turn off your cell phones. we will begin in approximately 30 seconds, or now.

thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> well, good morning all. i trust we had a productive section meetings and other meetings, and ready to go for quick continuation of the national security symposium. we already delighted to have a terrific last minute add to our program with senator carl levin, you all notice the chairman of the senate armed services committee. he is the senator from michigan. where is our michigan

delegation? there's some michiganders here, senator, all right. a graduate of swarthmore and harvard law school, elected to the u.s. senate in 1978, and has been reelected every six years since. is also on the permanent subcommittee on investigations of the homeland security governmental affairs committee. in 2006, he was named one of "time" magazine's 10 best senators. he has a host of awards, including the franklin and eleanor roosevelt foundation for freedom medal, global service award from the world affairs council. he holds the second and the navy's distinguished public service medal, which is a big deal actually. and the national guard association the u.s. -- uss harry s. truman award. without further ado, senator levin. [applause] >> thank you.

thank you so much for the introduction, for the invitation to join with you this morning. it's a real honor to be with you, to say thank you for your service, current and past, ma and to share a few remarks with you and then try to answer a few questions as well. as you know as well as anybody, we face challenges around the world, terrorism and north korea's threatening behavior, iran's nuclear program, conflict in syria, preparing our forces in afghanistan to come home, preparing afghan forces to defend their nation. and more. but today, i want to discuss with you to challenges which are closer to home. those challenges don't directly relate to a hostile foreign

power, or to a dangerous weapon of mass destruction. but they are nonetheless strong threats to our security, and to the men and women who serve our nation. the first is the continuing and accelerating threat of sequestration. the second is the problem of sexual assault. these are threats to our military, body and soul. we must confront the first to erase the damage of a rational budget cuts to our national security. and we must confront the second two uphold our nation's honor, to protect those who wear our nation's uniform. first, the budget situation. every year recently we have been facing major budget challenges to do the people's business efficiently and effectively. i believe the department of

defense is going to have to place increase reliance on reserve forces in order team meet normal budget challenges and to improve our ability to reconstitute capability on relatively short notice. but in addition to that ongoing challenge, we now face the straitjacket of sequestration. now remember that back in 2011, congress adopted so-called budget control act after a significant number of our members threatened to force a default on the nation's debt by refusing to raise the federal debt limit. passage of the budget control act allowed the debt ceiling to rise so we could honor our commitments and avoid a catastrophic default that would've returned us to a recession, or worse. but it also imposed a

requirement, in over a trillion dollars in deficit reduction through automatic, across-the-board cuts take place, unless we reached a compromise to avoid those cuts. now, those cuts were so deep and so irrational that most of us assumed that we would reach a compromise to avoid them. but we did not. and those cuts, known as sequestration, were triggered for the fiscal year 2013, where we're at right now. they have halted those cuts training for one-third of the air force's fighter and bomber squadrons, the navy's deferred double maintenance on scores of aircraft and ships that were planned for this year. the armies canceled rotations to its national training centers. each service has had to reduce maintenance programs to restore

equipment, after more than a decade of harsh and constant combat. and have also had to cut modernization programs. while some in congress regard all these cuts as savings, i sure don't. preparing the damage will only grow more costly as the years come. after so much recent evidence of the value of the total force, active and reserve components alike, sequestration is now tearing at the readiness of those components. sequestration doesn't just weaken our ability to respond in crisis. it breaks faith to troops. general odierno, the army chief of staff, caution us that, quote, if we do not have the resources to train and equip the force, our soldiers, our young

men and women, are the ones who will pay the price, potentially with their lives. now keep in mind even as sequestration is threatening to how about our military, it is also impacting other urgent priorities, weakening our ability to educate our children and to care for our sick, to protect our air and water, to repair our roads and bridges, to do research on lifesaving cures and economy changing innovations. we cannot allow this to continue. but without a bipartisan deal to replace sequestration, we face eight more years of the same. at the department of defense, we will face large reductions in force structure and long-term investment that would leave us unable to deal with threats that are here today, and perhaps

bigger threats around the corner. now, fortunately we have time to replace, not much time but we have some time, to replace these mindless cuts without alternative deficit reduction package. one that protects our national security, keeps faith with the troops and our families, and preserves the programs that form the foundations of our prosperity. one key part of that package is ending some of the outrageous loopholes in the tax code, and using the revenue as part of a balanced deficit reduction plan to replace sequestration. in addition to sharing -- chairing the armed services committee, i laid a subcommittee on investigations. for more than a decade, we have shown how international corporations exploit loopholes in the tax law. much of this tax avoidance of

kurds through the use of tax havens offshore. one example is the way highly profitable multinational corporations, which develop valuable intellectual property, such as computer software, here in the united states then transfer ownership of the property, and the profits that it generates, to shell companies in tax havens that have little or no corporate tax. we estimate that tax avoidance of uses cost the treasury probably $100 billion a year, or more. that revlon is one essential ingredient to a balanced deficit reduction package that we need to in sequestration. it is unconscionable that we would allow large, highly profitable, multinational

companies to continue these tax avoidance schemes while sequestration denies the men and women who protect us the training and the support that we need. i hope that you will consider adding your voices to those, calling for a bipartisan compromise that we need to achieve a balanced deficit reduction package as a substitute for sequestration. sequestration threatens the tangible readiness of our military, the muscle and bone of our national defense. but the second challenge, sexual assault, cuts deeply in another way. last year, for the fourth year in a row, there were more than 3000 reported cases of sexual assault in the military. a recent department of defense survey indicates that the actual number of sexual offenses could be considerably higher. the soul of our military, as you

know, it's trust. trust among the troops that they will be there for one another, and trust between those troops and their leaders. and understanding the commanders who offer their support, physical, material and moral for times of need. sexual assault and our armed forces threatens that trust. too often, the victims of those assaults lacked the confidence and the system to report offenses. too many fear that reporting a crime will bring harassment and retaliation, but not just as. secretary hagel's announcement yesterday of further steps to address sexual assault is one more sign for the desire for action. there is strong bipartisan determination in congress to end this erosion of trust. earlier this year after extensive hearings, the senate

armed service committee adopted a national defense authorization act that includes more than two dozen provisions to address this crisis. our bill would ensure that victims who report any sexual assault committed by a military member would have access to a special victims council, an adviser it works not for the military but for the victim. for the first time, our bill would make it a crime under military law to retaliate against a service member for reporting sexual assault. our bill would limit the authority of the commander to overturn a court-martial verdict in cases of rape, sexual assault, or other serious crimes. and there are additional improvements to prevent assaults, to increase support for victims, to improve our

ability to investigate these crimes, and to bring perpetrators to justice. want every member of our committee is determined to make forceful changes, one difference of opinion has emerged. a minority of our members propose that we remove military commanders authority to prosecute of sexual assaults and other serious crimes, and instead shift decisions on whether or not to seek a court-martial outside of the chain of command. a majority of the committee, on a bipartisan basis, including myself, rejected that approach. and instead adopted the amendment -- [applause] and instead, adopted the amendment which i offered that would put into law many of the protections are victims that i

just talked about, but which would preserve the prosecutorial authority of commanders. our approach provides that a decision by a commander not to prosecute a reported sexual assault would be reviewed by the next level in the chain of command, a review that will in almost all cases be conducted by general or a flag officer. our amendment also makes clear the responsibility of commanders to establish a climate in which sexual assault victims can come forward without fear of reprisal. now, why did we choose this route? we know from testimony before the committee, from indeed senator claire mccaskill, a former prosecutor who has told us time and time again, a commander is concerned about discipline and trust in his or her unit, while an outside attorney or person would be more

worried about the difficulty of proving a case, and the likelihood of conviction. as a result, commanders are actually more likely to favor prosecution of difficult cases than outside prosecuting. in fact, in about 100 cases, over the last two years, military commanders have chosen to prosecute cases that civilian legal authorities chose not to pursue. now, those who are pushing hard to remove commanders from decisions to prosecute big norm a proven fact. commanders are essential to winning this fight. commanders have been essential to report historic changes in military culture, to fight against segregation in the '40s, '50s, against drug use

in the '70s, against ending the "don't ask, don't tell," which is a recent action on the part of congress, and is now being implemented by our commanders. we cannot hold commanders accountable for addressing sexual assault problems if we remove from them the most powerful weapon that they have, which is the authority to impose discipline and to enforce their orders. if we give commanders the tools that they need, and hold them accountable for results, they will deliver. they have proven it over and over again. i hope that when the defense authorization act comes to the floor and we address this issue once again, that you'll consider supporting the bipartisan legislation that our committee approved, and oppose removing commanders in the chain of command from the decision of

whether or not to prosecute. i hope that you will support us, because i believe that every man or woman who agrees to serve this country deserves the strongest, most effective protections from sexual abuse, and that commanders are pivotal at any but like a sexual assault and providing a climate that reflects the highest values of the united states military. finally, as chairman of the senate armed services committee, i know that every member of our committee deeply honors their service and sacrifice of our reserve forces over the centuries. and appreciates are always commitment to supporting those who wear our nation's uniform. for that service, and for that sacrifice, you have my and my committees abiding thanks. and again, thank you for the

invitation. [applause] >> as we have done in the past, we invite your questions to be written down, pass to the aisle, and our sergeant at arms will bring them a. senator levin is on a tight schedule, and has agreed to answer several questions. i'll start off, senator. we seem to be any period -- in a period of partisan divide and posturing, not often seen in history of this country. how do we break through that to get through the bipartisan agreements that you just talked about on sequester and other matters that are dividing our country? >> well, i sure want to avoid giving you a partisan answer.

[laughter] tempting as it is, i won't do that. i've had to give it a more general answer. that is, that there are some republicans in the senate, i believe, were willing to participate in a compromise approach to this budget problem we have. that's less true in the house of representatives where the line has been drawn against any additional revenues from deficit reduction, presumably including the type of revenues which i described which is the kind of loophole closing which i believe, frankly, should be closed even if we had no defic deficit. but there are republicans in the senate who will join with democrats in what we call a balanced package of deficit reduction. and a balanced package means three things has to be included.

targeted spending cuts, not the mindless across the board type of sequestration, but targeted spending cuts. secondly, some entitlement reform. thirdly, is additional revenue. and what my focus has been and i've been working very closely with senator mccain on this. senator mccain is my senior republican on that permanent subcommittee on investigations. he's very interested in the area that i talked about, ending those kind of loopholes. so i'm hopeful senators like senator mccain, and some others, will support a balanced approach to deficit reduction as a substitute for sequestration. and if we can do that, as late as it is in the game, i'm still hopeful that we can, then that could really break the logjam. you just described accurately.

that's my hope, so i'll be optimistic. >> thank you, sir. we have a number of questions that relate to the percentage of cuts that sequester has loaded up on our defense budget. what's your assessment of the fairness, ripeness, and way forward to get past that? >> the way the law was written, the so called discretionary areas of spending which is defense and nondefense, defense being a discretionary area. nondefense, domestic, all the education programs, transportation programs, justice programs, fbi programs, they are called discretionary nondefense. but together they are all discretionary programs your divide the reduction 50/50. that was what was put into the bill. that will continue, by the way, audibly.

and there needs to be cuts either way. there needs to be some cuts. that's not the issue. the issue is the size of the cuts which are much too large in sequestration. and the straitjacket that we are in so that they are automatic and across the board, without flexibility. so it's both the size of the cuts as well as the rigidity of the law. now, in order to avoid that, to get away from that we've got to do two things. we've got to increase, or we have to add additional revenue to the package, and entitlement reform to the package. that will reduce the size of the cuts by about two-thirds. and we've got to provide flexibility, because sequestration is inflexible, and what we need with a much smaller reduction is flexibility. those are the two things that we

need to achieve. and again, i believe are still achievable, even though we've got basically one month to do it, which is september. >> last question on sequester and the budget. you just mentioned entitlements. a large percentage of the defense budget goes to quote entitlements for military, which might better be described as benefits, medical care, retirement benefits. once the way forward on that? >> well, those are not entitlement. we basically call entitlements medicare and social security. what i'm referring to my entitlements. in terms of the medical benefits for military, the administration has proposed that there be some

adjustment in the co-pay. that's sort of the big issue. co-pay has not been increased for a long period of time, and, or not adjustable to inflation. so the administration has made the argument that we should increase the co-pay. i think it's unlikely that we will, but it's at least possible that it's part of a larger package, there could be some increase the i'm thinking that he wants to do it. the only question is whether not as part of some larger package it might be part of that in any event. i don't know anybody who wants to increase the co-pay. >> shifting gears to sexual misconduct heart of your remarks. we have about 70 junior officers were attending our junior officer professional development seminar here, and we have the other end of the spectrum, all of the reserved service chiefs.

what are the remedies for, on one end for the commander who is involved in sexual misconduct? who is going to review that? and second, what is the role of the junior officer, particularly at the company level for doing mitigation of sexual misconduct? >> under which approach? >> had added. >> okay. will, under our approach, basically it's a majority approach, a two to one vote in committee but ill be a much closer vote on the floor if this comes up. we, of course, maintain the chain of command role in discipline, whether it's a junior officer or higher level officers or general officers. that doesn't change with probably two exceptions. both of which have support in

the department of defense. one is that this issue of reversing the verdict, which is greater a problem. because there is now an appeal which was not the case of the uniform code of military justice was adopted. now defendants have an appeal to a court if they don't like the verdict, in a court-martial. they're sort of i think a growing belief that we probably -- properly should not have the commander have the power to reverse the verdict. we would keep the power in terms of sentencing by the way, but not on the verge of actual funding itself. >> but at a lower level in terms of discipline and below a court-martial, that would not change under our approach. i don't know under the alternative approach which has been proposed how that is

affected, because there's a lot of ambiguity in that approach. >> all right, any closing remarks for this group? i think one of our great interests is the future mix of reserve and active forces in our national defense strategy. we have a roomful of reserve officers. was the way forward on that? >> this era of reduced fiscal resources? >> reviews and probably overused our reserve components. but folks, it's a fact of life. number one, you are great. number two, you are part of a unified force. a total force which works. we are taking full advantage of our reserve components, some may think excessive advantage but nonetheless we have taken full advantage of terrific capabilities of our reserve components provide to us.

and that's not going to change. it's a fact of fiscal life that the pressure continues even without sequestration. and if anything is going to be greater, so while saying thank you which we feel strongly, all of us, i can't promise you that there's going to be a reduced need for your patriotism and your loyalty, because it's a fact of life that, that i can't deny. so i don't know that thanks is a substitute for having more time with the family, but we're going to find ourselves relying more and more heavily in coordinating more and more closely, unifying more and more deeply, and having a total force which indeed becomes more and more a total

force. so thank you, the best i can do is say thank you. [applause] >> we have a valuable thank you gift for you. i've been asked, what is in this tiffany's blue box that is under the gift threshold, appropriately it's actually a roa money clip. so long as there's no money in it it's okay. [applause] >> there it is, sir. >> thank you. i was to say one more thing. the tiffany box itself may be over the threshold. [laughter] anyway, thank you all. we treasure the relationship we have all of us on the committee feel this way with our reserve components. and again, thanks, thanks for all you do for us.

>> thank you, sir. [applause] >> ready? >> the next four hours of this program -- just getting. [laughter]

>> will be i think one of the most beneficial of this national security symposium, simply because it is really most relevant to the current state and future of our reserve force. we are fortunate to have with us today the commanders of each of the reserve services, and the chief of the national guard bureau and representatives from the army guards and air guard. to moderate this panel, we are not going to have the typical pen where everybody stands up and does five minutes about the wonderfulness of his or her service. what we're going to have is an interactive discussion of the top issues facing the reserve forces. to leave that discussion, as we had last year, we have the

perfect interlocutor, that is major general, marine general retired arnold punaro. he has been the director of reserve affairs for headquarters marine corps. as a general officer he was a deputy commanding general of the marine corps combat development command, commanding general of the fourth marine, fighting for the marine division, of which he was really privileged to have an assistant division commander, me. [laughter] >> no him he was a great boss. actually, i had that job twice. i screwed it up the first time.

notably, he was the staff director of the senate armed services committee, and the chief of staff for senator sam nunn. there are few people in the city of washington, d.c. who are more familiar with, both having lived the reserve life in the military, and on capitol hill. he's a combat veteran of vietnam, a bronze star and purple heart. having been previously wounded in the nami -- in vietnam. after that, this is the other intersect with general davis, i was the secular to general davis with the training officer of my basic school class at quantico, virginia.

general will lead a discussion of issues facing the reserve forces for roughly an hour, and then we'll open it up for about a half hour of questions from the floor, again, write your questions down and pass them up and we will get them to the service chiefs. without further ado, general punaro. >> thanks. i can say there's a block in the marine corps fitness report called the five discipline, and you went on way too long throughout the aftermarket and in that area. appreciate a great introduction. secretary defends hegel has had we're at a strategic inflection point. nothing could be truer as you gather here at roa to discuss the future of our national security. and as our great leaders here on the stage are involved in the course of august and into the middle of september, the liberation of what we call the program of objective and moran

for fy '15 years in defense plan. all the key decision about the size or military, the weapons, the active component come reserve component mix, these things are being decided as we speak right now. they are being decided in a world of increasing threats and decreasing resources. and this comes at a time when the coalition that supported a strong national defense certainly as far back as i know, when my years on the hill and using industry, that coalition is severely fractured if not hopelessly broken. and i say that, i don't share the optimism that chairman levin has about the solutions because if you look at the body politic, the deficit cut pocket and the spending cowpox have more votes than the defense hawks. and that's just effectively. when you but when you operate in a democracy like we do, when i was running the staff of the armed service committee, if you have the votes you wanted, you didn't have the votes you didn't

win and that's just the way it worked. and right now in the congress we don't have the votes. now made wouldn't get the back and read all work on that, but right now we unfortunately invite you are stuck with is the question. a lease through the obama administration, and that's going to force all of us to think smarter, not richer. and this is why secretary hagel has impaneled something called the strategic choices in management review, the skimmer. is a secretary that is time to get it in front of almost every issue weather was an issue of a medal for drone operation or sexual harassment, many issues he said look, we don't like it, we don't agree with it, we don't support to sequester. even chairman levin has been a true there is a sequestered. everybody in uniform, every chairman and ranking bipartisan basis, all the titans of industry opposed to it and get it didn't move one vote. so we are stuck with the, ladies and gentlemen, and you know, think smarter, not richer. and so he basically forcing the

departments to figure out how we program our resources at a $500 billion less than we planned for a year ago, that's about a minus 10% cut in the defense pipeline. that comes on, that 10% cut that is already occurred previously to the physical 12 future year defense plan that brought us down to the budget control act levels, or the bca caps which was another 489 billion. so the defense department essentially in the course of the last couple of years is looking at take about a trillion dollars out of their planned spending over the next 10 year period. so in the scmr did come up with some toughest things like cutting staff, consolidating command, and taking a hard look at all the costs of the all-volunteer force. and we on the reserve forces policy board have looked at that in detail, put out a report led by great executive director major general jimmy stewart sitting out in the audience on a

fully burden and lifecycle cost of military personnel, something that we had to come to grips with, not just in the pentagon but on the domestic side as well. to sequester is horrible as it is for national security, it doesn't do one thing to rein in the cost of the things that are driving the deficit, which are the entitlement programs both india and the pentagon and in the domestic. it doesn't fix any of the nation's underlying fiscal problems. so the scmr also came out with its big issue with looking at the size of the force and they presented the secretary with two options. option one was maintaining a very large force structure on the active side, but one that probably was not as well equipped and well trained, some people call that a hollow force, but maintaining capacity and not capability. option to that they presented, let's have a much smaller force, acted and some smaller guard and reserve but let's make sure it is well-equipped and well-trained. so those were the two options that have been presented. to me, one of them is just a

total nonstarter at maintaining what i would call a hollow force. but also i was disappointed, and i know others were, there's another option that the on to look at, i call it the middle option. so when they are considering in the next six weeks to two months, you know, where to come out between these various options, i think that ought to put a middleground option on the table which is looking at the size of the guard and reserve. if we are forced because of the budget to reduce the size of the active component, i want to be very up front about this. i'm not one that has or will advocate we are to be cutting the size of our active component. number two, even though i grew up in the reserves and spent my entire life, i'm not one that's advocating increasing the size of the guard and reserve at the expense of the active component. however, these budget realities are driving them are going to drive the active force to the smaller, smaller and smaller

whether we like it or not and the building is really going to do that. so we ought not to do in that circumstance is not take advantage of the tremendous capacity and capability that you could marry up. it's not going to be a, in the guard and reserve, particularly if you drop down. we've got these great young talented youngsters that will be coming out of the guard, coming out of the active force both at the nco level and a junior officer level, many of them don't want to leave. without to basically have the option of keeping them in the garbage or. so i would hope that would be an option that the scmr and the secretary and others take a look at and put back on the table. this middleground option is not new. it's a balance concept but it's been supported by previous analysis, commission i'd share them independent think tanks. many of the think tanks that are been talking about this have been talking up beating up the guard and reserve. by the way, the continued

operation and use of the reserves is aligned with the defense strategic guidance. that's with the guidance said. some might argue it would be, or my proposition would be, we should not reduce the size of reserve component just because the actives are having to reduce their size. so this notion suggested by some, a proportional cuts or fair share, to me is flawed. why would we do that? what sense does that make great if we continue to go down this path of the two options, everyone gets smaller together but to what strategic in. that strategic and is willing out to be focused. and in that way we also as we think about is in the guard and reserve, maintained incredible capability of 10 plus 11 years of war, 847 plus thousand guard and reserve personnel have been mobilized into think smarter not richer as chairman levin said, we need to look more at seamless integration and take advantage of working more closely with the

actives. this is not and should not be an us versus them. issued a hand in glove situation. we are all in this together. the guard and reserve bring tremendous capability to the active component. we need to look at that. this capability is not at their expense but we also need to be very careful. and i would sit in if you have ideas about if only we had this additional benefit of the additional benefit, we should not increase our cause in the guard and reserve. we are a true bargain for the taxpayer. all the analysis shows that. if we let our cause slow up where less of a bargain for the taxpayer and we need to push for an objective for these costs and lifecycle costs. ..

the acting are a. but they do a tremendous job. and i will be honest with you. i have had up attendees talk to the senior leadership. a very, very supportive. let me be honest. we should not expect any of those to be devastating for us just because they used to beat and the guard and reserve. it ought to be on the merits. if we can give the objective facts on the table our arguments will prevail because that makes much sense. a lot of time, unfortunately things never get up to that level.

a challenges to that have these things armrests lot of the military department. a critical role in ensuring these debates are escalated to the highest level to the pentagon and congress have maybe. you do a terrific job at that, but you are going to have to keep at it. so with that let me introduce our panel. you have all of their bios, so i will not give long introductions . introduce in the order was given. sven member of the joint chiefs of staff, former deputy commander of north, and many other commands, general frank pass. [applause] >> thank you. >> what i understood was --

maybe we got a disconnect. tonight think we wanted each to make a few comments and then we will go to question and answer. if they did but, we're going to do it anyway, but to lead. >> first on let me say bakes' to everyone in the audience whether you are currently serving, serving in the past. if we have the best military, best reserve components we have ever had in our history. it took a lot of work to get there, so i want to applaud all of our retirees. you have outfitted as with a tremendous leadership task across the services. as i looked out and get a chance to go out and look at the men and women that serve and the national guard, both army and air guard, i cannot tell you -- somebody says they use us too

much. i don't see that. they expected a ploy. they know what they're getting into. they want predictability as much as possible, but they do want an opportunity to deploy. so what i think we have to do, we have to figure out, what is that right active component reserve component makes that the nation needs for security? a strategic hedge against a very uncertain world, but how do we maintain an all volunteer force both active and reserve component balance and then not break the fate of our people? our people, our warriors to expect to deploy. just over the weekend and number of difference that -- states. 2430 in each group. every time i would ask how many did -- how many times deployed, one-third to one-half of the group have already deployed. how many want to deploy in the future?

every hand goes up. and is a balance we have to look at. we do need to continue to the gate -- indeed in the operational missions of our services. we have to look like the army in the air force and have missions that get us into the fight so that we continue to grow leaders that can be ready at a moment's notice anywhere in the world. the second part of it is we will get our trained to focus back where we were in the 80's and 90's on board during combat training center rotation's had for our combat units. we have to do overseas deployment training. a number of those have been canceled because of the current budget issue. the days in the 80's when many of us to apply to central america on humanitarian missions . all of those skills sets really paid as benefits in the 90's and 2000's, so we have to figure out how we get enough money to have that dynamic training that will keep people in and

attracted. the last part is for all of the reserve components we have to have the opportunity to fill vacancies or it's a shortfall. some of you remember the old keep up program, something like that where the family situation is right that they can go plug active duty for at an amount of time. i think that is really what we have to focus on, but its starts with giving the active component reserve component force structure right for the future. >> thanks. headed to the commander marine corps reserve commander of the first research division commander of our larger exhibition the first marine expeditionary forces, general mills. >> thank you very much.

as a new one on the panel i will temper my remarks and say that i come to work with the reserve department with the greatest respect from what i saw on the battlefield. one of the challenges for us will be to maintain the momentum in the years ahead and tell break that bond that has been forged with blood and steel. i was privileged to have reserve forces in both organized units and i ace i'm very in afghanistan. they did a magnificent job. i realize it is a reputation they have earned through training, organization, and could support. as the marine corps begins to trim forces, it is very natural and should do that over these years. our goal is to maintain the reserve forces at the levels they are right to maintain the support they have been given and to keep that bond between the active force and reserve force

very strong. we will do that retraining, operations, employment and as individual augmentation in places where an error needed. a very positive time for the reserve component. >> thanks. chief of the navy reserve and commander of the navy reserve forces, also commanded at every level throughout her career. >> thank you. good morning and thank you for your service. the navy reserve right now is forging ahead. we have taken over all of the war are in the process of taking over all of the individual augment he's serving in afghanistan and fall were deployed. at this point we are at about 70% reserve component than 30% active component and looking to take over all of those missions

so that the active component can get back to see. reserves are serving across the board. you name it, medical, intel, logistics', unmanned vehicles, over in afghanistan right now. next year we are anticipating 3500 mobilizations. prague to say that even after 12 years of war we still have about an 80 percent volunteer break. i think that really shows you the commitment and the dedication of the reserve force that we have right now. our challenge is currently or in the middle of the drawdown of expeditionary forces. so in 12 and 13 the navy made hard budget decisions and decided to reduce forces in both active and reserve component in the expeditionary capability which means a reduction of about 6,000 navy reserves who serve and the italians, cargo

handling, and expeditionary logistics' as well as maritime security, small boat teams. it took -- so our focus right now is finding homes for those 6,000 who will be displaced. so we have done a study of where all of those forces are and where they live throughout the united states and have tried to replace said that there are not completely displaced. we know we will have overmanned units, but at this time we're trying to manage a reduction through normal attrition car retirement, and reducing the s sessions into the navy reserve. going forward we have new missionaries we are very excited about, especially in cyber and unmanned vehicles and that program, we are looking to grow to about 1,000.

the challenge will be over the next couple of years with sequestration and looking at the proper active component and reserve component next. we think we have a greater opportunity to shift some capabilities from the active component into the reserve component without taking too much risk. so that is one of the things we're working every day, but at the pentagon. >> thank you. sitting in today, mobilized as a special assistant to the director of the international -- air national guard. >> pig they youngest member of the panel, i will keep my remarks appropriately sharp. i'll look forward to the discussion of the international guard issues. thank you, sir. >> great.

make a note of this man. he is putting you in a tight spot here. j.j. >> chairman, thank you. first off, i will have to keep even shorter. thank you very much for being here because first there has been a lot of physical pressure to not have these type of conferences. thank you for every member that is here supporting it. i would like to go back and take the commanders also. it is usually beneficial and of great value to our air force reserve rental airforce, thank you for being here. a couple of things i would like to pile on with the chairman, a couple of comments that have been made. the things we are focused on right now have to do with moving capacity and capability into a more efficient and effective force structure.

we have an opportunity right now , and the chairman had mentioned the skimmer. i was disappointed that did not have more discussions concerning a reserve component. i believe they que de are will be the place that we can have that discussion. the support of your organization, the support of members that the chairman mentioned within the office of the secretary of defense. i believe we can get those discussions raised and have proposals put forward to the secretary. part of that has to do with the force structure. o we are attempting to do with them the air force reserve right now is by the 18 month process we just completed a strategic review of mission status is and missions. we have taken all of our mission status is that support the total active duty air force and have a stack of those into different priorities to find out where the mission stacks will be of most value to the nation into the air force reserve. bottom line is we're trying to

find and how we can best equipped and effectively produce combat power for the airports because that is what is focused on right now, jason the air force to me to fight in 2023. we are attempting to do the same thing, make decisions based upon where we want to be into an empty cup of the quagmire. we know we are all going to be swamped, but we also know that the air force can benefit from having the capability migrated to the air force reserve and looking forward to making those types of arguments. there is great work in the report put out by jimmy stewart and the chairman, so if you have read that cover to cover, i ask you to do that. it. >> inky. ladies and gentlemen, marsha anderson is the deputy chief of the army reserve. she is a great member and

chairperson of our subcommittee on continual of services. >> think you, mr. chairman. i what tests and my personal appreciation for your attendance . i am a member of roa. i think that this just demonstrates your dedication not just to your civilian career, but you're a professional military education by your attendance here today. i would like to thank you for your attendance. on behalf of the 205,000 members of the army reserve here together comprise the majority of the logistics' and enablers and engineers, medical, legal support from the army, want to say thank you for attending, for being here today. the army reserve wants to continue to be a part of the national defense strategy. we believe that our ability to participate in the war fight

adds immeasurably to the army capability. like the other members of the services here today, we believe having a strong component is key to our national defense. again, i look for to the debate and discussion today and to your courses that wrong. thank you. >> thanks. admiral cpa is acting director of reserve and military personnel. someone that probably has been mobilized more than anyone i know. he has been. >> thank you, sir. it is a pleasure to be here on next friends. i guess i just want to tie up all of the comments made by my perspective reserve chiefs into three words. in 1991 the coast guard reserve she'll team came out. circling our shield is prepared as, respected ms. and pitchers

this. i like elvis on the stage. one common bond we all have. we all took in of that era expected to uphold that of. we need to be prepared. in desert storm one of the first to land on the ground in september and sense that stage guard and reserve have been called up continuously. we need to be prepared. i really hammer that with my fellow coastguardsman that are reservists. be prepared. second point is professionalism. professionalism, i have experienced that through a lot of joint stores. one of my shipmates in the audience was a colonel in charge of the joint training reserve unit. we maintained relationships, but more importantly for me it is a personal thing. his son as of first class petty officer in one of our expeditionary or units in san

francisco. so we are all professionals and had been a grand a great many professionals and something on us to choose to wear a uniform. the last point is patriotism. i am sure you and i have experienced people, but shake your hand and thank you for serving. i think that is great, recognize it, but i don't consider myself a patriot. i took the oath and a great deal in uniform, but i want to remind all of us that this is my opinion, i believe our families of the patriots and also i believe our employer is the patriot. i have been fortunate to deploy as much as i have because i have to hand it employers that understood what the mission was in the requirements for. i did not say longer than i had to because the employer needed me to get back to work. so i raise that point. we are all meeting the prepared

this piece kamal professionals, and death row in the family of the employees. >> let's start our roundtable discussion. i would like to put out of the table and try to deal with these two issues at it together or in syria autumn, when is the issue of the middle ground option i have discussed. the relationship between the two and then at the same time we should talk about the nature of the reserve and card component in the future, the operational -- we looked at this for two and a half years. they ask the question, could we sustain and support will was then called the operational reserve? we concluded that we could. there are those are arguments we ought to move it back to the strategic reserve of the cold war era. so those are the two issues that

we should spend a good bit of time talking among ourselves. i want to say, as we do that, if we could talk about some of the men's that had been put out there. i will mention just one. again, we want to be careful. i mean it when i say it is not us versus them. there are those that are saying that the guard and reserve cannot get there in a timely fashion. they take too long to mobilize. the one anecdote in the aftermath, the immediate aftermath of the bombing of the boston marathon, a first picture i saw was it like 15 seconds every tv across the world showed these two individuals in our meat fizzle camouflage right there on the scene within seconds helping the wounded,

severely wounded victims. i thought to myself, you know, it must be amazing that the 802nd airborne at fort bragg now has that dr. spock were they transported themselves to help close loaned it right there with ten seconds of this happening. isn't that amazing? oh, wait a minute. that's the massachusetts national guard. ladies and gentlemen -- [applause] we saw it in that tragedy of new york, members of the marine corps reserve, members of the national guard were first on the scene. as we talk about these issues i hope we will dispel this factor is somehow a guard and reserve is not available to basically caria these missions. vote would pose to the group if -- is this something that ought to be looked at?

the best way to go about doing that and then what is your thinking about, are we in danger of moving too far away from the operational reserve? if so, what do we do about that? you know, go to my right, to our most senior member and throat both of those out and get the discussion going. >> and take you for your salute to the massachusetts guardsmen. there were three there and to use on the news. they had just completed with their rucksacks 26 miles and where they're volunteering when the bombs went off there ran toward it. i was able to pin some metals on it with governor patrick. but even be these three young soldiers. there will tell you that that did not do anything different than anybody else would. aris folks will step up to the challenge.

says something a lot about where we are to the nation and why we need this middle ground. there are a lot of threats against the homeland. we don't have geography even if you look at them and made threats. if you look at the increase, every scientific study was like, the increase in the number of more complex catastrophes' coming away. how we will respond to that in the homeland if we don't have trained leaders. and part of that goes back to force structure. we grow command-and-control through our home town units. we are in over 3,000 communities. we can respond quickly. everybody knows something. brings along the populace. unlike the operational, reserve

components of the national guard to every day and look at the numbers. today we have 3835 guardsmen during missions in the homeland for on various -- that during missions will from active duty all the way to a title ten mission. the base line right now is about 4,000 the day. if you take our six year average in the home when. we have the responding, deployed today, 18,973 deployed overseas. in every operation at our active air force and army where side-by-side. we have to if you're going to sustain this force. >> jump in on the hon. same question to you. a c darcy make some operational nature. >> there is an insurance strong

argument. concern the weather now we will assume risk. i think that the counter point to that argument is by increasing your capability and the reserve component you mitigates their risk significantly because many of this bill sets when they across the spectrum are in the reserve components and in many cases perishable skills. the air force, fighter pilots, and they are reserved. logistics', engineers, medical abilities, those individuals not only have a military skills set of bring with them innovation and other creativity from their civilian career. a lot of the evidence is resaw in terms of medicine on the battlefield cam from our military and reserve doctors.

sayonara to mediate the risk would need to where cut the capabilities that currently exists and perhaps grow and enhance those. >> the ec a push away from using the army reserve? the army guard was off ramp. dca push coming when the building has a of the armies under some or else? >> there have been, but because of the have some of the specialist capabilities, a demand signal. as think ahead 12304 is doing to enable the combat commanders to

utilize the reserve components person of the short her who to ration command which will fit into increments when the allied need a concentrated small kid ability to supporting security operation are some of the partner. >> what is your take? >> operational reserve, the capability. we need to remain c-span2 ready when. so that allows us her every single day, 5,000 members that a direct support. the second thing is the surge capacity.

what if something happened every single day n. .. >> i'm on on the mistake we are going the pathway that we want to go down. >> great. i should have mentioned. i think general welsh, and james

coming in, i think you got, as you mentioned, really very open-minded new leadership where we hopefully won't repeat the food fights that happened between the air guard, air reserve, and active air force, which the congress, and i spent 24 years in the congress, all four committees, the two authorizing committees, and the two subcommittees, not just rejected the proposal in the budget, but soundly ri jected it in -- rejected it in a way not seen before. regime welsh is a very, very thoughtful individual. before we jump into the other area, any other leader want to jump in the areas i mentioned? >> i would because the coast guard is unique, and the operational piece is expected by the operational force. we do not have reserve units. we did away with them in 1995. we fully integrated with our active duty force, and just for example, both area commanders,

current area commanders, admiral parker in the atlantic area are very instrumental in making sure that that reserve force is ready. we talked about this. today, right now, i can show the come daunt that we have 5,000 forces ready to go out the door for a title 10 # or 14 contingency. we have atsus approximately 11,000 of the 8100 force, in the expedition their ware fare, racking and stacking, and, in fact, 301 is going out soon to replace the unit in gitmo. we have the gitmo mission for as long as we have prisoners down there, but the more important thing is us being prepared to be ready to answer a call like a deepwater horizon, which we called 2,000 reservists under that incident title 214. we're active with the command.

they expect it, plan for it, and we are part of the plans all the time. >> great. a question from the audience that i think really is very, very important and phrased this way. would you have a reserve force with half of the units operational and half strategic? before posing it to the panel, we have to understand, because there's a lot of myth on readiness, and you've, unfortunately, seen all units are deteriorating under the sequester, but at any one time, and it's different for each service, but for the most part, a third of the force is operational, out on deployment, on the ground of afghanistan, sinai, wherever they are, training. the third is absolutely, 100% on freedom's edge. the second third is probably units getting ready to go do something of various kinds, maybe not an deployment, but it

could be a tick below that of the first third, but the notion -- then a third of the active force at any one time just got back from the deployment, for example, if you're an amphibious ready group or carrier battle group and came back from a six to nine month employment, and no one expects that third to be, you know, ready to do anything, so the notion that all active duty forces are 100% ready every sing day of the week, 365 days, one, we couldn't afford it, and, two, it's just not the way it is. the issue, then, for us on reserve side is, you know, we don't propose to have a hundred percent of the units operationally ready every day, but what's the percentage? again, the hidden agenda here is when people talk about the strategic reserve, and it may be the new leaders are thinking of it differently. when i hear the words "strategic reserve," i think of the marine

corp. rereceiver and how i knew it in the late 70s and early 80s where we had no equipment, no training, no money and things like that and that's because in the peak of the cold war, reserves had 180 days or longer to mobilize. it's a really serious question posed. that background, could you have a reserve force with half of the units operational and strategic? frank, you first, because, you know, at any one point leading up to 9/11, the guard actually had over 60,000 guard personnel on active duty doing something somewhere, so even in peacetime in the air force reserve, marine corp., all reserve components on active duty a heck of a lot more than people ever realized, and so many of them, so, you know, i throw this out for the whole group, this, again, this issue of how much should be operational and how much should be stray teggics, and when we say "strategic" is that a new

definition of what strategic is? >> looking back in the 70s, 80s, and even in the 1990s, in the national guard, especially the army side, we had brigades, divisional brigades resourced at different levels, and what i found, though, is even though we trained in resource of the enhanced brigades and short deployers in the enablers, we gave them more resources, and by the time you got it down to hometown america, that was balanced a bit; although, we held others to a higher standard. what i found, though, is the one-third that was in the bottom all the time, usually the divisional units, you created a mind set that, hey, that's all they expect of us, that's what the resourcing, that's where we stay until war, and then we have 180 days plus to get ready to go. i think one of the best things the army ever did was adopt the

rotation model. that model has done so much for every functional area within the guard, not just our combat forces, but all the enablers, and everyone is in a cycle, and i love that model. people do need a break from that high off tempo, so my recommendation is we continue in a cycle, figure out the right amount for different functions of the cycle. >> robin? >> i think there absolutely is room for operational forces and strategic forces in the navy reserve, and we see that with tour involved in rotations, squadrons operational, and, yet there needs to be room in the reserve for people who can only do 38 days a year. you know, who can do your 12-month drill weekends, and then your 14 days of at, and 38 days, basically, that's all they can give because of their civilian job or family situation, but yet, they are trained and ready so that when

we need them, they can come and serve, so i do think there's room for both because there are so many different missions in the navy reserve. >> super. marsha, i know as chairwoman of the committee, you are looking at the model in the continuing service, but from your army reserve hat. >> just to echo what general grass said in the remarks. the predictability is important, number one, but number two, i agree with admiral brawn. you're going to have people who are going to have to be ready to go at a moment's notice. as a practical matter, in the first 60 days of the war fight, you have enablers, army reserve who get there to prepare for the follow-on forces. you're going to have to have some operational and some who are strategic, and to your point, we have to have people who can commit more time, give them the opportunity to do that, and i think that's where you have to have a little bit -- be

smart how we go about that, but we have to have a mix that supports that. >> john? >> sir, i think it's narrow focused to ask if the reserve components are the only ones who are half and half. look at it as a total service. i submit the active duty could probably afford with the down time and deployed ratio so the active duty, reserve, and the guards together come up with a force ready to go at a moment's motion, and the core functions we have, yet still some recovering and recooperating within the entire force. >> great, rich. >> it applies to the total depth, the reserve is the shock absorber in the case of a major crisis, but also a regular part of the rotational forces in peacetime operations in order to give us more dwell time for our active components so they can refit as they come off of their deployment.

i think we're looking at it as an ordinary reason and prudencal force playing directly -- operational force playing directly in the operational con cement playing in peacetime and wartime. all the structures get smaller, the requirements, and the requiring the plans, you got to have a reserve that's ready and able and trained to go out the door fairly quickly. again, time-wise, stretch it out, may be the later forces that come into a crisis, but the timelines are relatively short overall, so i think you got to maintain operational reserve and have them ready to go. >> jj? >> sir, like i mentioned previously, i don't like the two terms, "operational" strategic rereceivers," too much baggage with them. operational capability every day, what's required there, do the surge capacity because we have to help in the spike, and have depth on the end of that, whether it's someone that participates only 38 to 40 dayings a year or the big fight,

we can kind of bend those ways and see what we need in each one. i think everyone said the same thing, that there's temporal aspect to this. whether it's getting to the fight or whether it's training on a daily basis, there's opportunity for the total force like john said to go ahead and have that across all three components, look at that aspect of it. >> steve? >> sir, when i was standing reserve officer for admiral parker, i proposed the reserved rotational concept for the seven-eighths of those not in psus under the bog and dwell that many of the units of the fellow chiefs are under, and he was very enthralled with that. in fact, the area commander supported it. we hope to institute that, so if you take the 5,000 forces of coast guardsmen ready to go, break it up in a bog and dwell of one in five, but if this is your year, you have to be full of ground requiring the command to have over the five-year period a minimum ready to go.

>> as i mentioned earlier, we're stuck -- i think, unfortunately, by the way, wii not giving up fighting the sequester. those on a bipartisan basis that support coming up with the kind of balanced exrops that chairman levin talked bow, and that's the only way to get out it. no one's giving up, but so far, we don't have the votes. we'll keep working it. assume we're stuck with the lower level resources, think smarter, not richer, what are we doing and can do on the rc side to tighten the belts a little bit, and what missions might be candidated for increased or decreased rc participation, and i'm going to hit jj and then marcia up because, frankly, the air reserve in the army reserve are caught up in some of these issues right now with the headquarters, so, jj, i'll start with you. >> yes, sir. like i mentioned in the opening

comments, you know, you can see what's going to go on the next two years, trying to put a stick in the ground that aligns with general welsh's vision of 2023 of a technology air force that goes into access type of environment to the high end fights, and how do we get there? provide global individual lansz they have to do offend a daily basis. we try to map that same thing. we look through all mission sets, diverse, and active duty core functions, and some of those are enclaves of excellence that even don't have the capability for a member to move out from the senior enlistedded ranks or to the senior officer ranks. we are looking at those trying to determine what's used, what's a good strategic type of capacity that we need to retain, and what are some of the those to be moved into higher priority like cyber, isr, or possibility space. >> well, before it turn it over to andersen, can you save money

by the air guard? >> no. [laughter] >> i'm going to wait him off of it. [applause] >> thank you, mr. chairman, for teeing that up. [laughter] in terms of looking at our structure, we recognize in the army reserve we have some structure that needs to be -- to be repurposed, i'll put it that way. we're looking very closely the draining structure and as sets to see where they are fully utilized so we can find some savings in terms of fore structure, but we also don't, again, want to sacrifice our ability to be responsive to commanders and contingency requirements. >> great. let me say, as i turn it back over to drew for more questions from the audience, obviously, you can see we're very blessed to have these very capable, talented, engaged leaders in a time of critical decision making

in the department. number of -- number two, next meeting is september 5th, all the leaders have been tremendous participants in all of our session quarterly meetings. we pump out a lot of hard hitting recommendations to secretary hagel, a number of which have been adopted. there's an open meeting over in arlington, open to the public, many of these same leaders will be participating. we'll hear from the secretary of army, hear from the vice chairman, so any of you that are interested in attending one of those sessions, we really need to get the input from the field. we're very fortunate because we're statutory, independent commission that reports directly into the secretary of defense, and i think you gathered from our conversation here this morning, and particularly, our members, we are not shrinking violates on any subject, and we call it as we see it, and, you know, because i think it's important for the people at the top of the decision making

chain, there's a thermal wear in the pentagon, and a lot of things that are happening at the deck plates never make it up to the top, and we want to make sure from the rftb, that general carter are getting the objective information that they need to make some of these critical decisions, so thank you for your continued support of our reserve component, and we look forward to your help on the rfpb, and, drew, thanks again for allowing us to be here, and with that, take over. >> well, great discussion so far. we now have a number of questions from our members and attendees in the symposium. let me kick it off by continuing the question that the general offered up on the merger of the guard and reserve. we heard emphatically from

andersen -- >> no, that would have been a "hell no" if -- [laughter] >> we are talking about it across the department of defense, and they believe the gourd and rereceiver have capabilities to bring to the table, and so that's all i'll say about that. [laughter] >> general? >> i'll defer to my boss. >> wow. [laughter] >> what a bunch of buck passers. >> this was the next question for general grass. [laughter] how do you handle this issue as an honest broker on the joint chiefs, and as an adjunct question to that, is there any wisdom to the idea of reat aat a time -- rotating with a reserve officer? >> wow. [laughter] >> let me start by saying in

september one of the things we talked about is establishing a position on the topic of combining the guard and reserve, and i talked about it, thought about everything about the process, followed by the skimmer process, everything going on, and my first thought was, we got to stay tight as a reserve component here, and the decision is not for us here, but for a policy, a political decision to be made, and it comes up every four or five years, you know, and the decision is made that in the past, you know, we have seven reserve components for a reason, and so my position has been, i'm going to stay focused on keeping a strong reserve component in the army and air guard as a part of that, and we work together as a team. >> i like the idea of rotating the bullet. >> i think if you look to the future, and you think about, and

the governors, and what we do every day and support governors in the states, you know, we've made some minor changes that are pretty major when you look at how they impact our response capability being able to use reserve under 12304 alpha, it lends that to thinking about the future, but then how do you get beyond the title 332 -- 32 discussion? you have to bring the forces together if you are going to get there, into the future. i think everyone from a business case, if you think about it, and you were in business, you wouldn't have seven separate organizations, and, you know, a number of them doing the same thing, but, politically, and for all the people in this room, you each bring a capability to the fight, and a different way to get to you, and so all of that has to be deconflicted if we're

going to try to bring them into one, and if we did, you have to rotate the position, but it still would have to be, you know, both 32 authorities. >> thank you. >> to finish up on the "hell no" part -- [laughter] no, seriously, just like general grass said, we, as an air force, are looking at this, and what are the good news of having three components? up until this point, and the foreseeable future, both outgoings secretary, acting secretary, and chief said there's goodness and value in what all three components bring to the organization which is the total air force, allowing us, obviously, to bring in opportunities for mission sets and discussions on statuses and things like that to see where can the efficiencies and capabilities be enhanced? when i go to the hill, i tell them there's good news and three appropriations, and the chairman can probably speak more

eloquently than i can, but when the air force park the combat forces, one-third of them like senator levin talked about, the guard did not. we have three appropriations congress saw fit to give to us, and keep the active duty members current and qualified on the mobility side, and we have to keep them ready, and we do that on the combat air force side also. we mitigated some effects of the draconian cut because we have three appropriations, and combine that into two or spue just one air force appropriation, you wouldn't have been there. that's the closing comments op that. thank you. >> general mills, marine corp -- oh -- [laughter] >> during the earlier part of the discussion, we talked about the potential for accessing ac service members into the rc as we have a reduction in ac

forces. at the same time, we had a question from the audience about how do we manage the outflow from the reserve to get rid of the nonperformers, those overweight, not progressing, not showing up for drill, we all know we have goats in our unit. how do we pick the right people coming out of the ac to fill spots that we opened up from the outflow. regime mills? >> well, i think we're going to enter a really golden era to hand pick talented individuals leaving active service for whatever reason whether there's no longer any room for them in active duty or because they went through the excitement. last 12 years and choose to go on to other things. i think we could have a large talent pool coming in. the challenge, i think, is to attract them and to make sure

they understand, hey, the importance of what it is a reserve component does, the good training they receive, modern equipment to work with, and the good leadership they will be receiving. i think the opportunity is there. we got to make sure that we have an attractive alternative to what other aspirations they have, but i think in the marine corp. side of the house, there's never a pool of junior officers so talented, so experienced as the pool that we have right now, and it's going to a shame because we have to force some very, very good people, some real solid combat leaders off the active rolls, and we are foolish not to take advantage of them as they reenter in the way they might. >> i agree. i think this is important to not do across the board equal cuts between the active and reserve component. i think this is the perfect time to look to see what missionaries we can move into reserve component, and then as we draw down on the active component side, take advantage of those

sailors leaving. the active component, bring those in the reserve component. it's very important to do that. those are some of the discussions we're having right now in the navy because this are people who say, well, if the cut is 10%, reserve should be cut the same. i think when you look at it, why get rid of capabilities on the action component. keep them in the part-time status and take advantage of all the great training and experience they had over the past five to ten years. >> and there's a vca for that also. i mean, if you keep the citizen airman for life, guard or reserve, you retain that half a million dollar investment over the first six to seven years in training. why throw that away. it doesn't make sense. the line with robin, don't bring them in if there's not the position to do them in. we have to look at that. >> general andersen, talk about ways to streamline across that for getting rid of the deadwood.

>> well, we complicated matters by the fact we have over 30 # active duty status for reserve component, and there's a number of studies overwhelmingly saying we have to reduce the number to little as six to provide the kind of ability for people to move back and fort between and you talk about, you know, airmen, sailor, soldier for life, but the continueed sfs has to be attract for because it's difficult to transition from active duty to reserve component. to the point of shaping the force, the army's looking at it, there's tools in place now, but i think we could add to that discussion and be engaged with them and help them find ways to shape those tools a little bit betters because many of the tools call forward, and they are not targeting the unique skills needed in the reserve component, so as a reserve component, we have a duty and obligation to

engage in the discussion and help respected services come up with good shaping tools. >> we have a number of members op the association from the medical mls's and received a number of questions about the quality and availability of medical care for reservists. obviously, when you're on active duty or mobilized in the reserves, you're within the bubble of the station for medical care or more closely tied to the military and medical system. when we're back in reserve status, we're spread from alaska to puerto rico, and often remote from either va or quality military medical care, and then

there is the added tragedy of suicide rates that separation may contribute to. comments on improving, sustaining, building quality of reserve medical care and medical readiness? >> i would just comment, just on a broader sense that one of theless sops we learned act vatting reserve units to go to the fight was to have a good family readiness officer at each location to service families left behind, steer them in the right direction whether it's medical care or for any issues they had. now with the cutbacks, there's a propensity to say, well, not many units are activated or doing as much, perhaps we can save money cutting family readiness programs that reach out. we have to resist that to the greatest extent possible. in some ways, units have medical problems that egg tend well into

the future with ptsd, things like that, and it's an education process to ensure the reserve community understands how they go to get that medical care. >> how do we bridge that time and distance tyranny? other comments on that? >> well, one of the things we are doing within the air force is standing up, basically, a case management cell at the air force medical organization down in san antonio, and for the last 24 months, we've been working this issue to go ahead and say, how do we take care of both title 10 and title 32 members that have to have continuing service, and who is going to take care of the individual member when they go back to another location? that's not available to an mtf, and so we came to a conclusion we have to stand up the case management for line of duty, and that's where the air force is going to provide a reach out and touch with a case management officer to the members. we're not there yet. we have it manned 50%, but that's the solution we've come

up with within the air force to try to handle a part of that. >> any other comments? >> drew, one of the things that concerns me today in the medical side and suicides are tremendous, tremendous problems, dealing with, an epidemic in the society looking at the age group. i think there was just a note this week in the early bird about 50% of the suicides, the military day, never deployed, and so it's a problem society has to deal with, and we reached out to health and human services, and they are providing us research money, and we'll look at how to join forces in the community using some of the assets and volunteers we have out there that the doctors are providing in the medical health professionals, and i think there's some opportunity, and i think we have to get after that because as about a hundred thousand come out of the army, the marine corp., they are coming back to our hometowns across america, and there's going to be medical professionals that have not

dealt with this at the level we've had to deal with, so i think, somehow, we have to use reserve component, armories to make that happen. what really concerns me today, though, is that the money, the same money we need to do that is the money that's drying up, and that same money, which we use for our soldier readiness processing and airmen readiness processing is taking us to a level that's higher than ever been. how are we going to sustain that in all competing demands, and we got to get at that. you know, part of this is the compensation discussion, you know, what portion can we continue to afford across all accounts, and some of this, and being a member of the joint chiefs, we talk about this all the time, that every program that we send up to the hill that you want to curtail, not cult, but curtail spendings we look to the future to save, for example, a raise, that's hard to sell on the hill, but you got to get after it to maintain a strong, strong military and a strong

all-volunteer force, or at some point, our salaries, our compensation, i think there's a study out there that says that if we don't do anything, separate from budget control act, if defense does not change compensation, raise, benefits, more in line wf civilian world today, if we don't, by 2021, 80% of the total obligation authority of defense will be going to salaries and compensation. >> all right. we had a couple of questions about new emerging missions, and a couple examples are cyber, and, i think cyber. what is each of the services doing to prepare for these battlefields in the future? >> we're looking, looking at cyber. i was at the cyber guard

exercise two weeks ago. there's a real interest to having coast guard cell rez assigned to the cyber command, working that issue, and the other piece that's going to be an interesting one for us is the arctic. we see the arctic as an opportunity where during those times when we've got our forces up there, active duty forces, is to utilize the coast guardsmen that have those skill sets needed for up in the arctic. we're looking into that at this point, but nothing definitive at this point. >> sign me up for that duty. [laughter] >> i mentioned earlier within the air forces, sir, we looked at all mission sets, and with no surprise, cyber appears in the top third of what we think would be a good fit. the discussion we have within the air force is how we're going to fill requirements to the cyber com. currently, it's 1800-manpower position which the active duty air force cannot fill. it makes sense to look at it,

and capability, and it's all part of the requirement. the other position we're looking at is, this is going to a specialized skill set that has to be on the cutting edge every day, and as a sighful of civilian, you can do that, and the training too. why take that on to the dod budget when you don't have to? we are building structure, there's ten squadrons being put together, a cyber group, with a pyramid to try to support that requirement. >> we have cyber structure in the army reserve, and as you alluded to, they are perishable skill sets, and if you don't exercise those on a daily basis, they can erode. i think the reserve component is ideally suited to have more cyber assets in it because there are things you do in the day-to-day civilian profession that i think can only enhance that capability. >> i think the challenge is, because of the long training cycle it takes to get a cyber

warrior ready to go, i agree with you, that the reserve community has a lot of talent that can really apply doctorately to what you need in cyber, challenges is we have to bring those folks op active service and there's a long training cycle before they useful to you as a cyber warrior. there's a balance there you have to strike. >> what about the kid with the ponytail in the garage who is, perhaps, a -- >> which i had one. [laughter] >> yeah. >> well, the civilian -- i mean, the civilian contractor is very, very attractive, however, there's a huge price tag with that. >> i'm talking about joining them in the reserve. >> well, you have to get that haircut. [laughter] >> well, i would say up at visiting the cyber guard exercise at cyber command, washington guards mern were

there, the educators, working for microsoft or the software companies, and that's -- my take away from that experience was to get with the fellow reserve chief to see what the competencies are with the cyber folks, and there's another admiral dave, not my brother, but the cyber guy with me said, get the competencies, and we want to bet those to what's the realistic thing we can do with 36 days a training versa 38 to do that to get the skill set from the civilians to put them in there. that's what we are really looking at. >> drew, we had -- excuse me. >> go ahead. >> we have a task force looking at that, a great businessman in the area, looking at the future, and general mills makes an excellent point, and you look at the amount of money, and they train them up in all services, and, unfortunately, they serve

six years active duty, a huge investment in them, and they decide for a lot of reasons they don't want to be on active duty anymore. all right. my thoughts, one of the thoughts i charged is to be instead of losing that talent to the department of defense, because i guarantee you the microsofts, the googles of the world will pay them a lot more than they make year six through year 12 in the military, but can we come up with a construct where we do, as general mills said, train them up, give their time, do what they are supposed to do, and even though we'd like to keep them on the active side, how do we structure our reserve components where they come in, and there's another challenge in that it was mentioned that by general grassley and others, we have incredibly talented youngsters, ncos, great officers to lead, and in the reserves, you know, how do we get them in there, you know, and maybe we're

going to have not take as many nonservice personnel, get richer in the grade mix, maybe spend a little bit more time in grades because to get the kind of talent that we're going to be paying for as taxpayers in these critical skill areas, and like cyber, it would be a great disservice to the war fighting skills and taxpayers to just let them leave active component all together and not have the opportunity to continue to serve, and i know a lot of them would, and, you know, we won't point out any particular unites, but in the marine copr reserve are open minded enough, if they want purple hair in the week, as long as they get it cut high and tight, you know, when they come on drill, we're okay with that; right, general mills? >> right. we had short haired wigs in the 1970s. >> maybe in a unit you served in, i don't remember that in my unit. [laughter] >> i was going to say that the

cyber, we programmed 700 over the fed for cyber, and what we found was because of the growth in the active component and reserve component, the throughput in the cyber training schools just is not there. we do not have the capacity so we look at how to mitigate that right now because of the huge demand, we have to grow that training capability. that's what we are looking at. we're also looking at unmanned systems supporting fire scout and tritan. the challenge now for us is because of sequesteration and budget challenges. we're not sure when the systems are going to actually come online, so it's tough to program when you don't know if you're going to have to push that program out another two or three years, so it is exciting, though, when you look at the potential, so we're working on it, but at this point, we just can't really say how soon it comes on loin.

-- online. >> general grass? >> there's room for everyone to talk on cyber, and the cyber guard exercise we participate in every year at fort meade, and we had active guard rereceiver, dhs, fehs participating, department of energy, department of transportation, public-private partnerships were there, and since you can't really determine at any given point where the cyber problem resides, you got to have all the partners, and what what general al exander and i talked about from the view of the governors are interested in is to maintain authorities we have so that state government can do some things. we have some of the cyber warriors in the states today going out doing vulnerable assessments on emergency management networks because if something pops in the state, we have to be able to function, even if its a civilian dot-com we deal with or dot-gov at the

state level. we need the dialogue open to make it wok. we have an issue with the dot-edu right now, but i think across all, i mean, if i think about the active component and guard reserve, every weapons system, we need cyber experts. you talked about the f-35, what's coming from that, and so there's niche capabilities. you have the national and international piece of that. what we are investing in right now, we have 12 units in the guard that are -- some are already working cyber network squadrons, for example, that are scattered across the states, and most of them reside close to major metropolitan area that have the skill sets, and they are doing very well. now what we want to do is look at how the air force and army are going to create the doctrine for the future, create the structure and the training, so whatever we put in the traditional reserve unit has to look like the service, and it's got to be trained and certified

to that service so we don't create something ad hoc to take anything from, you know, a state mission from the guard to the federal side. >> all right. we have a hard stop in five minutes, so i'd like to talk to each of you a tough question, from senator levin, and that is the sexual misconduct issue. what is each of your services doing to address that? >> number one, priority, period, constantly reenforced at every flag meeting if needed. it is the top priority if you were to ask him. that is his top priority. >> what are you doing on the drilling level? >> on the drilling level, again, integrated. he requires as the centers talked about, the commander's responsibility through the areas, the district commanders

down to the field level, and when he speaks to all hands, he looks at all hands as rereceiver and ac -- reserves and active duty and shares expectations and accountability is taken into definite consideration. >> general jackson? >> air force stood up a director, and in these times, we are not doing this anywhere else, but the staff, regime maggie woodward is running that, and, of course, the chief's top priority, again, is to fix this. too many reports and instances, that we will fix it. within the rereceiver component -- reserve component, and active force, took a day to have the discussion and pushed out tools for commanders to use. that's what we are doing. >> very concerned about it, we had a stand down day throughout the marine corp, addressed all commanders enlisted, and i flew down to fort worth, texas to address the reserve component,

and we are stressing three things. first of all is a reemphasis on ethos training at every level, both in entry level trainings and continuing the pvs to, again, enlisted officers to talk about specific conduct, ethos of being a warrior, and treating everybody with fairness and dignity. we are looking at hardening the target, if you will, by getting supervision back in the barracks and reserve component side getting superviolations in place like hotels where they spend time during drill weekends to ensure that the proper level of supervision is there, a that you ensure that the folks that would come and do harm are identifieded quickly and separated just as quickly. >> all right. the navy? >> navy is doing the exact same thing as the marine corp. we're very much into the barracks, into the -- where the sailors are on drill weekends, and throughout the week.

we found that about 50% of the reports have to do with alcohol, and so we're pushing a campaign of keep what you own. you don't keep the ranks of what you own, and trying to curb the alcohol use and incidents we have, not only with sexual assault, with alcohol involvement, but duis, all of the misconduct that comes with too much alcohol, so i think that really, you know, we had done a number of stand downs in the navy and knave vie rereceiver, and so when this last -- navy reserve, and so when this last round of stand down, everyone really had the opportunity to realize, okay, this is my responsibility. every sailor knows that it's their responsibility to help turn this around, and every commander knows that it's their responsibility to help fix this, so i think that we finally have

gotten it down to the individual level to say not in my navy, not in my service, basically, it's i'm part of the solution to this, but i do think that alcohol is such a big factor in this that we really have to continue to push that responsible drinking is important if they are going to do that. that's really where the navy is right now. i do think the opportunity to get out into hotels is good, where our rereceivers are staying on drill weekends, i think that's important to do, and the good thing, i think, is that we're seeing increased reporting of events that happened years ago, months ago and years ago, and so i think that thoughs people are feeling more comfortable, standing up, and reporting what's happened. there's a lot of that past incident reporting right now. >> general andersen, army?

>> doing much the same thing as the other services. we had had a stand down, and i think there's a lot of enhanceed tools on the website devoted to this from the leaders to the senior level to company and detective level can utilize this their units. it's definitely the general's number one priority, and just to speak to the point, admiral brawn, the training at the locations, for the school for the young and old soldiers as well that we're all members of the team, respect one another, and if you see something, you need to say something, and that speaks to the increased reporting that people are comfortable, whether they have been a victim of harassment or assault and they know something's going on, and they have the responsibility to report it. >> national guard? >> a few months ago, the president called joint chiefs in with the senior enlisted and

secretaries to talk about this problem, and he wanted to understand it and what help could he provide defense to tackle this, and put his focus on it. sense that time, secretary hagel meets once a week with all the vices of the services, like my vices there, and he has a series of ctirs that he looks at. he gets briefed on the issues, at a ma crow level, and expects us to work below that level. we all are. it's a top priority. what we've done in the national guard is taken two hours out of every conference that we have now with the tags, and we do that once a quarter, and we bring in experts from the field to talk about the problem within the society, to talk about how that translates to the guardmen and women, and, also, what's happening within the court system, and how do we make an effective case out of some of the ones we may not be able to prosecute otherwise, and we are also doing a stand down across all army and army guard air

guard armories, and we have to have those reports back that everyone's been recertified as recruiters, medical professionals used, and everyone is briefed by the end of september we have to certify back. i will tell you that the hard part for us in the guard and not sure if the other reserve chiefs deal with the same issue, but the title 32 issue, state active duty if something occurs, and there's no ucmj in that state, we have to turn it over to local prosecutor, and i will tell you just as the chairman said, you turn -- if there's alcohol involved, a local prosecutor will not touch it. we have to use ucmj, and we push the states without a title 3 it 2ucmj to put it in place to prosecutor. we trained 71 special investigators so that if a prosecutor will to the take it, we will send someone not from the state or from the community out to do the investigation, and if nothing else, we go after it

if we can prove the, you know, victim -- or prove the case, administratively process for misstructure. >> right here. closing word? >> so you heard about a lot of headaches and positive opportunities, and here's the key. each and every one of you here today, in a represented democracy of this great nation, can make a difference both individually and collect ily. an example is our colleague from the commission on the guard and reserve, colonel don stockton, out there slaying the dragons every day keeping us honest. those are you in uniform, raise the issues through the command, there's opportunity for guard personnel to speak to the elected representatives. the people in this country have always made a difference, and so if you don't speak out, if you're not engaged, and you also have the tremendous talent, as you have seen on stage here

today, the military leaders of our guard and reserve, the finest group we've had in my 40-plus years of working these issues, they are carrying the fight every day in the building, and they need your support, and they need your active engagement, so the bottom line is, if we don't waese things to go in the wrong direction, each and every one of you can and should make a difference, so we thank you for being here. we thank you for giving us the opportunity to visit with you here this morning. don't with a stranger. let us hear from you. thank you very much. [applause] >> we have valuen thank you gifts from roa under the threshold. hold your seats after i hand them out because we have important notices we have to pose with you. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you for doing this. general andersen.

why is that bigger? [laughter] it's not a tiffany's box. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> general grass. come on, army, let's go. general grass, you recognize the uniform; right? >> thank you, sir. >> we have general mills, come on. all right, why don't you guys get it together? >> thank you. >> sir, thanks. >> general jackson. >> sir. good working with you. >> admiral. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. [applause] >> if you missed the program, see it in the c-span video library at c-span.org. well, president obama begins his summer vacation this weekend, but before he leaves, he's meeting with the press today at the white house. his news conference set for 3 p.m. eastern beginning with a statement, live coverage on our

companion network, c-span, and after the president's remarks, we open the phone lines to get your reaction. again, the president's news conference live at 3 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> what year did your father buy the post? >> in 1933. he had just got out of the government, been out about three weeks, governor of the federal reserve board, and he started the reconstruction finance corporation under hoover, and he stayed as federal reserve chairman for a little while under roosevelt, and then he resigned because he didn't like roosevelt's monetary policies, and he went to mount kisco. the post came up three weeks later for auction on the steps of the building, and he bought it anonymously.

>> what did he pay for it? >> $825,000. >> how many newspapers were there in washington then? >> they had five, and the post was fifth in the field of five, and so it had about 50,000 in a broken down building, and so he started in, and he thought -- he was a business businessman and e could turn around businesses, but he never had newspaper experience, and he encountered the most horrendous difficulties in fighting up, but he really did a terrific job starting with nothing. >> as well as the schedule, see the programs any time at booktv.org and get latest updates throughout the week. follow us on facebook and twitter.

>> congress is on break, we'll somehow you town hall meetings members are having in their town districts, they told constituents tuesday, he's for defunding obamacare, but not at the expense of a government shutdown, and he was asked about sequesteration, immigration, and the energy policy. this town hall in moore, oklahoma is about three hours. >> wow, magic. first of all, thank -- gosh, this was a bigger turn out than we usually get short of obamacare which was tumultuous.

thank you very much for taking the time in the middle of the day to come. so you know, c-span's here and media's here. you have to be aware of that. they are always nice to tell us, not that we tell you anything differently with a camera on. for those of you not being to one of these before, i'll quickly tell you how it works. normally, i spend five to ten minutes to say what i think is happening in washington, d.c., open it up for questions, any question at all is appropriate. we'll stay here until every question that you have is answered, and if for some reason we leave the facility, i'll hang around outside. don't worry you can't make your point or ask your question. if you got a particular issue, you know, might be a veterans' case or social security case, please, please, please make sure we get your contact data, we have staff here, in numerous places more than happy because we have to have privacy releases to work with you on those

things. if there's something that's private that you simply don't want to talk about in front of other people, that's fine too. i'll stay around afterwards, more than happy to visit with you about that. finally, for those of you, you know, we're in an unusual time in moore, this is my hometown. i live on briarwood, where i lived for 53 years, very proud of this community and how it's come together in a difficult time, but we have people from fema here as well, and as some of you know, if you have not registered -- where's pat at? back -- oh, there, back here, but they have done a phenomenal job trying to help our community through an exceptionally difficult time, had an opportunity to visit, you know, where the new schools are going, and, frankly, where the kids are going to be going to school and see the sites and visit with the superintendent yesterday and the city manager talking through it, and i know there's always issues and concerns, and we never get

it all right, but i must say we've seen a fair number of these things in the area, and this has been a really model program in terms of trying to help the community get up and operational again, but, again, time is of the essence here. if you have not recommendation steered and you have concern or need, please do that. i think august 19th is the last day, and i think they are trying to do it by the 15th, but we sort of closing up in the fema part will be gone. we'll be here to help and try to direct you, but don't let the opportunity slip by if you have a concern or question or got a friend or neighbor traumatized, displaced, and just hasn't, you know, been able to deal with this, please, let us know. we'll get them some help as we try to get through the tough thing. okay. let me quickly talk to you about what's going on in washington, and, usually, when i'm coming into one of these meetings, somebody's really nice and says, hey, congressman, how is it going in washington, and the stock answer is, just as bad as

you think it is, and there are, you know, there are some difficult times and some really contentious issues right now that i'm sure we'll talk about them. let me -- i would say there's the good, the bad, and the ugly to bar an old clint eastwood line. there's good things because good things have happened. most of the bush tax cuts in january made permanent for every american, that was 85% of the tax cuts for 98% of the american people was compromised, not a complete deal, but there's a democratic senate, democratic president, republican house so you have to -- nobody's going to get everything they want. you know, we had a big fight, a discussion over sandy relief for the north eastern part of the united states. the passage of that legislation is what's happening us in moore right now because it refilled the disaster, fema disaster fund, and that's what's spent tens of millions of dollars to help people here in shawnee and oklahoma city through this, and it will continue to help, so

that was actually pretty good. the government could have shut down in march. it didn't. there was a bipartisan compromise, and they extended funding through the end of seventh. we had some call violence against women act, like anybody's for violence against women, but a contentious issue, but it was passed helping those in a violent situation. this past week, we passed a -- for those of you with kids in college or have student loans yourself, that problem got fixed in a bipartisan compromise. actually, republican congress, democratic president, and in one of the more contentious issues to talk about today, national security agency. you had a republican house, majority of them, supporting a democratic president against the majority of the democratic members so don't think there's not some flexibility on those issues when you debate them and discuss them. there sometimes is. that's the good. what's the bad? well, one other good thing, kind of good, kind of bad.

you know, two years ago, two and a half years ago, a new congress, republican congress, took office, the budget deficit about $1.4 trillion a year. now, it's down to about 650 to 77 # 00 billion, came down a lot, but that's an extraordinarily high deficit with further attention and that'll be contentious in the years ahead. the bad part is congress has not got all the work done by a long shot. ..