you will learn a lot, you will better be able to put yourself in other people's shoes, meaning, you know, empathize with their position, what they're going through as well as learn from them. so communicate, that's written, that's verbal, and it's very important to be an active listener as you go through your career. number six is be a role model for the way you want others to behave be. and that means on the job. and, by the way, it means off duty as well as far as i'm concerned. this is particularly important the higher up you go because the higher up you go people will recognize you in your profession. they will, you know, be watching you. they'll be watching your movements and how you talk to people and how you conduct yourself in your private life. so always keep that in mind. and in the air force, we have what we call our core values; integrity, service and excellence. i think those are pretty good core values really no matter what your organization is. integrity and service and

excellence. so be that role model always. which is very closely related to lesson learned number seven, ethics. the importance of ethics. and by the way, one of the things that has kept me very busy this the last three months -- in the last three months was a major failure of integrity, our core value number one. it occurred in our missile community, the icbm community, and i'll just take a minute now to talk about this. it gets down to ethics. and this was a cheating situation that occurred. and by the way, it grew out of a drug investigation. and cell phones were confiscated as part of this drug investigation, and in the forensic analysis of the cell phones, it was discovered that those who are in the mess sill community and -- missile in community and are in charge of our icbm nuclear weapons had cheated on a proficiency test which i think i was two or three

weeks on the job when this came to the light, came to our attention at the senior levels. and the first thing i asked was, holy cow, does this mean that the people who are in charge of our nuclear weapons are not proficient be, that they had to cheat on a test to get by? so first of all, let me answer that question and reassure all of you. the answer is -- [laughter] yeah. the answer is, the nuclear mission is safe and secure, and it's covered. there were many reasons why this happened. the number one reason why this cheating happened was a failure of beingty. because, by the way, some of them actually cheated, but then there was this other group who knew about it and didn't do anything. they sort of said it's knot my business. -- it's not any business. i don't want to be a snitch. i don't want to tell. i'm just going to let it go by. so there were sort of two categories of people, and they both failed in integrity as far as i'm concerned. so this is the importance of

ethics, the importance of living those ethics as well as if you see something in your environment, personal integrity requires you to do something about it. and this is where there was failures on the part of the missile community. so we're still working through that. but the nuclear mission is safe and secure. i do want to, i do want to assure you of that. but as part of this, we are doubling down in the air force on the matter of ethics, core values. because whether it comes to people misbehaving with government funds or whether it comes down to sexual assault, there are many other ways where people fail in their integrity, some people do. the vast majority of people don't, but some people do. and so we're doubling down to headache sure that we remind everybody -- we make sure that we remind everybody at all times how important ethics is. number eight is be upbeat. my mother used to say nobody likes a debbie downer, pick it up here. this is important if you're an individual contributor. you know, no boss is going to

like to hear about nonstop problems unless you also can offer some solutions. now, there you've got something if you you've got that. and if you're the boss, you've got to help people work through that problem and show silver linings. if you can't see your way clear, your people won't either. so be upbeat as a leader as well as as an individual contributor. number nine, persistence pays off. it really does. paid off for me. i told you i had seven jobs at saic. some of them were re-orgs, and they weren't so welcomed. oh, can i really do this again? you know what? i was persistent, and then the next job was really the best job of all, and that's really been the story of my life. persistence really does pay off. i'm certain it's going to pay off for our air force. we've got tough budget times ahead. again, we've got some issues, personnel issue, i've already mentioned some of them.

but we're going to be persistent about them, and there's going to be persistent leadership and focus, and that's going to pay off as well. and the number ten lesson learned is along the way make sure that you have fun in your life, make sure that you love your family, that you love your friends, that you have some hobbies outside of the workplace or that you enjoy your church or that you get involved with your neighborhood. whatever it may be, make sure that a you do that -- that you do that for yours as well. be along the way of my 33-year career, i'm very proud to tell you i did raise two children. at times i was a single parent, i would also tell you, so it's not an easy deal. but be i raised two children who are now 29 and 28, which is pretty incredible suns i'm only 39 myself. [laughter] but anyway, they grow up on you awful fast, awful fast, so enjoy them while they're young. really enjoy them throughout the entire period. i also have a wonderful husband

who is not my first husband, but he's a wonderful husband, and we're still newlyweds, actually with, we've been married just about a year now. and now that the kids are grown up, i actually have a couple of hobbies that i'm working on. i'm not saying i'm great at them, but i'm working at them, and i'm enjoying them. so it is important to have that balanced life. you'll be happier for it. and if anybody has read the book "lean in," which i've read, it's a good book. it's an interesting book. i, of course, you look at these things and think did i do it that way or should i have done it that way, but i took some good pointers from it. there's also been an article of late which is called "lean back" which a little bit takes the opposite view that we're so busy all the time multitasking and trying to be super women and do everything all at once, it's absolutely exhausting. and to there are times -- so there are times why don't we just a little bit more lean back.

so we've got lean in, and we've got lean back, and i'm going to give you a third. i'm into the rock and roll. i think you've got to do -- [laughter] i think you've got to do a little bit of all of that, and you've got to be able to tweak it up or down depending on where you are in your life, what's happening with the family and all of the other factors that comes into play. that's pretty much as i look back i didn't call it rock and roll, but that's pretty much the way that i did it. and all the while that my children were young, i will also tell you that i had very definite priorities. and my priorities were, you know, the kids and my husband and my job. my priorities were not cooking and cleaning and those sorts of things. there are times you just don't sweat the small stuff or the smaller stuff. so if there was dust bunnies around my house, who cared? who cared? so what if we didn't have gourmet, you know, cooking because i wasn't that good, i

was a simple cook. things like that. i just didn't care. i wanted to do my job, i would come home, i would focus on the kids, and that was sort of the way i balanced. but i will tell you my kids are grown now. i'm not sure i could be secretary of the our force and do a good job of it if i had young children at this stage. so there you go with there are times to lean in, there are times to lean back, and the way i would put it, it's a little bit of rock and roll. as i mentioned in the beginning, for me it's always about people. whatever sector you work in, if you take care of the people that you lead, if you give them information, if you listen to them, you will be amazed at what you can accomplish together. i know that i have been throughout my tenure, through the all my different jobs, and i'm certainly amazed now by our airmen that i'm so privileged to serve alongside. so i want to stop at this point and thank you very much again for the invitation and thank you

all for what you are doing in your own organizations to try to present a much more inclusive national security realm for women and men. so thank you. [applause] >> all right. [inaudible conversations] >> well, thank you very much for that personal touch at the end and sharing your top ten list. i think in particular the notion of zigzagging and rock and

rolling is a notion that is well taken. i'd like to open to it up. we have about 10, 15 minutes for questions. please identify yourself, keep your questions brief, and we'll take two the or three at the same time. yes, please. >> thank you very much for speaking to us today, secretary james. i really appreciate it, and i'm sure all the people here can say thank you very much for your insight, your top ten. as a rock and roll fan, lovely. [laughter] my name is dr. laura court, and i actually have two questions. my first question is about education and integration. are you aware that the air war college only has two with women on faculty, and i was wondering if there are any initiatives to address that issue. and my second question is i'm one of six published academics in terrorist radicalization, terrorist rehabilitation and engage bement, and i was curious

if you saw the military maybe researching these programs more as other countries have adopted these as part of their national security strategy? thank you so much. >> [inaudible] >> hi, thank you, secretary james. i'm tamara crouse, i'm an aeroforce civilian, but i have the flexibility to work a long week and have every other friday off. i always appreciate wiis programs. i was excited when you talked about the intermission program. i am about your age, but i was older in life, and i have a 1-year-old. is that -- 13-year-old. and i was wondering if is that going to be opened up to air force civilians? >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> absolutely. >> at the moment, it is not open -- [inaudible] but that's an idea.

so thank you for that. as far as the air war college, no many, i did not know that there are only two women on the faculty, so that's another one where you've just given me an idea here. so i don't have an immediate answer to that, but that doesn't seem like a very good representation. and i will also say i'm not familiar with the research that you talked about on terrorist, you said terrorist -- >> deradicalization. >> deradicalization, yes. i'm also not familiar with that. is that going on at the air war college at all? >> no, not that i'm aware of. >> would you send me a paper on that? do you have like a published paper on that? yeah. i would be interested in reading it because i'm just not familiar with it. >> yes. >> oh, it's off. sorry. there we go. is that better?

[inaudible conversations] >> here. >> hello, ma'am. am i hot? >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> a little levity there. my name is karen, and you had mentioned one of the three main reasons for air force women departing the service is that mid-career level which is the driver of not having enough senior leaders, if you will, at the senior level. so given that imbalance between females and males, how do you handle conflict and conflict management at that level with your male peers while still maintaining those critical coalitions and relationships? >> okay. and then, ellen? [inaudible conversations] >> hi, ellen herring, i'm here with wiis' senior fellow with

the combat integration initiative, and i'm very familiar with the air force's plan to open the remaining almost 5,000 positions to women. i'm a little concerned about the fact that you're taking off three years to potentially open those which means you won't actually see women in these elite positions for another three years because the pipeline so long. so we want to actually see women getting those elite positions until about 2018. i don't know why or i don't understand why the air force is talking the full three years suns you've only got a few -- since you've only got a few remaining positions that are closed, but they are those positions with long pipelines, and you're losing women today who are interested in those positions. some have joined wiis, and i heard from one last week that said i'm fed up with waiting for these positions to open. she wants to be a forward air controller, she can't, it's a come watt position in the air force, and it just seems like why are we waiting so long to open those positions. i'm just curious if you could

speed that up or put pressure on the service to make changes sooner or faster. >> well, i think we should see if we can speed it up. that, of course, is the deadline. if we can do it faster, you're right, why not? so let me take that back, and let me see if we can speed it up. the gender-neutral standards, again, i know from my time it's proving to be a difficult thing particularly for the marine corps, i think more particularly for the arm. maybe less so for the air force to. so let me try to take that back and see if there is a way to speed it up. as far as the question on how do we do sort of conflict resolution, you're talking broadly, or are you just talking military to military? >> broad. >> just broadly i where we have fewerrer women at the senior levels -- fewer women at the senior levels. i think, my opinion, i think women are actually very good at conflict resolution. i think it goes to that

listening skill that women tend to have somewhat better. i think it also goes to those empathy skills that i talked about. it goes to the importance of competence. if you're going to get to that level, you better know your stuff. so, again, i think the challenge is how do we get more women graduated into these senior career areas. and as i mentioned, that's one of the things that i'm trying to work on in my realm in the air force. >> yes, please. here, sara. yeah. we'll go behind you. >> oh, okay. mary karnes, and i'm in the arab arab -- air force qdr office, and i recently graduated from maxwell air force base, and i did my research on a diversity-related topic that included a case study on the women in combat. and one of the things i found in my research there and as i'm continuing now on my

dissertation is that not everyone sees the value in focusing on diversity. and what would you say is the way that you're able to convince people, i've heard you speak about diversity as a diversity of thought and in broad terms, how are you able to convince the other senior leaders around you when you're mostly looking at males to believe in it the same way that you do? >> so i think many people will buy into the diversity of thought. it's when you get into the diversity of gender, ethnicity then some people say, oh, what are you doing, are you trying to put quotas there and so forth? but to me, it's all diversity of thought. we all come from different backgrounds. so i think times are changing in this regard. i think most senior people now days do believe in diversity, and most are trying to get there from here. it's particularly difficult, i think, in the world of the uniformed military just because there are these gates that must be filled.

at least under the current system they must be filled. i mentioned some of them. it's command, it's professional military education at certain levels, it is a variety of different things that you just simply can't grow a kernel in five years, you know? you've got to have 20 some years to grow a kernel. it's that kind of thing. in the civilian world, i think there's more opportunity to skip, if you will, in other words to leapfrog depending on what you've done in your background and whether people are willing to take a chance on you. but i i do see kind of a sea change in people at least believing in the concept of diversity, particularly diversity of thought which i think includes gender, earth thinksty and the ore forms -- the other forms of diversity. >> we had a question behind you. >> yes, ma'am, i'm with the joint staff, strategy and policy for asia. i last year i was at the kennedy school, and i add a research project in which i looked at leadership's role in mental

health for the service. the statistics have remained pretty much the same despite our 900 activities that we have offered to service members and their families, and i was curious as to what initiatives at the air force may implement over the next few years that really energize leadership to take ownership and responsibility for their people at the lowest levels all the way through the ranks. >> on mental health, you say. >> on mental health issues, yes, ma'am. >> okay. >> one more round, yes? next. >> my name is -- [inaudible] and i dearly enjoyed secretary james' enlightening talk. and i'm just trying to share and get some insight from you that coming from a pashtun background ending up in arlington, virginia, having mix of

linguistic and computer science skills with the experience of teaching at university level and having raised three children like a single parent, i am left on my own now since all of them are grown up and married and wondered how can i be in the right place where i can apply my skills, experiences as a woman for a greater cause having gone new all this zigzagged ip equalities -- inequalities and unknowns? >> right. right, okay. >> okay, one more question. last one there. [laughter] >> be hi, i'm janine jacob, w 3-d, and i'm an innovation strategist at booz allen. we have talked about a lot of really wicked problems. gender equality, national security in a time of decreasing budgets. if there's ever a time for innovation, this is it.

what is the strategy of the air force to get the best ideas from the middle and from the bottom and service those up to the top? >> okay. now, among other -- among my many nontalents is remembering things, so you'll help me remember. the first one, i know, had to do with mental health, so let me go back to that one. if there's one area of mental health that i'm most interested in, i'm most concerned about sort of across the board, it's the area of ptsd, and it's to the extent that bleeds over into the worst of all which is suicide. so we've been tracking suicide rates pretty heavily in the our force, ask i'm quite certain that's -- and i'm quite certain that's the case for the army, the marines and the navy, and is forth. and there's both sort of good, encouraging news, but there's not so ebb couraging news. for example be, the encouraging part of it is, you know, if you look attatistics -- and any decide is terrible, and even one is too many -- but if you look

at statistics and compare it to the civilian world and so forth, we've been running fairly consistently i want to say between 2-4% of the suicide rate. again, too high, but when you compare to some of the other, when you compare the other services, you know, it's not too bad. and it's been kind of consistent. i think we have quite a good program as a community-based program. i've reviewed it. it sounds pretty good to me, and commanders talk about these matters regularly, today bring in what are called the helping agencies regularly. they have airmen wingmen days where they talk about taking care of one another and worrisome signs for air force people to be on the lookout for. but it's not good enough. now, the not so good part of the story is we have seen a bit of an uptick at the first part of this year. what's going on there? i'm not sure. i've said is it seasonal, is it this, is it that?

not exactly sure, but it's worrisome, and we have to keep our eye on it. the number one reason, it turns out, it's not so much ptsd relateed, it's more relationship issues. so it's the breakup of a marriage or difficulties with children or something of this nature. it tends to be relationship based. the other thing i will say isty stigmatizing generally mental health issues is something we all have to work on. and i think we're making progress. more to go, but i think we have made progress where people are probably more comfortable today -- still not comfortable enough, but more comfortable -- coming forward and asking for help. and, again, i totally believe the commanders out there in the field, they want to help people. you know, they don't want bad things to happen and for mental health issues to spin out of control. but it's destigmatizing that, it's getting people comfortable coming forward. now, you were saying -- have you opinion out of work for the for

a while? you say you raised your children, and now you're looking for a way to rock and roll again, lean if a little bit. >> [inaudible] >> right. >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> [inaudible] >> it's like starting from scratch. >> [inaudible] >> right. so one way, i didn't talk about this at all, but one way particularly if you've had different changes, if you've taken years off and so forth be, one way is to find an organization where you might one day like to work and volunteer there just to get your foot in the door. that's one way. >> [inaudible] >> yep. >> [inaudible] >> right. >> yeah. i think persistence here, that's one of your goals. >> your network, right? these are all the things --

>> and being upbeat about it. and not let yourself be down. i think maybe the last question is a big question, it's about how do you stimulate creativity. you yourself have said we need to be creative in this challenging environment -- >> yes. >> -- and world. so how do you do that in an institution like the air force? >> so one way you can do it, and i'm giving you examples of things we've tried, and i'd like to try it in other areas, is you ask the airmen directly for some ideas. so we've had a campaign going on for some time now. our vice chief of staff led are it; it's called every dollar counts. so here we are in a world of very tight budgets, we're worried that we can't make ends meet, and yet periodically you hear about terrible waste and stupid things that just waste money left and right. so, you know, the senior people a lot of this stuff doesn't even come to your attention until it blows up and it hits the newspapers. so how do we get people at the

front line to identify smarter ways of doing things and propose those up the line so that we have a chance of implementing them? so that was sort of the pitter of every dollar points -- counts. spirit of every dollar counts. people have responded. doesn't mean you can implement them all, sometimes they don't understand the full framework, but we've come up with several, and it's a way of starting. i want to start another campaign. i call it stop doing stuff. [laughter] that's not a catchy title, we'll look for another title, but i call it stop doing stuff. we're getting smaller as an air force, and yet we don't ever seem to stop doing anything. i'm not talking about the five core missions that i told you about, but there's always kinds of ancillary things that we do. inspections and training of this sort and the other. and some of that is crucial, but i'm convinced it's not all crucial. and sometimes when you say, well, why are we doing that?

well, we've been doing that since the year 1975. but why are we doing it? people can't even sometimes remember why we started doing some of the things we do. so i'd like to start a campaign, and i'm working on this, stop doing stuff. so if anybody's got a better title, by the way, i'm open. [laughter] that would be my -- you ask the airmen directly, you look to the other services. what are they doing? i told you about the career intermission program. got that idea basically from the navy. so let's not have pride of authorship these days. >> well, please join me in thanking secretary james. [applause] >> thank you. >> for being so open and frank, sharing some of your personal stories, and we'll launch a contest on the twitter to get you a better title. >> thank you. thank you. [laughter] thanks so much.

knox to knox. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ..

the mental-health system and how he tried to have his son committed but couldn't find a place to take his son. we will have his life at one eastern on c-span2. the u.s. senate meets today at 2 p.m. eastern. eastern. they debate about the length medicare cuts to doctors. at 5:30 p.m. eastern they will vote on that and a judicial nomination. after the votes senators plan to consider extending long-term unemployment insurance. the house is not in session today. they return to more to consider aid to ukraine and sanctions on russia. live senate coverage on c-span2. the house on c-span.

>> april is sexual assault awareness month in the u.s. army. last week, army secretary john mchugh and army chief of staff general ray odierno spoke about this year's theme, a voice unheard is an army if you. over the next month army leaders will focus on raising awareness of sexual violence and educate leaders on how to prevent it. this is about half an hour. >> thank you, sir. ladies and gentlemen, you may take your seats. at the time i'd like to welcome to the podium dr. christine altendorf, director of the army's sexual harassment and assault response and prevention office for a few opening remarks. dr. altendorf. >> good morning. it's my pleasure to welcome each wanted you to the ceremony to

cocom sexual assault awareness month. sexual assault awareness month was first observed nationally in april 2001. the goal is to raise public awareness about sexual violence and educate communities and individuals on how to prevent sexual assault. although the army governments a robust sexual harassment and assault response and prevention program year-round, today's event, sexual assault awareness month our opportunities for all leaders to place greater emphasis on the sharp program, raise awareness, promote action and encourage survivors to come forward. it is the responsibility of every leader, soldier, civilian and contractor to set the conditions for a positive command climate based on prevention, education, bystander intervention, victim support and accountability. only by working together as a sacred as cohesive force will we be able to attain an army free

of sexual assault where individuals can achieve their full potential, and for america's sons and daughters can served with dignity and respect. mr. secretary, general odierno, sergeant major chandler, thank you for your participation in today's event. the priority of this issue is very a parent by the fact that the three of you are here together during this extremely busy time of the year, expressing the importance of eliminating sexual assault from the army. under your leadership we've been able to accomplish much within the past year, but they're still more work to do. i'm convinced that if every individual does their part, then we will achieve a climate where sexual harassment and assaults are not allowed to occur. if it does, then the victims will be taken care of and offenders will be held accountable. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, ma'am. ladies and gentlemen, my pleasure and honor to introduce the army's 14th sergeant

leader of the army, ray chandler. [applause] >> well, good morning, everyone, and a special welcome to secretary, chief, under, vice, general, officers, sergeants, majors, department of the army, civilians and anybody who really cares about combating sexual harassment and assault are thanks for being here with us. i appreciate the opportunity to share a few comments about today's, about the army's ongoing efforts to root out sexual assault from our ranks. achieve has passed and stated pray that it's the responsibility that all of us shared, but the change agent in this effort is our armies noncommissioned officer corps. and lastly challenge every noncommissioned officer in the army to own this issue and to move out. over the past year i've been encouraged by what i've seen. noncommissioned officers taking

charge and holding each other, and their subordinates, accountable to ensure that the sharp program is influenced successfully across the board. there's been a change in attitude in our young people over the last year, and many of the town hall forums i participate in over a year ago, you would be lucky if you found less than 24% of the audience that would say i would trust my first line leader to come forward with an issue. that dynamic has changed over the last year. where more and more soldiers feel the element of trust is essential to our army, between themselves and their leader, and eventually from my perspective how we're going to solve this challenge, as the leader to the lead level. where soldiers are responsible for looking out and caring for one another. they don't need to try and solve the army problem. our soldiers only need to solve the problem between them and their battle buddy, and that is to be accountable to one another 24 hours a day, seven days a

week. and when something occurs to be that person of character and to step forward and report. i believe, as -- that are noncommissioned officer are fulfilling their duties. and their duties. do we have the way to go? your. sure we do. but we are making efforts each and every day to ensure that the army's profession is understood by one another that character counts, and it's what you do and when no one is looking to that commitment to one another, their you know, the army and ultimately the nation, is fulfilled each and every day. and, finally, confidence. doing your job and doing it well. that is what our professional responsibility is. to one another, to the nation, and we will overcome what i believe has become a cancer, but we are slicing that out and we're going to ensure that are noncommissioned officers uphold their duty. we've got our task, our purpose, we know what the nstic is and we

will accomplish our mission. at this time i'd like to take a moment to give special recognition to one of the ncos who is making a difference in the lives of soldiers and the level of trust the american people have in our army. are sexual assault response coordinator for the year is master sergeant richard fry. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated for the publishing of the orders. the meritorious service medal is presented to richard fry for sexual meritorious service while serving as the sexual assault response coordinator for the 18th engineer brigade in germany from 28 may 2013 to 31 december 2013.

master sergeant frog was the driving force behind the sexual-harassment assault response and prevention program of his brigade and in leading his community toward achieving -- his loyalty and dedication to the success of the mission contributed immensely to the service members and family members of the 18th engineer brigade. master sergeant price distinct actions reflect great credit upon himself, the united states army europe, the united states army, and the department of defense, signed howard bromberg, lieutenant general, deputy chief of staff. [applause] >> at this time a plaque is been present to master sergeant fry, and it reads, department of the army 2014 exceptional sexual assault response coordinator of the year.

master sergeant richard fry, 18th engineer brigade, united states army europe. thank you, thank you. thank you for your service, sergeant. [applause] >> thank you so much. >> ladies and gentlemen, at this time i am pleased to welcome our 38th chief of staff of the army, general ray odierno. sir. [applause] >> good morning. it's great to see so much of the leadership here. i want to thank everyone for coming today as we kick off sexual assault awareness month. it really is an important opportunity for us to have a discussion about what we all designate as the army's top priority, combating sexual assault, sexual harassment. first off, nasser sergeant fry, thank you for your leadership. what you've shown us, that's what it's going to take.

it's about leaders, about leaders taking control and about as helping to change the mindset and a culture in order for us to do with this problem so want to thank you very much for that. sector of the army thank you for your leadership it has always sergeant major, thank you dr. altendorf, thank you very much as well. i truly appreciate and also want to congratulate undersecretary of the army carson. congratulations, sir. i think it's the first day on the job and we're glad to have you. welcome. [applause] vice, thank you for being here, many leaders here, i'm not going and in all but i want to thank everyone for being here your for me it's reprehensible, and they should be anyone who wears this uniform, that any soldier threatens or assault a member of the army family. so fellow army soldiers and civilians on and off duty, on and off post, these crimes have

been perpetrated by all drank some very senior officers to young privates. these crimes destroy the lives of individuals, the readiness of our force for war, and threaten the very core of our institution and the army profession. we also know about this insider threat, and because survivors have had the courage to come forward and report the crimes against them. just in one year, from 2012 to 2013, we saw 51% increase in reported sexual assaults. and over 10% of these reports that were over a year old. i believe that's starting to show confidence that the army is taking this seriously. that the chain of command is taking this seriously. the credibility of our

institution is at stake. we must continue to build confidence in our soldiers. we must continue to build confidence in our military justice system. i believe that a significant majority of our leaders are doing the right thing every day. i believe that the chain of command is essential to changing the culture and instilling discipline across the ranks. i also believe that the uniform code of military justice, when implemented properly, is the best tool possible to prosecute offenders and protect survivors. because it allows the commander to take actions beyond that of civilian courts, to prosecute both sexual assault and harassment. on or off post. or any deployed status. sexual assault is first and foremost about leadership. we will not be able to solve

this problem until every officer, from platoon leader to 4-star general, go and every noncommissioned officer from sergeant to command sergeant major leagues cultural change throughout our formations. i continue to challenge every army leader and every army leader here today, and every leader across our army, down to the squad level, gather your people together in small groups and talk about what this problem looks like in every command. in every you know, on every post. across our army. we have the tools and resources available. we have dedicated trainers and personnel that are passionate about solving this problem. the army is known for its training, and the strength of its noncommissioned officer corps in leading change across our force.

we will not succeed in getting after this problem with powerpoint slides, or briefings with large formations of mandatory training. but we will succeed when every leader, no matter where you work, no matter what your job is, takes ownership of this problem. let me close by reminding everyone that there is nothing more important to the strength of our army than trust. trust doing soldiers, trust between soldiers and their leaders, and trust between army and the american people. trust is essential to train and prepare every soldier for their mission. it's a center to accomplish our objectives in the chaos of war, but it's also about trust between the army and the american public. every act of sexual assault and sexual harassment violates that trust.

we cannot and we will not tolerate this threat to our own. the credibility of the profession of arms is based upon the competence at which we do our job. the commitment we have to our you know, our fellow soldiers and army civilians, and each of us having the character to defend that army every single day. the army must lead the way in addressing these crimes, or it risks losing the trust of the american people have in our great institutions. the american people expect us to lead. they know if anybody can solve this problem, we can. they expect us to. we must take on this responsibility. so everyone of us, commanders, command sergeant major, department of the army, civilian leaders and personnel, and every soldier in u.s. army must take action.

everyone of us as a choice to intervene, to, and motivate others to prevent assaults. don't tolerate harassment, and change our culture. i'm incredibly proud to wear this uniform. i'm incredibly proud to be in this great army. i appreciate the psycho vices and successes that we have, and continue to have every day around the world. i believe this is the greatest institution in the world. but we can't just say it and believe it. we have to earn it. we must earn this through repeated actions, big and small, consistent with our values. and when someone inside our institution arises another member or a tax another member of our family, it is our family, the army, who is best able to

respond. we must never forget that. i want to thank everyone for being here today, for your tireless efforts. hopefully this week, this month will help us to rededicate ourselves, bring awareness to what we are trying to achieve. and to eradicate this problem from our ranks. the strength of our nation is our army, the strength of our army are our soldiers. the strength of our soldiers are our families. and that's what makes us army strong. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, sir. i know i can speak for all of us when i say we appreciate your comments and more important her commitment to combating this issue and by making it the army's number one priority. last but not least like to extend a special warm will contort 21st secretary of the

army, the honorable john mateo -- john mchugh. >> thank you. good morning. chief, thanks for your great leadership, your inspiring words and your partnership. sergeant major, i appreciate all you do each and every day. after all, dorf, always great to be with you. so many army leaders, vice chief of staff, acting secretary bob spear, surgeon general, many, many others. i would be remiss if i didn't say a special word of thanks and welcome to the army's newest civilian employee, the 31st under sector of the army, brad cook. brad, great to see. i had the opportunity, honor choose where brad in last night at about 5:30. that's 1730 for most of you people.

[laughter] we are very fortunate that he is here, and i know he shares our common commitment to our purpose here today. we shown a little army flexibility this morning. this was originally scheduled to be outside. march decided to reward more like the proverbial lion and the lamb, so here we are inside. but one of our point, the gathering as the chief mention it's about april, and april is truly a month that symbolizes the change of seasons and what we hope, particularly this year as the finer end to the harshness, the cruelty of winter. when you think about it, that's really why we are here today. not only to mark april as the recognition of sexual assault awareness month, but to reaffirm our own commitment to change, a change of culture, and to renew

our efforts to finally, at long last, put a to end to the scourge of sexual assault within our ranks. i've said it before. i know all of you recognize it, too. each and every day. the vast majority, overwhelming number of soldiers and civilians in this army discharge their duties with integrity. they do it with competence, and particularly a profound respect for their comrades in arms. but as secretary hagel has said, sexual assault is a stain on the honor of the millions of men and women, and a threat to the discipline and cohesion of our force. and as we have seen to clearly in newspaper headlines across the country, and in congressional hearings the chief and i took part in just this past week, dishonor, even if by a few, really reflects on us

all. and together, all of us have that responsibility to exhibit the leadership and the commitment to intervene and, of course, most of all, to act. as troubling as the scourge of sexual assault is to our army, as has been noted, we have made progress takes to people such as you. we have done it, yes, but not just by fighting back. the chief mention the areas of progress we've encouraged and are seeing great reporting, and victims are coming forward, are showing that they have increasing trust in command, and they are doing in greater numbers than ever before. and as the chief also said, a growing number of those reports come from years past am often starting before surface in the united states army. and that does tell us that conceal more confident.

they are beginning to believe that they should report these crimes. and when they do, they will be taken seriously, and the the commanders will follow up and act upon them as they should. we are doing better in other ways. our special victim investigation course is a dod best practice. we have been trading military investigators and prosecutors, not just for ourselves. we're doing it for all the services. we are ensuring the right training for those by having them credentialed to the dod sexual assault prevention and response officer and sharp pilots will house. we're going to expand upon those kind of requirements ourselves and give them even more knowledge and skills and abilities. we have enhanced the if i wish and reporting system to assess how officers and ncos are meeting their commitment. ultimately, holding him accountable through mandatory

comments and how those leaders are acting to foster climates of dignity and respect and, most of all, how they're discharging their duties with respect to their adherents to our sharp program. we have enacted stringent criteria and background checks for those serving in areas of particular trust, including the a's. that is going to better ensure the commanders have the opportunity and know that it is their responsibility to select those who are best suited for those vital positions, not just who may be available. and we see today firsthand, we are getting the right people for this vital job. when he was the commander of -- then lieutenant colonel george marshall was asked how we soldiers he could spare for the sewing conservation corps, a new

deal project, and like so many other things in this building it was placed under the oversight of the army, and he said quote, leave my posts urgent, my commissary officer, my post a change officer and my adjutant. i'll run this command with sergeants. that's history lik it's true to. time and time again we were have relied upon our nco corps to provide the critical leadership to bring that culture, to extend the understanding of army values into our ranks. always taking on the most pressing challenges. and today, as sergeant major noted, that's no different. so to master sergeant fry, particularly, sir, my personal congratulations on being selected our sergeant of you. thank you for your service, and most of all thank you for helping us make a difference. thank you. [applause]

>> well, we talked about some of the initiatives programs and policy changes we've enacted to fight the good fight. that's just really a star startf our obligation. because as the chief noted, programs, policies, flip charts alone simply aren't going to do it. that's what leadership is about. changing the culture. constructing an environment of trust, and enduring respect. ensuring the safety of every soldier, man or woman, whatever the duty may call them. now, the army isn't alone in this challenge but, in fact, this observation, sexual assault awareness month as dr. altendorf noted, it shall be part of a nationwide observance, taking its roots back some 40 years to the take back the night marches

that at the time were intended to raise public awareness on this pressing issue. and that seems particularly fitting to me today because we are calling on you to take back your army. to take back your army from those who harm or assault our soldiers, america's sons and america's daughters. to take back your army from those who ignore the values and who spent all of our army. take back our army from those who failed to lead, those who fail to uphold our laws as well as our regulations. this isn't a challenge limited to a single month. the army will only get better with each and every one of us, each and every one of us considers its a critical and a daily mission. the good news is, i'm confident. i know with your help, with your leadership, we are getting it

there, we are making progress, and with your continued efforts we are going to do even better. we owe it to them, those who put on the uniform. we owe it to the american people, those folks who look up to this army because of the bedrock of values upon which it was built. most of all, we owe it to ourselves. so thank you for being here and god bless you all. [applause] >> sir, thank you for your powerful words and a dedication to making the army a better place to live and serve. ladies and gentlemen, please stand for the benediction and remain standing for the army song as this concludes today's ceremony. >> today is the deadline for signing up for coverage on the governments health care website. we want to hear what you have to say about it. go to our facebook page,

facebook.com/cspan. is a couple comments already posted. no more coverage denied on the basis of preexisting conditions. thank you, mr. obama. and, forced to pay under threat of fine. gee, i thought we lived in america. >> last year virginia state senator creed deeds was stabbed by his son who then committed suicide. senator deeds will get the national press club to talk about the mental health system and how we tried to have his son committed but couldn't find a place to take his son to will have senator deeds live at want eastern here on c-span2. the u.s. senate meets today at 2 p.m. eastern. a debate that no deadline medicare cuts to doctors. at 5:30 p.m. eastern they will vote on that and the judicial nomination. after the votes senators plan to consider extending long-term

unemployment insurance. the house is not in session today. i return tomorrow to consider aid for ukraine and sanctions on russia. live senate coverage on c-span2. the house on c-span. >> an advisory panel released a report recently on the safety of u.s. nuclear stockpiles, concluding that the national nuclear security administration needs to be reformed if the advisory panels co-chairs testified before the house armed services committee for about an hour and a half. >> this theory of the strategic forces subcommittee will come to order. i wanted the ability for being here and say hello to our witnesses. appreciate you being and taking the time to prepare for this hearing. i know this takes a lot of time but it matters to us but it makes a big difference and we appreciate you.

today's topic, well, those of all the subcommittee work for the past several years, governance and management problems at the department of energy. and specifically the national nuclear security administration. today will hit about the ongoing work of the advisory panel on the governance of nuclear security enterprise. this advisory panel was graded by the fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization act to take a look at the long-standing problems within our nuclear system, nuclear security enterprise, system of management and oversight. our witnesses today on the testing which co-chairs of that panel, admiral richard meese, u.s. navy retired, and mr. norman augustine, former chairman and ceo of lockheed martin i want to thank you both for your service and for being here i understand that has been will focus on the panels on efforts today and provide us with the confidence of the stations of the challenges we are facing. this subcommittee has been looking into these problems for quite a long time but i believe

you will help us clarify and set the problems in what efforts to remedy them have failed. integrating this advisory panel congress highlighted that quote it is a widespread recognition that the current system for congress mission and oversight the nuclear security enterprise is broken, closed quote. as the fy '13 countries stay, congress believes quote status quo is not working and most not be continued. and that changes in the margins are not a solution. recognizing the nuclear security enterprise is broken and previous efforts for the reform has failed congress looks to us to your panel's final report for innovative solutions to these long-standing problems. such solutions must not be dependent upon personalities or individuals to be successful and must not repeat the mistakes of the past. for this and let's ensure we all leader with a full complete understanding of the magnitude and complexity of the issues facing enterprise as well as a national study compared a be

getting this right. thank you again to the witness. i look forward to discussion and with that i would like to turn it over to the ranking member, my friend from tennessee, mr. cooper. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to welcome artist in which witnesses today. i appreciate their long service to our nation and in particular their chairing of the story important commission to figure out how to improve the work of the nnsa. i have no opening statement, mr. chairman, but i would like to ask in this consent that i insert some background material for the hearing record. >> without objection. >> appreciate it. now i ask each of our witnesses to make an opening statement will start with admiral -- mr. augustine. the microphone is yours. [inaudible] >> go ahead. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. spend your microphone is not on. >> never was good at engineering. thank you very much for the opportunity presents the findings to date of the congressional advisory committee on the governors of any good security enterprise. as you know, admiral richard mies and i serve as co-chairman. congress passed our panel to broadly examine the performance of the nuclear security enterprise and to consider alternative. let the state at the outset that the current viability of our nuclear deterrent is not in question. at the same time, the existing governance structures and practices are most certainly inefficient and in some instances ineffective, putting the entire enterprise at risk over the longer-term. during the past five months, the panel has focused attention on the nuclear security administration, or in an essay

as we know it, both headquarters and field including laboratories, production plants and nevada national security site. will we also examined the current situation from the perspective of the national leadership in the legislative and executive branches and from the perspective of customers of no such as the nnsa, dod, state, intelligence community, department of homeland security. we benchmarked in its eight against proven management approaches used by high-performing -- in an essay, both in the private sector and in government. the panel's work has relied on 12 members decades of experience of a broad scope deal with nuclear enterprise issues. we have reviewed thousands of pages of previous studies. we conducted on site visits to numerous installations, and we benefited from the views of dozens of expert witnesses.

and we particularly appreciate the engagement of our colleagues on the panel as well as they can door of those we have interviewed. today will summarize our panel's findings on the current health of the in an essay of the root cause of the challenges we will cite. we are only now beginning to formulate our recommendations that we will provide in our final report. unfortunately, the unmistakable conclusion of our fact finding is that as a limited, the nnsa experiment involving creation of a semiautonomous organization has failed. the current doe-nnsa structure has not established the effective operational system that congress intended. this is the fix as a matter of priority and these fixes will not be simple or quick but they need to recognize the systemic nature of the problem. despite the flaws that we have

found, there are numerous examples of successes in nnsa's endeavors. today, science-based stockpile stewardship have succeeded in sustaining confidence in our nuclear deterrent. unmatched technical innovation on the part of nnsa scientists and engineers has produced dramatically increased understanding of our aging nuclear weapon stockpile. the labs and plan for providing solid support to nonproliferation efforts and unique expertise to the intelligence community. in essays naval reactors organization continues to provide world-class performance in the development and support of the most advanced naval make clear -- naval nuclear propulsion systems found to be in the world. but nnsa as it continues to struggle to meet fundamental commitments. to the point, it has lost credibility and the trust of the national leadership of customers

in dod that it can deliver weapons and critical nuclear facilities on schedule and on budget. simply stated, there is no plan for success with available resources. nnsa is on a trajectory towards crisis unless strong leadership arrests the current course and reorients its governance to better focus on mission priorities and deliverables. at the root of the challenges our complacency and a loss of focus of the new permission by the nation and its leadership following the end of the cold war. although the national leadership has provided strong policy statements and substantial sums of money to the enterprise, it is evident that follow through has been insufficient. the congress' current focus on the issue is a welcome development. over the decades, this change situation is translated into absence of a widely accepted understanding of, and

appreciation for, the role of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology in the 21st century, with the result that will document it and attribute conditions of plans for our strategic deterrent future. that's with dod as well as in eoe. within the new -- do you we. it's been reflected a lack of urgency and respect for compelling nation that it faces. as are the reviews have concluded, and the panel endorses, this is no time for complacency about the nuclear deterrent. america's deterrent forces remain of the utmost importance, they provide the ultimate anti-against major war and coercion. further, i allies depend on these forces and capabilities for extended deterrence and goodwill pursue their own nuclear capabilities if they perceive that the u.s. commitment for competency is weakening. other countries carefully measure u.s. resolve and technological might in making

their own decisions about proliferation and nuclear force sizing. u.s. leadership in nuclear scientist something we cannot afford to lose. we, along with our allies, are in a complex nuclear age, with several nuclear powers modernizing their arsenals, new nuclear technologies emerging, and potential new actors, as well as regional challenges, raising significant concerns. this would be a dangerous a time to stumble. furthermore, reform will be required to shape an enterprise that meets all of the nations needs and rebuild the essential infrastructure that is required. while all the technical work is rocket science, management and cultural issues are not. the case of the latter, however, the situation is not easily rectified. what is needed is to issue clear plans and provide sufficient resources for success, a sign

and a line responsibility, along with the necessary authority and consequences and provide strong, accountable leadership and management at all levels focus on the nation. the panel believes such reform is possible, but they will demand determined and sustained high level leadership. the changes we will recommend undoubtedly will be difficult to implement regardless of where the enterprise is located within the governance structure, since the fundamental problems our cultural more than organizational. organizational change, while not unimportant, is only a small portion, the easy portion of the revisions that must be made. previous efforts to reform and previous studies calling for action have largely failed due to the lack of leadership follow-through, that lack of accountability for enacting change. and we might and the lack of effective, sustained top level demand for change from the

national leadership. the department of energy by itself would be challenged to oversee the radical steps that will be needed. success is imaginal only with a strong and active engagement of a knowledgeable secretary, supported by the white house and congress, and a structure that removes impediments and data lines commission heard. anna blaze the enterprise today benefits immensely from the political leadership of engaged secretary of energy and the strong science and energy, engineering of the national laboratory system. each successive administration since that of president eisenhower has reaffirmed the need to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent that is safe, secure and reliable. but sustained a national commitment and focus on the entirety of the mission and enterprise charged with this execution has been lacking since the end of the cold war, as evidenced by the condition in which the enterprise finds itself today.

d.o.e. and the in an essay failed to act with a sense of urgency at the obvious sounds of decline in key areas. five systemic disorders have taken root that we found to be at the heart of the problem. with your permission, mr. chairman and members of the committee, admiral mies will briefly outline these issues. spent thank you, mr. augustine. admiral mies come your recognized. >> chairman rogers and ranking member cooper, let me add my thanks as well for being here today. my remarks are intended to provide some specifics on the panel's findings within the context of my co-chairs overall characterization of the health surrounding the enterprise. our panel has identified five systemic disorders which result from the fundamental causes outlined in norms preceding testimony.

the causes and the disorders are inseparable. most if not all of these disorders can be traced back to national complacency, the lack of a compelling national narrative and a widely accepted understanding, regarding the role of our nuclear deterrent in this century. today i would like to offer a synopsis of our panels key findings, specifically focusing on the five systemic disorders we have identified. first, a loss of sustained national leadership focus. since the end of the cold war we have experienced significant erosion in our abilities to sustain our nuclear deterrent capability for the long term. the average we -- the atrophy of our capabilities has been well documented in numerous reports over the past decade. the fundamental underlying cause of this erosion has been a lack of attention to nuclear weapons issues by senior leadership,

both civilian and military, across both past and present administrations and congresses. this lack of attention have resulted in public confusion, congressional distrust, and a serious erosion of advocacy, expertise, and proficiency in the sustainment of these capabilities. absent strong national leadership, in an essay, as well as the whole national security enterprise come has been allowed to muddle through. first and foremost, we must consolidate and focus national level support. second, a flawed doe-nnsa governance model. the current nnsa governance model of semi autonomy is fundamentally flawed. nnsa has not established effective leadership, policy, culture, or integrated decision-making. indeed, the design and implementation of in an essay governments has led to numerous

redundancies, confused authorities, and we can accountability. third, the lack of sound management principles. nnsa and the associated policy setting and oversight organizations within d.o.e. reflect few other characteristics of a successful organization. and entrenched risk-averse bureaucracy lacks a shared vision for, and unified commitment to, mission accomplishment and hence they don't act as a king. both d.o.e. and in an essay lack clearly defined and disciplined exercise of roles, responsibilities, authorities and accountability aligned to in essays mission deliverables. too many people can stop mission central work for a host of reasons and those are responsible for getting the work done often find their decisions ignored court overturned.

change of command are not well defined. resources are micromanaged. personnel management and development programs, issue resolution processes, and deliverable aligned budgets are deficient. shortfalls in project management and cost estimating are well documented and acute. fourth, there's a dysfunctional relationship between nnsa, the federal workforce and their management and operations partners. a trusted partnership that the struggle existed between the laboratories and doe-nnsa headquarters has eroded over the past two decades to an arms length customer to contractor adversarial relationship, leading to a significant loss in the benefits of the federally funded research and development centers, the ffrdc model. the trust factor essential to

this model and underscored by a recent national academy study results from unclear accountability for risk, a free structure and contract approach that invites detailed transactional compliance-based oversight rather than a more strategic approach with performance-based standards. additionally, atomized budget and reporting lines also been found effective and efficient programmatic management and further erode any sense of trust. additionally there is no enterprisewide approach. while there are examples where the relationship has improved, such as the kansas city plant, over all this government to m&o partnership remains highly inefficient and in many cases severely fractured. fifth, and finally, there is uneven collaboration with indian essay customers. in essays relationship -- this

issue deals primarily with issues with identified manner with the dod weapons customers. there is no affordable, executable joint doe-nnsa -- dod-dod vision, plan a program for the future of nuclear weapons capabilities. this is that once a cultural and communications divide. but there's also a fundamental lack of mechanisms to ensure that requisite collaboration and consensus to address core mission requirements, other customers appear to be satisfied. but here, too, a more strategic approach could strengthen capabilities and the services that nnsa provides. in conclusion, lasting reform requires aggressive action and sustained implementation in all five of these areas. but national leadership engagement is really a common theme. improvement is possible, but it

will demand strong leadership and proactive and edition of the panel's recommendations by the president, the congress, and and engaged department of energy secretary. thank you for your time and we look forward to your questions. >> thank you both for those remarks. admiral, did you and your staff get the impression when they were interacting with folks at the various levels that have a morale problem? >> i get the impression that they have the cognizance that they have problems, but has it affected morale in a serious way? >> well, i think across accomplish you see a number of morale problems and that's reflected not just within nnsa and the m&o contracted budget also sit on the dod site on many cases. you're witnessing a number of investigations associated with morale problems within the icbm force. that clinton was not part of our

charter, but yes, i think certainly there are issues. we did receive a copy of a recent cultural study that was done within d.o.e. and nnsa, and they cannot that identified a number of morale and cultural issues that i think affect performance of the organization. >> mr. augustine, you were ceo of a very large corporation. if you were to give some advice, or if you were to take the reins of nnsa, what sort of initial actions should that new administrator employ to demonstrate the seriousness of his or her approach to this new endeavor that would send the message up and down the chain with any workstation figures is about changing the culture which is what i'm hearing from you all, actually a cultural

problem. succubus and organizational lesson. >> mr. chairman, having spent 10 years and can let me say that it is much, much more difficult to manage the government than is the private sector. and nonetheless, the same basic principles of management in my experience apply. people also watche watch the pet the top and how they behave. term important the people at the top set an example of what's expected. walk the talk. i think the first thing needs to be done is to gather people and say, times have changed, things are different. there will be some people who will do that as an opportunity, and exciting shows but there will be those who say we can live with that. there will be those who will resist it. how those people will resist if you have to do work that they can deal with, or be put aside so they don't interfere.

so i think they need to be examples, very quickly, accountability is expected. and if i were to start out i would have a conversation like that with the organization. i would travel in the field for a few weeks. i would then make clear what our goals were, what our expectations were. i would do my very best to have our resources manage those expectations or if there were people who were not up for the job, they need to find something else to do. >> speaking about that, i think you're exactly right. do you think that whoever takes the reins at nnsa, assuming the senate will soon confirm somebody, has the latitude to make those corrective changes and leadership personnel? for example, of loosing to admiral mies' five points and he made the observation that the bureaucracy was risk-averse, and

a lot of the folks in middle management either don't want to make decisions or if they do, they are overruled by somebody. i'm wondering how difficult it is to take a middle management person and replace them with somebody who is not risk-averse. did you even look at that, or do you know? >> we have looked at it and we both experienced it. many of our members o members op have expressed it in government. as you know very well, civil service was set up to protect from political pressures. in so doing i think in my view it has leaned too far to make it difficult for her to remove people who are not up for the job. i work with many very, very capable people in government, particularly people in uniform. at the same time i have encountered a situation where people direct reporting to me were really not suited for the job they were in. and it's very, very difficult to

do anything about that. spent in the government sector. >> yes. i should've been more clear. spent we saw that. we've had that up there and to my knowledge to this day nobody has been terminated spent as you are aware, i know you're aware, i was one of three people for 60 asked to do an investigation of y-12, an independent investigation. it's very hard to find out what actually happened to government employees after that. we tried very hard, but what is clear is that the three intruders went to jail. the people working for the contractors and the contractor was fired. the contractor employees, some are fired, and some were transferred, apparently laterally it and as best as i know, the people in government service were transferred laterally, or no action was taken. i qualify that with saying as

best we been able to find a. >> was the head of their security did not get any, did not shoulder and responsibly for the. that's the thing i find most amazing. i don't ask you both, we heard your five systematic this orders. would you both please provide some specific examples, if you can, where we seen the erosion of senior leadership attention to nuclear weapons issues and what impact that had? if you can think of one to specifics. if if you can't, that's fine. >> sure. well, i would say at the height of the cold war we had a very robust infrastructure that was capable of producing nuclear weapons in significant volumes, significant quantities. today, we are dealing with very obsolescent footprints within the nsa complex. 54%, or somewhere around there,

of the infrastructure is over 40 years old. much of it is a legacy of the cold war, and there is a need to streamline it and modernize it here we are struggling right now with the lack of any significant production capability, because we don't have two major facilities, which have been troubled as you well know, by project management and efficient cost estimating. so again, that's one significant example of an erosion of our infrastructure capabilities. >> i will cite two quick examples, there are many. one is when a nuclear weapon council met to approve what is known as the three-to plan, it was within a month at the time

that was approved and widely agreed upon the very high level. the nnsa came back and said we can't carry that out. the system basically stopped at that point in terms of proceeding as planned at the higher levels. the second example is the facilities have been allowed to age you and other people working are well aware of that at the highest level, no action in many cases. today, over 50% of the facilities within the nnsa are over 40 years old, over 25% are over 60 years old. not only does some of that raise a safety issue, it certainly impacts morale you asked about. >> think you very much. the chair now recognizes the ranking member for any questions you may have spent i thank my good friend, the chairman of the sub committee. i must also thank the witnesses for being here for their long period of government of public

sector service and also for the expertise in leading this very important panel. i want to government members of the subcommittee here, not only on my side but across the aisle but it's great to have senior member like mr. thornberry here who is willing to sit below the salt of the subcommittee hearing, find out about the governance of the nuclear security enterprise. and this is can we should boycott probably one of the few in which actually the tenets of the subcommittee compares very favorably with attendance in the audience. because the public is not tuned into these issues as they should, and congress as you gently point out has not focus on these issues as we should. so hopefully this is the process that starts the correction. i know that this is just a preliminary report on your findings on the covers of national security enterprise. are you on track to deliver the final report sometime this summer? >> i believe we are, and we look forward to delivering a full and comprehensive report.

>> when i went to your testimony i was struck because you can do things usually as glass half-full or glass half empty. and i would like for each of you to look at your testimony, and for mr. augustine, for example, he starts off by saying the current viability of our nuclear deterrent is not in question your glass half-full. of course, the report points out simplify things. we can improve existing governance structure because there any fictive. we're not going to die -- ineffective. but later on in the testimony, it's sharper. it says quote the nnsa experiment has failed. it needs to be fixed as a matter of priority, presumably national priority. ..

to do are of this? this is a challenge for congress and the nation. nuclear issues are not in fashion. it is easy to dismiss them. but i hope that as to say this is the beginning of a process where we can focus in a mature way on sustaining and possibly even enhancing our capability because as the greatest nation on earth that is our obligation. it is important to put this in historic context. there is always controversy and

problems. there is not a glory age but hopefully we be do better than the nsa has been doing. because i agree the nsa experiment has failed and i look forward to the recommendations on the fixes. >> chair, i recognize my friend and colleague from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for letting me sit in. there is some advantage to having been involved in this issue for 20 years because one does see a progression of reports that largely reach the same conclusion you do. there wasn't anything you said this morning, i don't believe, that is new. we have been grappling with it

for literally 20 years. but at the same time, as soon as the secretary was confirmed i sent him a letter saying i have never been more concerned about the nuclear complex and part is moral and lackf of leadership and part of that is the deteration of the weapons. so a host of things. one question that is comic -- coming -- up in my mind is what extent of any recommendation is going to affect the culture and leadership issues that you identify? when we created the nsa we took a report from people on the president's foreign intelligence board and took the more

conservative option. we didn't create an agency like the nuclear security enterprise organization we tried to do the semi ei aatonmous. but i don't know if it matters. how do you legislate cultural leadership focus? the number one issue the admiral needs to identify. >> i don't know where to start with this one. well, first to the minority members concern about half full or half empty, i certainly think at the present time the glass is half full. but i think as we look to the longer term in the future if dramat action is not taken, then

the concern is more half empty few. you have to appreciate there have been numerous studies that proceeded our panel and we have inherited about 50 studies focused on the department of energy and to some degree the nsa and all have reached similar findings regarding the cultural and proceeding challenges that exist within those organization. so many of our panel's findings are going to be new or original. but i think you have to appreciate many of the problems existed before the nsa was created and the nsa was created

out of recognition some of these problems existed and this model hasn't succeeded and in a sense we view it as a failed experiment. from that standpoint, i guess the change and the creation of nsa was on organizational change. but organizational changes are not the main solution to the problem. the main solution is cultural not organization and has to be approached from a wide bases. and we are lucky to have the secretary we do who is very engaged and has a passion and understanding of the mission and is commit today making some cultural changes. the challenge that i think he is going to face and we will all face is can you institutionalize

the changes so they endure long before his tenor. >> mr. chairman, may i comment? i would strongly agree you cannot legislate culture. and even in a corporation you can't dictate changes by putting out memos. i think that what is required is to set an example of what the new culture is and to be totally intolerant of deviations from that. the firm we work for combined 17 firms in five years to build it. and we had 17, sometimes i thought 18 different cultures. it came together very well because we were very intolerant to individuals who couldn't deal with the new way of doing business. i think as the admiral says we

are lucky today to have a secretary of energy that understands this. mr. chairman you mentioned we need solutions that are not personal human dependent but we have to have a secretary of energy who understand this and that is where it starts. >> i thank the gentlemen. chair recognizes the gentle lady -- is she still here? gentlemen from georgia is recognized >> i am sitting here listening to you all and i was preparing what i was going to ask you.

this nuclear enterprise is

elusttrative of the moras that congress is finding itself in. we are doing business the same way that we have done for centuri centuries. and right now this body is not functioning. this body needs a study that would provide us with guidance in terms of where we are and what we need to do to move forward. i would submit that this congress, while it is great we are looking at deficiencies, we need to be looking at what the future direction should be. it isn't to be assumed that we should go back and correct everything to sustain what we h

had. i think the discussion should be what do we need as we move forward. so in my mind, the president havi having, and this president like previous presidents, having worked on nuclear disarmament treaties and such. this congress would be well advised i think to, i don't know want to say follow, but we should explore this disarmament issue. of course, we cannot uni laterally disarm, but the goal should be to have a world without nuclear weapons. and so if we start out from that premises and work from that, i think we would do ourselves a

whole lot of justice $355 billion to get us back to where we need to be is not realistic. i don't think it will happen. so how much will it take to get to where we need to be in order to continue our efforts to erad kate nuclear weapons from the global? that should be something that congress, through it's committees, and subcommittees, should be about. and we need to be about it quickly because we cannot afford the status quo both from a security standpoint, especially from a security standpoint. so as we make sure that we both

allow other nations to aquer -- acquire -- nuclear weapons we need to be about this kind of study. admiral miles, you said several nuclear powers are modernizing their arsenals. which ones are those and how much money are they spending to do that? >> well, let me tell you both russia and china are modernizing their weapons and they are developing new capabilities. i do want to go back and reassure you that despite testimony about erosion in the ent

ent enterprise i want to reassure the committee because of what is going on we have a safe, reliable stockpile. that is not an issue today. it might be an issue for the future if we don't invest and pay attention to the issues. but for the future we have a reliable and safe stockpile and i don't want to create the impression that is a concern. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i appreciate the panel and what you are saying. it is sobering thought because deterance is about detering this.

in a perfect world everybody loved each other and there was no need for the terms. but that is not the case. we see the actions of china, russia and particular with russia's going into ukraine and much less of georgia. it would be great to live in a fantasy world, what bothers me the most is the fact that one of the last sentences in your testimony was the reform requ e requires aggression action to implement all five areas.

i think you have at least from the congress' standpoint, we have shown leadership and we are trying to give direction, but everybody's is about intrapersonal skills and management making sure people stay on task and that starts at the highest level. evidently this has been going on for years. i have been here for three years. it disturbs me the fact we cannot get administrators to do their job and they are not held accountable. in reading through your testimony, it is about accountability. i was a sheriff and we had 500 employees and we held people accountable. we had civil service and there were ways to deal with those within the system. but you had to hold people

accountable and let people know the mission and what you would not tolerate. in this particular government, nuclear safety of the force we have and the modernization falls to those folks, really. there is a whole bunch of other things going on but that is their only mission. their mission is central. you mention that it doesn't take a rocket scientist, but people to manage the systems is what it takes. i don't have to know to construct a nuclear weapon, but i have to know how to construct a management people. i am baffled we can have studies, commissions and we can do all of this stuff but it isn't getting better. does it take the president

saying doe secretary, this is unacceptable and you have to get this done. does it start there? where does it start? >> well, i think you said it exactly right. the president obviously is the person to provide leadership in this regard and the administration has strong support and the most important individual is the secretary of energy who in the past didn't have a background within this arena at all. as you spoke, i was thinking how i would summarize in one sentence what i have learn and my sentence with regard to the nsa or the nuclear security enterprise it would be the whole is less than the sum of the

parts. there are capable people but the leadership of bringing them together and setting goals. you referred to the focus should be clear on what their jobs is. we went to a laboratories in duke where 80% of the award fee had nothing to do with the primary issue. it had to do with proliferation issues, which were important, but only 20% went to weapons and maintaining the stockpiling. >> as a citizen of the united states, people should be concerned. i think the message is that we expect our leaders to actually lead. not just hope things get better and hope that processes improve. we can have all of the commission we want but until

there is leadership to force the issue, i don't see how this, mr. chairman, ever gets better and i'll yield back. sgr >> i thank the gentlemen. and hope he is wrong. chair lady from california is here >> thank you, gentlemen. m i enjoyed reading your testimony. pearls of wisdom in there and a arrows as well and difficult problems that we need to solve. of the 18 years that i have been here in this congress and full committee, 16 of those years have been spent on this committee, this subcommittee here. and i have seen a lot of interest and i have seen a lot

of waning interest not just by people in the administration with respect to this issue but also by members on this subcommittee over time. so first of all, i am thrilled so many have shown up today. during the markup and conference of the fiscal year '13 and fiscal year '14, ndaa, the house bill, we considered several legislative procedures related to nsa and it's related authorities and oversight. and some of these would limit the secretary of energy, changing health and oversight by the nsa and the nuclear security enterprise safety board. even as the department of labor paid $10 million to workers and families because they were killed or injured by exposure to

radiation or toxic materials when working at the nuclear sites. this led to weakening oversight concerns when the nsa is overseeing a sustaining plan and building facilities that with new to handle plutonem and uranium. do you see the oversight getting better? and are you including a serious commit to safety and security in your opinion? >> you start and i will follow-up. >> let me try to answer your question in a number of ways.

first all of, with respect to oversight, i don't think anybody on the panel wants to reduce the effectiveness of oversight. but i would say that in our review of the performance of the oversight function within nsa and doe, despite a large number of people at each of the field offices, we have really evolved over time into a transactional compliance checklist base kind of culture which frankly is both not efficient or effective. so the issue isn't more or less oversight in terms of bodies as much as it is better oversight and other ways >> that is my question. how do we go about getting to

the oversight we need? >> to some degree, i think, if you look at the current performance elements today, a lot of the laboratories and the sights are graded on non-mission performance. like the 80% of the award fee associated with non-mission related issue. again, there has to be a greater, stronger focus on mission. i would give you one example to illustrate the point. we have approximately 100 people at y-12 doing oversight and for whatever reason, despite the large number of people doing oversight, the problem with the high level of frequency of false and nuisance alarms at the

facility, the complacency that set in with the guard force that contributed to the lack of a not efficient response when alarms were tripped. to me, you have to ask yourself, with that many people doing oversight, why wasn't there a recognition that this culture of complacency set in because of the large number of false and nuisance alarms and why wasn't their attention to given to address and fix it. and again, proceeding the y-12 incident, y-12 received an inspection with respect to safety and security and were held up as an example of good security. so you have to ask yourself is the current type of oversight we are doing really successful in achieving what you really want

from a mission standpoint. now there has been one protot e prototype/test within the department of energy within the nsa. the kansas city model where kansas city transitioned to really exemption from a large number of doe orders and regulations. and they were allowed to move toward industrial standards and iso certifications and that enabled kansas city to reduce the number of federal overseers and at the same time reduce the cost significantly but improve performance as well. kansas city is unique in that it doesn't have a lot of nuclear functions so you cannot transplant that model to some of the other elements of the site.

but i think it is a good example that we ought to look hard at, particularly for non-nuclear functions that are performed across the complex to see if there are opportunities of dependent oversight or change the model to provide more effective oversight >> i have other questions i would like to submit for the record. i think this is an incredible important. >> thank you for welcoming me here. i want you to know i was impressed by the candor of your opening statement and your

credit is credit to uniform you used to wear. i am grateful we can sit here and have a peaceful conversation. i am convinced this is one of the most important elements of the entire arsenal of freedom. it is important to remember it has a substance in two things and that is the capacity and our ability to know we have a reliable, capabilityx and also intent. and i apologize and ask for diplomatic humanity. i don't know who can figure out the intent of the administration, but the capacity is what we are talking about and i am concerned there is questions about that. i think that is dangerous in the world we live in.

in an enemy feels we are not up to par, they will drag us into something scary. and i will turn and ask this hard question, and i am under diplomatic humanity if you don't mind, facilities build in new mexico and tennessee and not using them. they are studying the issue and unlikely to use the facility. the facilities in south carolina, $3 billion spent, but the nsa announced the budget is putting the project in quote cold stand by. the iw1 lep is delayed five

years. i will try to cut it short, but it isn't very positive. the testimony about the loss of leadership focus is spot-on and i could not agree with you more. ...