times when i'm doing them on the hill. so we were very clear throughout this negotiation with iranians and very well understood that we are only talking about one category of our sanctions that were going to be released because of the sanctions that were put in place over the last several years physically to address iran's nuclear program. .. >> for their support for terrorism. now, this is one of the core things that we have used to try

to disrupt the flow of funds to illicit networks around the world, and this is one of those things that's going to stay in place. and all of those entities, iranian or otherwise, that were designated for their support of any terrorist organization are going to stay sanctioned. that includes banks designated for those reasons, one an iranian bank that was related to hezbollah financing. they're going to stay sanctioned. now, the real powerful aspect of this is part of these sanctions that were imposed under the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and divestment act, the bill passed by congress in 2010, that bill said if you are a foreign bank and you do business one of these people on our list, if you help them transit money to, from iran to lebanon or any other place or even from iran to london for completely peaceful activity, doesn't matter, it can get cut off the from the united states

financial system. that is stay anything place, and that is well understood by the iranians. so to the extent that any sorts of things are taking place, they'll remain subject to sanctions. most importantly, another question we get is, well, can you continue to enforce those, impose sanctions for those reasons, and the question is, yes. we have every intention of enforcing those, so if a new bank decides to start funding hezbollah, that bank -- even if they were relieved from sanction ises under this nuclear deal -- can get sanctioned again, and that is not grounds for iran to walk out of this deal. now, a lot of people will say, oh, well, iran will argue that that's reimp decision of sanctions -- imp decision of -- imposition of sanctions. the reality is that there are no commitments in there such as that, and they're well understood. and so is we have an absolute commitment to use both sanctions and any other authorities that we have to continue iran, to continue to counter iran's support for terrorism.

>> well, and one, one data point is, you know, we're in a very tense political moment both here and in iran as it relates to support for this deal, and yet two weeks ago the treasury department moved forward with additional regulations as it relates to hezbollah's activities in syria, for example. so this is part of the walking and chewing gum at the same time that i argued earlier. >> ladies and gentlemen, colin's been kind enough to agree to stay on until about 3:15 which gives us time for a few more questions. i have one in the far back there. and then there was a gentleman over there in the row toward the back. >> thank you. steven yelverton, i'm a member of the public. does this nuclear arms deal prevent iran from acquiring already ready-made nuke hard weapons -- nuclear weapons from north korea or any rogue sources?

>> so the terms of the agreement are quite clear, iran will not in any way seek to aqierks possess, develop can, hold, look at longingly -- [laughter] nuclear weapons. and so is not only would that be in violation of the deal, but it's something that we have already been very watchful for in terms of north korean behavior on its own, made very clear that any transfer of nuclear materials or technology from north korea is a problem for us and our relationship with north korea and the region. but that it would be something that would be prohibited under the terms of this agreement and is walled off, sanctionable and for which the united states, i think, would be prepared to take very, very strong action. >> the one point, maybe to say something about the procurement channels or something, but one point beforehanding it to chris is -- before handing it to chris is there's all sorts of scenarios we could spin out about how iran could illicitly acquire materials to build a weapon on their own.

that is a challenge we had before the deal. it is something we will have to be vigilant about after the deal. before the deal it was a violation of their commitment to the npt, under the deal it's a violation of their commitment to the npt and additional commitments they made to the deal itself. but the one difference is that we will have such greater visibility into their nuclear infrastructure across the board and, also, a dedicated procurement channel that we'll have much higher probability of detecting activities that we've actually had a pretty good track record of detecting already from an intelligence perspective, but a much higher probability of detecting it in the world of a deal than a world without. >> the only thing i was going to add is exactly on this concept of the procurement channel which is a really core concept of this entire deal. we took the prohibitions that were under the u.n. security council resolutions that said all states in the world are prohibited from selling, transferring to iran nuclear-sensitive technologies, those controlled by the nuclear suppliers' group. those prohibitions are going to

remain in place. and what we layered on top of them is, essentially, a mechanism by which if iran want toss procure a sensitive nuclear technology, let's say for the transformation of the rock reactor, that will require technologies. they will have to get approval by this mechanism which is an approval by the joint commission made up of all the members of jpca. the short answer is we, the united states, has a veto over every single procurement request of a sensitive nuclear technology. so even if they're not buying an entire weapon, if they want to buy components that are controlled for nuclear-sensitive reasons, we have a unilateral veto on any one of those requests, and if they don't go through that channel, we have the ability to then respond with a snapback of sanctions and other things that we might do in response. >> there is a gentleman in -- yes. >> thanks. great program. you're very slick. i'm not sure i'd buy a used car from you, however.

i have one question. we are -- this country's led by three senators, and yet there was no congressional observer group or senate or y'all -- senatorial observer group as existed in all, all important international agreement negotiations since 1919 and the failure of the league. why? >> i will defer to others on the history of "all." i will say that this is not a treaty. it's an executive agreement -- >> [inaudible] >> let's -- please. >> it's not a treaty in the sense that it is not a legally-binding agreement of the nature of a treaty that requires the two-thirds consent of the senate. it's an executive agreement. it is a political agreement that hinges on, you know, the continued mutual interest of the

parties to implement it. so it is different. the second thing i would point out is it's hard to argue that congress has been in the dark. i, i mean, if wendy sherman were up here, my god, the number of briefings, hearings, i don't know a single other issue in the national security space where we spend more time talking to congress. and it's not just now as we're trying to make the case that this deal is a good one and should be supported, but through the entire process folks from chris' team have been hauled up in front and have volunteered to go up on many occasions to meet with any congress, member of congress, senior staff. i think, you know, if you talked on an average day to, you know, staff for senator menendez, for example, on the senate foreign relations committee, they often times had better insight into what was going on in the negotiations than some of us in the white house did. so i don't know that there was a sense that congress was somehow locked out of the details.

it's just some members of congress don't like the details which is -- they're right. and it's also our right to make the case that the facts support the deal. >> let me just make one more point here as well which is under international arms control treaties which i'm more familiar with, there are things that the united states has to do like eliminating missiles or bomber aircraft or forgo the development of certain weapon systems, and there are things that the russians or the soviet union had to do as well. and there were mutual constraints. the only thing that is happening here is that the president is going to use his waiver authority to waive sanctions that the congress authorized with a presidential waiver in them. had the congress not authorized the presidential waiver, i have good reason to believe that the white house would have threatened to veto that legislation just on principle. republican/democratic administrations alike have resisted the imposition of sakss for which the -- of sanctions for which the president didn't

have a waiver. so there are no restrictions being placed on the united states. if there were, you would have a stronger argument perhaps there should have been a slightly different conversation. there are certain obligations for activities we will pursue in the future, but i think that's a significant difference between what i think you're referring to in terms of arms control agreements and political arrangement. >> there is no way i can get to all the people with hands, but this yes isman in the back there -- gentleman in the back there was fairly early in the process. >> tom cochran, i'm retired. colin n your opening remarks, you said that the administration define canned breakout in terms of the time required to obtain a bomb's worth of material. i believe the administration's definition is in terms of sq, strategic -- >> significant quantity. >> -- quantity. and so my question is, if it was discovered that iran had, let's say, 60% of an sq, say 16

kilograms of heu, 93% enriched, would the administration say they didn't have a bomb's worth? or stated another way, would you agree that if iran could make a weapon with an sq amount, they could make a weapon of same reliability but lower yield with, say, 60% of an sq? >> so i'm going to let john take on some of that, but a couple of just factual predicates to lay. under this agreement for the next 15 years, they're not allowed to have any enriched uranium above the 3.67% level, and they're only allowed a stockpile of 300 kilograms of that, period. they currently in different forms, gas and other forms, have about 12,000 kilograms of enriched uranium below the 5% level, that's enough for ten nuclear weapons for the weapons that you're talking about. 300 kilograms is about a forty of -- a fourth of what you might

need, so that's a substantial constraint. and beyond 15 years iran never has the right to produce weapons-grade uranium. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, we can't -- >> that wasn't my question. >> so if i understood your question, it's like if we discovered they had 16 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium, what would we do about that, and the answer is it would be a violation of the agreement, and it would be a violation of the npt. >> my question, my question, you defined breakout -- you say breakout is longer than a year, and you -- >> i'm sorry, but we simply can't -- >> yeah. >> breakout is less than -- >> i have to -- >> all i should say is the way we define breakout in that sense is one weapon's worth and how we quantify that is kind of the industry standard and is actually not terribly controversial, and i know that there are some analysts out there who suggest you could make a crude device with uranium enriched to a lower level or with lower quantities, but the breakout calculations that we use are not controversial.

>> yes, they are. >> i think that we, there is going to be controversy, perhaps, 25 years after a successful agreement as well as an unsuccessful one, so at least that we can predict for the future. ladies and gentlemen, i think we have reached the point where i'm going to have to bring an end to this. there probably are going to be many other opportunities, but let me, a, thank you for coming and, b, ask you to thank the panel in the usual manner. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the iowa state fair begins today in des moines, and we'll hear from several presidential candidates at the des moines register's candidate soapbox. it's a longstanding tradition where each presidential hopeful gets 20 minutes on stage. coming up at 5 p.m. eastern, democratic candidate martin o'malley. his speech is live on our companion network, c-span, followed by your phone calls, tweets and facebook comments. >> booktv of is every weekend here on c-span2, and with the senate in recess this august, booktv is in prime time each weeknight. tonight we focus on the white house. at 8 p.m. eastern, nbc political director chuck todd on his book, "the stranger: barack obama in the white house." at 9 p.m., american urban radio correspondent april ryan, author of "the presidency in black and white: my up-close view of three presidents and race in america."

and then at ten, former presidential candidate ralph nader on his book about the unanswered letters he wrote to presidents george w. bush and barack obama. booktv in prime time starts tonight at eight eastern here on c-span2. >> with the senate in its august break, we'll feature booktv programming weeknights in prime time on c-span2. starting at 8 p.m. eastern. and for the weekends, here are a few booktv special programmings. saturday, august 32nd -- 22nd, we're life from jackson, mississippi, for the inaugural mississippi book festival beginning at 11:30 a.m. eastern with discussions on harper lee, civil rights and the civil war. son -- on saturday, september 5th, we're live from our nation's capital for the 15th annual national book festival followed on sunday by our "in depth" program with former second lady lynne cheney.

booktv on c-span2, television for serious readers. [applause] >> the aspen institute last month held its sixth annual security forum in partnership with cnn and "the new york times". one discussion from the gathering featured former pentagon officials talking about the role of special operations and intelligence in fighting al-qaeda and isis. >> was stymied by the airlines and only got as far as denver last night so couldn't join us today. we also have with us dr. mike vickers, former undersecretary of defense for intelligence, and also former head of special operations within the pentagon. and kathleen hicks who has held many senior roles inside the pentagon and is now at the center for strategic and international studies. so i want to open with a question that has touched on all of your careers.

you've all spent time fighting extremist militants in your different roles. with that experience, looking at the islamic state group and al-qaeda, is isis or isil the threat that the national security community is making it out to be to the u.s. public? and is al-qaeda on the back foot for good, or is it just prepping for the next battle? you may begin. [laughter] oh, and since you're in private, in the private sector now, feel free to share anything with us at all. [laughter] >> i think i'll take a pass on that one. [laughter] so, you know, the threat of a terrorist attack whether from isil or al-qaeda remains our number one national security threat as a clear and present danger along with cyber attack.

we have other longer-term strategic challenges, but they occupy policymakers' minds every day. isil in a way is a bigger threat because of its ability to inspire so-called lone wolf or radicalization attacks across the world. but al-qaeda is more sophisticated. so if an airliner blew up over the united states, it would far more likely be al-qaeda today than isil. and that remains a significant danger. al-qaeda has suffered a lot of losses, but it is still very much in the game, and as it has in its history, it can come back in various ways. >> i do think that the isil threat has been appropriately described. i don't think it's overblown. i think it's a significant threat, and as discussed in some of the previous panels, i think particularly with jeh johnson, in part it's because of the fact

that it's been -- there's an area, territorial region that it's been able to occupy and operate from. and, of course, then there's the social network piece that allows it to operate worldwide. al-qaeda, i think, is not permanently on its heels, but we can try to keep it there. to the extent that al-qaeda's been significantly degraded is because of a lot of u.s. and worldwide attention and investment to making it so -- not least of all the two gentlemen to my left and right. and i think that's what it takes going forward, whether it's isil, al-qaeda, al-shabaab, al-nusra, you name it. it takes a concerted, long-term effort to counter terrorism with all the tools that we have in -- tools that we have in coalition. >> admiral olson, with your former time heading special operations command, did you expect we'd still as a nation in the thick of the fight now, all these years later?

>> first, let me say it's great to be back in this forum, i thank walter and clark for making this possible, and i appreciate for not being mike lump kin, but it is good to get this band back together, and i'm very pleased to be on this stage with my two former colleagues. i'll also say that i spent most of my time in uniform avoiding kim dozier -- [laughter] but it wasn't for lack of respect for her tenacity or the quality of her work. but it's good to be with you today, kim. >> thank you. >> so i didn't hear -- i left military service now almost four years ago. isil wasn't on our scope. it is a new phenomenon, and so i can't, i can't talk about isil from my historical perspective as a commander of special operations command. but i do agree with mike and kathleen that isil is a real threat, it's a real regional threat. the persecution and the violence are threatening and scary to

many. and it is a real threat to us. but i think that we -- when we speak of isil as kind of the next generation of al-qaeda, we undercredit them as an army. al-qaeda, clearly a terrorist group. but isil is organized and behaving like an army with real military structure, with military equipment. they seize and hold territory in a way that al-qaeda couldn't do. and so is i think that makes it not an apples to apples comparison between al-qaeda and isil. >> and yet there are other threats out there, the asymmetric threat posed by russia in places like ukraine, iran's support of bashar al assad in syria, hezbollah, on and on, north korea's nuclear threat. are our national security efforts skewed by the fear of

isis and al-qaeda when they haven't caused nearly that much damage in this country recently as compared to some of these other actors? and their effect overseas? >> you know, one of our collective former bosses, leon panetta, always liked to say we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and we have to. even if we didn't think we could, we need to learn how to. i don't think we spend a disproportionate or unreasonable amount of time focused on ct and in particular on the isis threat or that is taking away from our ability to focus on longer-term challenges. now, having said that, resources are severely limited, and that's, obviously, money. sequestration makes it much harder on top of already having, you know, you're always going to have challenges with money. people. and the tool set that we have. and, again, this was talked a little bit in the last panel. the tool set the united states has is essentially a cold war tool set that we're trying to

adapt as quickly as we can to the world we face. but it's very challenging to meet all of those potential threats at once, and it's a constant prioritization of which tools in which region or situation, to, you know, to what end. and that leads you to sort of a selective engagement strategy that you see the united states having chosen for multiple administrations and many years. and it's usually dissatisfying to the public because it's hard to figure out sometimes why intercede there and not there, why choose to apply power and resources here but not there? >> so we are in a period of unprecedented instability in the international system, and we are accruing national security threats. the one that you didn't mention was the rise of china, you know, east asia is the most -- is really probably the locus of future strategic and economic competition. we have three challenges to the world order right now; china and east asia, russia and europe and sunni jihadists and lots of

others in the middle east, and you have to be able to deal with them all, as kathleen said. and also the capabilities that you need to deter conflict with china. the long-term competition with china's fundamentally economic and technological, not the same that you need for counterterrorism and stability in the middle east and vice versa. and so you have to have a portfolio of capabilities and strategies to deal with the range of threats. i certainly have never seen such a wide range of threats from the very high end to the nonstate actors in the 40 years i've been in this business. >> the thing is, do you have the tools you need to do the job? do you have enough forces to do it? and are you getting a chance to do it on the ground? for instance, what's being done in ukraine to fight russian influence there? i hear pentagon officials

talking about russian interference, but i'm not hearing what u.s. special operations is doing about it. the general speaks quite openly, the head of special operations command now, about russia's asymmetric warfare there. what can -- that they've put their troops inside ukraine to direct rebel forces against the ukrainian government. what is is u.s. doing or can it do in return? >> so the general will be here on friday, and i think that'd be a good question for him. >> okay, got it. [laughter] >> and as you pointed out, we -- at least i've been in the private sector, but the first one in private sector is private, and so i'm not going to go someplace i shouldn't go. but i will say that the -- i mean, obviously, it was a classic special operation in annexing crimea. and they had gone to school on special operations sort of

concepts in executing that. but what specifically special operations forces might be doing is something that i won't talk about. >> i'll jump in. >> okay. >> we, it was no surprise that the russians are really good at unconventional warfare. we have long known that that's something that they have continued to invest in and be good at. we've certainly seen them operate in chechnya and elsewhere. the surprise, of course, is that they chose politically, if the you will, that putin made a leadership decision to do this invasion of crimea. definitely not something i would have foreseen. what can and should the u.s. be doing about it? i think, first and foremost, the u.s. is rightly focused on the united nations, working with its allies particularly in the baltics and poland, but other allies from nato in those states to shore up the ability of those states to withstand any kind of

political pressure masking, you know, military aggression masking as political pressure, if you will, or little green men-like approaches from russia. ukraine is, obviously, much harder. back to the question i think was asked about moldova before. georgia, ukraine, these are not nato territories, these are not covered by article v, and it's much trickier. and nato put forward a view that we would spend more time and attention on those partner states coming out of the wales summit. i think that's important. i think it's important personally, i think it's important to provide defensive weapons from the united states to the ukrainian forces, and some special operations training should be a part of that. but by and large, our efforts should be focused really on making sure we can stick to that article v commitment for the nato states. >> but that sounds, that's working by, with and through another organization as opposed to more direct interference, the path that russia has chosen. >> well, russia really is doing

a form of hybrid warfare. they do work through proxies where they can, and then where those proxies are on the verge of losing, then they'll intervene with conventional forces as they have done in ukraine for a brief period of time to restore the balance in their favor and then shift back to proxy war. but this form of proxy war is not just in ukraine and the territories, the non-nato territories around the former soviet union, but also that's in the middle east as well. and is like it or not, that's conflict that we're in. >> just let me add to what kathleen said. the special operations cooperation across the nato countries is unprecedented. there is, actually, a command within the nato structure. there's a special operations headquarters, there are people from across the nato countries going to work every day that are training, there's training, classroom and field training that takes place every day and

exercises that take place with a special operations flavor across nato countries. so i do want to make sure that there's a recognition of the level of cooperation. >> so could -- >> across the special operations -- >> could you be saying that while we don't see u.s. boots on the ground this terms of internal -- special forces teams training the locals, there might be european special forces doing the same things, hoping to boller -- bolster efforts to fit the russian-backed troops? >> i'm not saying what they're doing, but the coordination, the sharing of tactics, techniques, the interoperability of equipment, the knowledge of each other's capabilities and limitations is at a very high level. >> but as you said, kim, part of the challenge is both in working with partners such as the ukrainians, and i spent a lot of time there my last year in government, but is building robust institutions that can

protect themselves from a counterintelligence perspective against the russians, winning the battle of influence. one thing putin has done here, he may have won in the short term, he has turned the ukrainians into nationalists in a way no ukrainian politician could have done. and so longer term that's really the big fight. >> so to shift to the fight against the islamic state group in iraq and syria, the u.s. has a choice at this point it's chosen to fight through a large coalition largely hands off. might there be a time coming when the u.s. has to step it up as russia did and choose hybrid are warfare, the kind we saw in afghanistan? you would have special forces with an afghan team, the afghan team would be allowed to do the fight until they started losing, and then the u.s. would step in? [laughter] >> i would just -- i think what we did in afghanistan in 2001

was remarkable in rejecting the taliban regime and al-qaeda. but i wouldn't equate that in the same way as what putin has done in ukraine. i would say that's the marriage of modern conventional, precision warfare with unconventional warfare that works so phenomenally. and you could apply that to iraq and syria, yes. >> but in iraq and syria, are u.s. efforts as part of a coalition arresting the growth of isis fast enough, or do you need to ramp up the number of u.s. advisers on the ground, joint air controllers forward, things that would make the iraqi forces, the kurdish forces, the u.s. proxies in the region more effective in the battlefield today? >> i would say i think, i think it is -- there is room to grow, if you will, the u.s. contribution to include special operators on the train and advise side. there's no doubt about that.

but before you grow that out, there is an absorption, a capacity issue which is the ground forces that are there to work with. that's where i think there's, rightfully, a lot of attention right now trying to make sure we can get, we the coalition, can get the iraqis -- you put a lot of pressure on the political situation to get forces in that are, you know, align ared to feel some sort of allegiance to the baghdad government and are capable of working with u.s. and other trainers. where we have done that, obviously kurdish forces would be the most obvious example where they have been pretty aggressive, that has worked very well in terms of the u.s.' ability to bring in firepower, the u.s. ability to marry our isr with their on-the-ground capability and then the training

aspect. and that -- and i will add and i do think that has to be sustained. you can't do that lightly and limitedly and think that will take care of the situation with isil. i think it's a long-term issue. but before we jump in with a whole lot more, we need those ground forces to start to come together. >> yet those ground forces can take years to grow. and in the interim, it seems that isis is growing faster and doing things like planning plot ares against the u.s. homeland or at least inspiring plots gwen the u.s. homeland. so -- against the u.s. homeland. so do we have the luxury of this time it's going to take to bring these forces up to speed? mike? >> well, so one model is you train forces, you may give them some air and isr support but, basically, they're going to do the fighting. you're a trainer. that, obviously, takes a lot longer to get them ready than if you're willing to advise and

assist to actually go with them on the front lines. when you combine air power with a ground force -- you referenced afghanistan in 2001 -- >> well, i meant afghanistan even now. >> well, no, afghanistan 2001, you can get very dramatic effects in a short period of time. it's a policy choice. but the reason is, is because you have a ground force then that can -- and it doesn't have to be the world's greatest ground force -- can expoint the effects of air power. if you don't have someone to exploit the effects of air power, then it becomes attritional and just takes a lot of time. just like training takes time, an air power campaign alone takes a long time generally as well. >> so that brings me to the question of the use of special operations or possibly overuse of special operations for every national security problem that this country faces. one could argue that this white house uses them like the

ultimate swiss army knife of the pentagon to throw them at the problem. do you have the numbers you need to meet the mission set you face? i know you're a few years out, admiral, since -- i know it's something you still watch, and you've been watching it closely because you've needed them to either go out and protect your intelligence forces as they're collecting things or to engage. >> so eric and i in our tenure, i mean, since 9/11 we have doubled the size of our special operations forces, we have tripled the budget, and at the highest op tempo, down a little bit right now, we have quadrupled the operational tempo, the use of these forces since 9/11. that's dramatic growth, and they're plenty big. it's a question of -- but they're also in great demand and what you do with them, but -- >> the manpower under the command of the commander of special operations constitutes about two and a half, maybe

three percent be of the overall uniform manpower. the definition of a special operation is an operation conducted by forces for which other forces are not organized, trained and equipped to conduct. so it's really a negative definition. it makes them utility infielders with guns. [laughter] and so the question is not should special operations forces be bigger, because growth management, frankly, has been a challenge -- >> right. >> -- it's whether or not other forces should be organized, trained and equipped to do some of the things that have fallen on special operations over the last few years because special operations were sort of already there and agile and response e. but there's no to reason that other forces couldn't do much of what special operations forces have been caused to do. >> so just to make clear that point on growth management, the issue is maintaining the high level of quality that's in the special operations forces. that's been a challenge as we've expanded them so much.

so to make a vast expansion of them only makes that challenge that much greater which is why it's time to look at -- well, it's been a long time, to look at the regular forces to see how that mission mixes going between them, what training needs to be done with regular forces. >> but if you look also, our intelligence community has grown by a similar amount. in 2006, you know, at the height of the old iraq war we had six of these unmanned aerial vehicle combat air patrols, predator or people call them drones. we have 60 some today. you know, we've increased that by a factor of ten. and so there's plenty of capacity. it's just the world's a messy place. >> so while we're on that subject, do you care to give us an update on where the defense clandestine service was when you left, because this was a move to grow it and how you all planned to grow it to several thousand people to do the same kind of

intelligence collection, but of a different can nature than cia overseas operatives do. >> um -- >> there were reports that planned growth had been curtailed. >> yeah. it's growing. it's an important initiative in terms of human intelligence is particularly important in this world against the range of challenges that you described, and the department of defense and our military had something to contribute to the overall national effort. it's a partner in that effort. it's a complement. i would add it's a junior partner, it's not rivaling the size of the cia, but it's important, and we've had strong support from the cia and the dni in this effort, and that's about all i'm going to say about it. >> and it's still growing? >> doing good stuff. yeah, it's still growing. >> okay. you could give us a ballpark figure -- >> i won't. >> okay. [laughter] so, but that brings us to another subject. some of the tools by which special operations carries out its trade.

yes, sometimes guns but sometimes remotely-piloted vehicles, drones. the targeting end and the raiding end of special operations gets most of the headlines. it also gives a policymaker in the white house a black and white resolution to a problem. there's a name that was on a list that said they were a bad person, then that name is crossed off the list. therefore, is targeting overused? we've had 13 years in the middle east of some of the most sophisticated targeting this planet has ever seen, and yet we've got the growth of a second militant group that has rivaled and now surpassed al-qaeda according to fbi director comey and some of y'all. is targeting overused? >> so is one to have big revolutions in intelligence in the past decade or so has been the operationallization of a

certain portion of our analysts as targetters. and that has made a dramatic difference in all forms of intelligence operations. i mean -- or counterterrorism operations and other operations. where all these operations are really intelligence driven, and the analyst is really, really at the center of it. back to the strategic effects, you mentioned core al-qaeda's on its heels in the pakistan border region. only one of the senior leaders who were there for the 9/11 attacks is left. that organization is a shadow of what it was just five, six years ago. so it's, it's been an extraordinarily effective campaign over many, many years -- >> but did it just push the balloon to yemen? because now al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula has a sophisticated bomb-making machine and technology that it's

training now -- >> well -- >> -- relatively unchallenged. >> there was this turmoil in the middle east that opened up some new fronts in syria and yemen as well. but we talked about isil. isil was al-qaeda in iraq. we knocked al-qaeda in iraq down 90%, and they fled and reconstituted in syria. they're back as well. so it's not just targetters or anything else, it was the entire might of the united states for several years, and they still survive. why? because syria, you had a civil war in syria that basically gave them a new lease on life. >> so you're saying it's -- you can help fight part of the problem, but it wasn't your job to bring stability to the middle east. >> well, we tried, but we're still working on that one. [laughter] >> well, i would agree with the ambassador from france that not every challenge is a nail, but there are some nails out there that need to be hammered. and i i think that parking lot

lot -- part of it is the tactical removal of competent leaders of isil from their positions. part of it is, also, the psychological effect of sort of reminding everyone that isil is not invulnerable, that they do have weaknesses that can be exploited by capable opposition forces. and to -- i think it damages their recruiting efforts, it damages their own shtick to be able to reach in and, with precision, take out key leaders from within isil. >> let me just jump in. i think it's really important when we start having these conversations to remember that we are operating under authorities, right? these are authorities given in time of conflict that include the ability to use targeted approaches for capture, for intelligence gathering and in some cases for targeted killing.

so i just want to start there, because i do think that the drone debate has become, you know, unhelpful, the say the least. does it have strategic effect in that sense? absolutely. as policymakers, we have to be mindful of that reality. but if you look, obviously, at the progression of warfare over time, we don't raze villages, you know, we don't, by and large, don't strategically bomb anymore. and the fact that we have a tool set now that allows us to really reduce the number of civilian casualties -- and we have really reduced the number of civilian casualties involved in a conflict -- that, i think, is a story that's important to tell. now, are there civilian casualties that occur? yes. are there questions about the transparency of the u.s. process for targeting? yes. and i think we need to address both of those. but i think it has been a good tool in the tool kit, used well, and something we should continue

to look at. >> and then back to eric's earlier point, you know, isil is different from al-qaeda in that it is an army. so in that sense it's kind of like the taliban, you know? it's holding territory. you need a different strategy to attack that than you do al-qaeda. there's common elements against the leadership, but you've got to defeat an army with an army. >> and yet isn't every drone strike a potential recruiting tool, recruiting bonanza for the opposition? >> well, there's that theory out there, but there's, you know, one, i mean, we have an obligation to protect the united states of america. but, you know, it's funny, done a lot of surveys in pakistan. the closer you are to the strike if you're local, the more in favor of it you generally are. why? because the guys getting struck are the guys oppressing you. the more removed you are from the fight, the more you complain about your sovereignty being violated and lots of other things. but it's been a very, very

effective tool. we have the support of foreign governments. we couldn't do it without the support of governments. kathleen talked about authorities. those authorities rest in important cases on the consent of the host nation. so i just don't buy that -- i mean, yes, is it a tough business? it is a tough business, but it's a very effective one. >> drones are an option. and when you compare the option of using a drone against the option of firing artillery rounds or dropping a bomb or putting a force on the ground, you know, it's not that bad an option. for one thing, it can linger. it gives -- it provides the ability to be patient in the decision to strike. it can be recalled without any effect at all if that becomes the decision. so a drone is actually a far more, a far more disciplined way

of conducting precision strikes than some others might be. you can't call back an artillery round. >> kim, i just want to say i think what this issue gets to very fundamentally is information campaigns which were, you know, we're not great at. >> what would you say by an information campaign? >> so when a strike occurs, you're pointing to the fact that it's a recruit aring tool. now, it's a recruiting tool whether something actually happened or not, right? because sometimes there is a factual there's been an attack, and sometimes there's something else that's happened, for instance, we used to have in afghanistan, of course, taliban attacks that would then be described as u.s. drone strikes. something happens, and that information is exploited on the other side to create recruiting. obviously, if we jump ahead now to isis, they have an incredible recruiting capability in a very low-tech way. i mean, twitter is extremely simple, you know? my children tweet. they are, you know, they are -- >> not talking to isis. >> they're not talking to isis, yes. no. they follow taylor swift, i

think we're safe. [laughter] but we in the united states, we really have -- and this is back to the tool set issue, you know? this is not a challenge. cde is not a challenge that is best met, first and fundamentally, by a government organization in the light of day trying to tweet out u.s. government positions. it has to be more organic than that, and there's a big intelligence support piece to that, and it has to be regional. in this case for isis, it has to come from within the region. >> and the best recruiting tool for these groups is success; successful attack on the united states, successful conquest of territory. if you look at why people are flocking to isil, it's because they think they've established this caliphate and they're successful, and that's what you've got to defeat. >> that's for me, too, the transparency piece. full disclose your, we discussed beforehand it turns out we don't really agree on this one. so i bereave that when special -- i believe that when special operations forces are used so frequently and the

operations often become exposed in social media -- the raid that got al-libi and the raid that got the benghazi ringleader also in libya, that all broke on on social media. so should there be a disclosure plan for every special operation? so that if if it does become exposed, you can take part in that information campaign instead of what i often encounter is a spokesman or an official saying i gotta check to see how much we can declassify, or i gotta check to to see what i can tell you on that. >> well, that's because, you know, i mean, we liven a fairly open world. as you mentioned, the two raids that instantly made the media. and there are plans to be able to adapt rather rapidly to that.

but there's also things we want to keep secret pause we want to do these -- because we want to do these raids again. we don't want to tell exactly how we did it or who the forces were and put them and their families at risk or anything else. so you've got to draw a line. >> but that, that's the difference between saying this unit carried out this raid by helicopters, etc., etc., versus saying we acted been chem -- some of the news releases out of syria, for instance. the pentagon announced there was a drone strike the other day or a strike the other day that took out the leader of the corazon group. kind of takes the wind out of the sails for all the reporters who would like to get an exclusive. there it is, it's a press release. why not have a plan like that for every operation? >> well, i think they do. i mean, i don't know. >> i agree with mike. i think it's not a

forward-leaning plan, it's a response to query plan -- >> right. >> but it's not always helpful to announce even your successes, because sometimes the confusion of a success -- who survived and who didn't, what might have been taken off the site and what was left on the site and the kind of operation itself -- when revealed, can disadvantage us. and so it's always very carefully considered what it is you say and when you say it. >> so how about instead things that might be useful in terms of the information war by sharing things that you know with the press? i mean, this administration has had hot periods and cold periods in terms of when it will bring groups of reporters in to give us briefings on what they're saying. but why not release the satellite images that show -- or the drone images that show the movement of russian forces into ukraine? why not release that study you

were talking about saying that most pakistanis near a strike support the strike? >> well, it was public. and, i mean, it was done by ngos and others. we just -- >> i thought you were getting a dod one. >> no, no, no. i mean, there's a lot of information out there. and then we did share satellite information with russian forces in ukraine, with our european allies to make the case to them. those are tools of foreign policy. we've done that throughout our history, you know? cuban missile crisis, granada. but we don't want to give our really high-end capabilities that will show an adversary exactly what we can do in certain cases, so you have to think about what you're going to release and how. >> but i don't see it happen very often. and it would be -- it's a tool that the pentagon has employed in the past such as when georgia was invaded and the press was being told one thing by the russian side. we had intelligence agencies

show us, well, here are satellite images that we're seeing, and then we could go to commercial satellite image groups -- >> right. >> -- and get independent verification. so that gave me as a relater a way to see what you all were seeing rather than just having to take it on faith. >> yeah. i think we did that with ukraine. i mean, i think we showed forces coming across the border, etc. >> why not more with isis? >> i'll take the easy out, i mean, this special operations command referred all queries to the pentagon. [laughter] >> okay. >> it wasn't up to us to decide the policy in revealing operational information. >> right. >> and so we stayed out of that. maybe the white house went hot and cold, but special operations command stayed pretty cold. >> right. [laughter] >> so just a come more questions before i open it up to the audience. "the new york times" had ab

article out recently -- an article out recently about navy seals, and the joint special operations command, jsoc. one of the officials quoted in the article, anonymously as i recall, said jsoc investigates jsoc. there was an accusation spa they'll operations doesn't -- special operations doesn't hold itself to the same accountability standards as the rest of the forces. and i can only speak from my own frustration, i would sometimes find out -- i found out, for instance, that in an alleged strike on a wedding, an alleged drone strike that hit, allegedly, a wedding party in yemen, i found out that general sow dell had ordered an investigation into that, two investigations into that. as a reporter trying to report to the american public, that showed me that jsoc was trying to investigate itself and be responsible. why not publish more of this?

>> so, number one, in that particular case the investigation was actually done by centcom, so i think it kind of disproves this thesis that, you know, our special operations forces are grading their own homework. >> yeah. i mean, i don't give much credibility to anonymous source. and many of the other sources in that article have not served anytime lately. and i can say that most of the time, almost all the time, special operations force are a supporting force for some bigger operation, certainly where there are other forces on the ground special operations is almost always in support, always operating with the approval of an ambassador under the command of a geographic combatant commander. they employ other forces in almost every special operation. runways have to be provided, air

space has to be cleared, logistic support has to be provided, medical support, intelligence analysts. this is not a culture, a secret society or a set that operates independently, it operates with much transparency, full transparency within the military -- >> [inaudible] >> no, not to you. but intentionally not to you. [laughter] you know, it operates with full transparency within the chain of command and within the structure that's provided to do that. and i will say that, you know, as a matter of policy a chain of command cannot investigate within its own chain. it takes an outsider to do an investigation. and so it may be within the special operations community. we may appoint an air force component, leader to investigate something that happens in the navy component, but to think that that's sort of some secret

cover-up kind of thing, there's never to my knowledge been any sort of revelation of some kind of cover-up that took place within a special operations investigation. >> so what is their track record? >> track record of -- >> of investigations within the force? >> yeah. there are multiple investigations. i'm speaking now historically. i don't know the case now, but when i was there, there were multiple investigations underway every day looking into things that just didn't seem right to commanders or other leaders or in response to allegations that had been made in some way against the force. and they're all adjudicated, and there are many actions that are taking place. as you don't know about the investigations, you also don't know about the disciplinary actions that are taking place. sometimes to protect the embarrassment of an individual or some other aspect of force capability. and my own sense, it's all been

quite well disciplined. >> but i don't see secrecy as necessary to protect the embarrassment of an individual who might have committed a crime or done something wrong under the military code of justice. >> well, those things become a matter of record. >> record. >> but not openly available record. >> a matter of military record. >> yeah. if it's military justice, it is. >> okay. so last question, iran. if the deal goes through and iran is allowed to ramp up its energy-only nuclear enterprise, will the u.s. intelligence community know if they cheat? >> i have high confidence in the ability of the u.s. intelligence community to monitor lots of things in iran, particularly

compliance. there's, you know, there's always challenges with verification, but that's the structure, you know, what's inherent in the structure of the deal. but we know a lot about iran. >> one of the generals from special operations who's serve ising on the ground in iraq right now was at a conference recently in tampa. he said that the head of the quds force inside iraq right now honestly believes that the u.s. is supporting isis, and they learned this through intercepted communications, etc. can this deal with iran in any way foster some sort of understanding between u.s. forces and the iranian forces both inside iraq such that those kind of misunderstandings go away? ..

>> you cannot just cheat like that.

it takes time. it might be hours. others a week. and others something else. >> the -- so does the slight opening of relaons with iran mean the u.s. or other intelligence services could have greater visibility on what is going on? >> i think it deal i am sure is to try to give us greater access. >> with thatuled like toope' it up to the audience -- with that i would like to open it up to the audience. >> john from the association of u.s. army. i have a question about sequestration. two weeks we ago the army announced they are coming down 40,000 troops and sequestration could cut it another 30,000 and

that isn't including the cuts for the army guard and national reserve. given the forces depend on the conventional source they provide for recruiting what impact will this have? >> i had the pleasure of being in fort hood, texas the day they announced the cut. i kept my head low. it is definitely going to have an effect on the forces and overall. the united states made a decision to reduce the mount it will spend on defense in the base budget at least. and that is a national level decision. that is a political decision that has to do with what we spend, how we tax, what we spend on our entitlements, domestic programs, and then of course the

national security peace. so defense is the tail on the dog. and those of us who live in the defense community, it boggles our mind because we live at the table. but the rest of the public does not focus on that. unfortunately, i think inreality of the -- the reality of the effects whether that is the off contempo forces are feeling that is going up, whatever it is going to be it is going to be lagging unfortunately. and that is the reality we have to live with. the tall tale signs that our military underinvestments in the military will come too late to fix the problem and we will be back in the usual mode of trying to catch up. we have a release valve with ocoa and one of the three of us

and others worked on for the last ten years is trying to migrate that into the base budget. that will not happen with sequestration so we will continue to live year by year. when it comes to threats at the high end where we trying to do high tech build out it is extremely challenging to do that in a world where we don't know from year to year what the budget will look like. >> sequestration cuts the least effective program by the same amount as the most. it is advocating of the

responsibility. >> i think i used the biology analogy here. organisms at risk shrink the core so when the services have the luxury of doing it they provide the things in their budget special operations need. mostly over the community in the decade has not been in the core fighting forces of the special operation community. it has been intelligence analyst and air traffic controllers and things in a perfect world would be provided by the big services. but given the strain across the services for the similar capabilities special operation had to grow them. i think what it will do is put more pressure on each service to find room within their reduced budget to invest in the kinds of things special operations depends on.

>> question? just wait for the mike. >> the gentlemen in the short jacket. >> i am from charleston, south carolina and this is our summer blazer. well publicized from al-qaeda central to al-qaeda in iraq about the brutality and impact that had. isil has been exponential in that regard. what is your assessment as what i would term as an international response to this if anything in your mind concrete, directed toward isil to emphasize or

deincentvise it? >> we are trying to de-incentvise it by trying to kill hem. but isil has more against everybody. the message you are referring is to al-qaeda's guidance at the time. leave the shiites alone. we will deal with them later. we are focus on the west and he didn't pay attention to that. it backfired on them and it will in the sunnie area as well. if you say how did they beat the army we spent $25 billion training it is not because of

military analysis, but the politics, their loyalty to the state, frustration for with the central state and that will turn on isil at some point. >> jennifer? >> thank you, jennifer griffin with fox news. i have a question for admiral olsen. do you see a time when women can serve in the special operations forces? navy seals and such? if you were commander would you ask for an extension later this year? and for the panel do you think the u.s. created isis by invading iraq in 2003? >> i will answer the first question and let the panel get the rest of it.

there have been females in the operations for a long time living in the same condition as the men, serving in support rolls, civil aware rolls and performed with great -- roles -- distinction and sometimes heroically. yes, i see increased roles for women across special operations. that doesn't mean i am a proponent of all specialties being open to all women all of the time. but i think there is more much women can do in very important roles in combat environments. >> and just wanted to follow.

if a woman passed buds and had the physical attributes to join the navy seals what would that do to the team? >> there are women that have served on marine core teams and such, small levels with a dozen of people and two might be women. >> that is different than everyone in that team relying on that woman to drag them out of the fire fight or risking getting shot and them having to deal with her being injured. >> it is. i think the question should be what does it to do tactical decision making in the field which how tactical leaders will

respond to being in a position. i will read my view that the target was to be women and combat soldiers. the first thing they did was take off their helmet, let their hair down, and corral their women and children and had an important mission on the target only they could do. i think expanding that role for women in ways that women can perform that men can't. >> but you would be more comfortable with that than having them in a direct combat role?

going through the door first at the shooter? >> if you are asking me personally as an american male the answer is yes. but i don't want to sound like an old white guy. i think we are only having part of the discussion on women and c combat and this isn't supposed to be about that. but we need to ask ourselves as a society if we are willing to put women in the frontline combat to take the first bullet are we willing to allow every 18-year-old sign up for service, and willing to cause women serve in in fantry units against their will. 30% are men who didn't volunteer to be in front line combat. if we are able to order women in the combat frontlines then that

is a divinifferent conversation. if we are as society stop saying women and children first and every man for himself on a sinking ship that is the kind of discussion we ought to be having. it does affect how we think about when women are in dangerous roles. i know the decisions will be made during january of 2016 regarding what roles one will have. >> and that last question to you did the invasion of iraq help create isis or create isis? >> no, it was formed before the invasion in 2002. did it intensify the growth of

iraq after 2003? yes. it expanded the sunni insurgency. and if you move forward to the rise of isil after al-qaeda and iraq were largely defeated it was really a creation of the syrian civil war, and the sancutary, a lot operated during the iraq war. you know, it was created by or at least allowed to expand by the iraqi government actions in how they managed their state.

>> thank you very much and let the conversation continue. [applause] >> booktv is every weekend on c-span2 and with the senate in recess booktv is on prime time each week night. tonight we focus on the white house. chuck todd is here on his book the stranger: obama in the white house. and april lion the author of the presidency in black and white. and then at ten, ralph nadir on his book on the unanswered

letters he wrote the george bush and president obama. >> starting at 8 p.m. eastern, for the weekends here are a few booktv special programs. saturday, we are live from jackson, mississippi for the mississippi book festival starting at 11 a.m. eastern with discussions on harper lee, civil rights and the civil movement. and then in-depth with former second lady lynn cheney. booktv on c-span2. television for serious readers.

>> a meeting in phoenix to discuss on how democrats can work to win state houses and localal offices. that was a very fast two minutes. thank you for being here for the panel of people. i am excited to see everyone here and excited to see a full room. i think this is one of the most important topics week be talking about. we are talking about it in a place that needs to be discussed. we have seen over the last five

years democrats have lost over 900 seats in the state legislatures across america. we have gone from having democratic trifectas with democratic state legislature, house and governor. i think we only have five now. only five states in the union where we can have hope of driving through anything remotely progressive. washington state, my state, is no longer one. they are blocked paid sick leave and minimum wage. and in other states voter id laws. this is a better opportunity today.

i am excited to have this discussion here. the first panelist is a programming change. the california legislation is still in session and they are not longer able to make. yolanda gonzalez, remember the name. she is ann amazing progressive star. we have someone fantastic who agreed to step up and join the panel. it is monica perez. she is from arizona, ran from a state legislature in arizona several years ago, she has a great set about experiences of

running campaigns at the state level. great to have a local from arizona up here on the panel. sitting next to her is the unequaled former state senator nina turner. [applause] >> i think she has lot of great insights to talk about and how democrats can win and crucial pots. ej jaurez is sitting next to her. he is a great friend of mine and organizer and someone passionate about turning states blue and making sure everyone is able to participate in the democracy and government works for all people. he does great work in washington

state and i am glad he is able to join our panel. >> last but not least michael sargeant who does amazing and important work to hold and gain democratic seats in state legislature. if we are going to fix what happens in five years, this is going to be a central part of that. thank you for joining us. i am planning not to do much talkic. we have an amazing panel up here. the first thing i want to ask starting with monica here and going straight down. what happened? why is that we went from having lots of democratic control in states ten years ago when republicans were running wild. what happened and why? >> hi, everybody.

i would like to say i think what happened and i am coming from the perspective of arizona is we started focusing on congressional races and governor and above. we have not focused on secretary of state races. and i think we haven't put enough emphasis on school boards. they build the great state legislatures that are new congress people in ten years and ten years after that governor. i think that is where we need to start. a lot of folks run for the state legislature not knowing what issue motivates them. if it is immigration reform you could make a bigger impact in congress but you have to start somewhere and figure out how your issues play into what you are running for. when i ran, it was 2004, a long time ago, the district is even redistricted. old district 25 new district 14

in arizona. it was the chance for democrats to actually win back then. but we were not focused. the party folks were not focused on legislative races and it was a presidential year and i thought it was a great year to run. there was lots of money but none of it comes to us or state legislative races. i was lucky enough to have emily support and i see tory taylor. they help me come up with plan and that is what i want to do groups like emily's list and other progressive races did for me, i want to do that for state legislature races and since i am from arizona i will never forget my home state. >> we go down the track? i have to agree with sister perez. the best way to build a house,

you don't build a roof, and this is coming from a women who has never built a house but it is my understanding you tonight have to be a scientist to understand climate change is real and don't have to be an architect to know the best way to build a house is not the roof but the foundation. so i agree with ms. perez talking about the fact one of the reason we have lost lost of grounds is they, they being folks that don't believe in equality and justice for all, when folks don't start with their best interest, you don't build a roof. locally elected people are the foundation. people who run for office in the state legislatures they are the foundation. the hands of time is being turned back in this country. the reversal of roe v wade and

all of this is happening on the state level. having a fantastic president is all well and good but it takes team work to make the dream work and the quarterback is only as good as the person they can three ball to and that needs to be thrown to progressive mayors, board members, house members, senators, winning back the state wide offices in the state. i definitely speak from experience. robert, i got to thank dfa, jim dean and governor howard dean for making sure candidates like me have a fighting chance by making that investment and rising up the base. all paths to a great nation go through the ballot box. one woman, one man, one vote. that is still important. we cannot lose sight of that. and we have lost site of that. just because the camera flashes

on the presidential candidate. the things that happen to us and our children happen on the state and local levels way before any president has that impact. we are lost our way. but we are going to find it, robert. [applause] >> i am speaking from a washington state perspective. for us it wasn't a candidate problem. for us it was a consultant problem. we gave the jobs to contractors that don't talk about the racial justice principles we do. when we give them the money they are not talking the same

language. they are telling the candidates to speak the the middle and the old american majority. i think also that with those contracts we need to look inward and examine how we spent that money on canadas not just where candidates spent their money. -- candidates -- are they spending the money equitibly? >> thanks a lot. >> going into the 2010 election, democrats held 60-90 party

chambers and now we are at 30. a big part is what happened in the 2010 election with with a national republican wave that took down our legislatures. we grabbed half of them back in one cycle after that. so we are in the process now of how do we build that back up? i think it is a matter of having a short term strategy and a long term strategy and that is going to take making consistent investments into recruitment, training, message development, a sustainable and accountable field program, building networks to supporters and people that care about the issues and candidates in the communities, and having to work on the issues cycle to cycle they will hope they have a is stained program.

we invest in what we call grassroots program and placed 311 funeral organizers across the country in specific districts. in one community. 10-11 folks. we felt like we made a difference. knocked on thousands of doors. we had over 1.4 million contacts that last weekend. that was critical and allowed us to know the struggle spots. one of the things we did last cycle, unlike the other committees i think, is we wanted to look at this long term and made investments, the ohio senate even though not in the position of winning the majority when we put 311 organizers the ohio senate worked with us to put together a good plan and we wanted to fund a handful of

organizers that would organize in the community. i think that is really critical. having the funding, a strong plan but the funding to fund it for 2016 and '18 and '20 as well. >> the decline in motivating voters and getting them them to the poll. i was having lunch with a candidate who ran and she said she lost the race was turn out fell down and dropped dramatically from the 2010 mid-term to the 2014 mid-term. why are we having such a struggle turning people out in the years without a presidential on the battle. >> i think there are a lot of

factors. i am curious to get some of your opinions as well. i think a lot of democratic candidates don't speak enough to the base. i think there is an issue with that. we take a look at a lot of republican advertising throughout the cycle. a lot of times we will scratch our heads and say why are they talking about issues and we think it is something that doesn't come up too high and a very salient issue on the pole with persuadable voters. they are try to connect the messages to their own base and engage them so they vote. we look at it and think reasonable folks will not pay attention to it. that is what drives their base.

and then they come out and vote in larger mounts. i think that is part. and a larger effort we as democrats is this. i cannot tell you how much friends get together for dinner and want to talk about hillary and president obama and they have democrats. they don't know their elected officials. i think we have work to try to change that. it takes all of us to be able to change the approach in our own communities. >> i just want to second that. i think the focus on the off years i wish as a movement we would spend more attention and money on. there is nothing more excited than a water commission district. i don't know if you have them in

your state. you know what is up. because it matters, right? if you know water and you are in the west you will have a career in front of you. if you don't know water and you are running for a state legislative seat and you have to come up before voters you will struggle. progressive majority, we maintain a farm team in washington state. we have 380 people we work with over the course of the years to get them ready to run. this year we said we want everybody willing to go step up for all of these special purpose districts like water districts, reclamation districts and school districts to control hundreds of millions of dollars in some case and don't have people helping them. we have a special election for someone on their own two months later.

of the 380 people we work we said you will run this and not be in the program. 160 stepped up and 160 progressives who went through the vetting process are running and on the ballot in august. i think that is a game-changer. if we can get the folks in the small district they will make substantial policy change and build expertise going forward. >> just think about last year. it was the lowest voter turnout in our country in 70 years. people are opting out because they do not believe folks who hold the elected space really give about them.

i am not saying that pause a sister was runner but if people can't vote, if they don't have access to the republic, if their voice cannot be heard through the power of their vote you cannot vote for a trustee, mayor or governor. the ballot box is the most important. what i think happened last year, i have to quote my sister janet jackson, what have you done for me lately? and citizens in this country are not feeling as those folks

elected to office really are doing anything about their care, their concerns, those of their children, their neighbors and what kind of future you are going to have. we have to start talking to folks about where they live. people are trying to solve problems. if i don't have a job that is a problem. if i have to string together three jobs together to make it ends meet that is a problem. if my baby is not being educated that is a problem. i have not met anyone going on the boat because you an intellectual. we have to speak to people's hearts. we can do that. titles are good. but purpose is better. titles are good. purpose is better. we have a whole lot of folks that want the fancy title and

angling for the next position instead of making the angling to make the people they serve live's better. i come from the mother jones school of thought and she said i will pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living. i am for the people. i would like to think both of us having the privilege to run for office, or are elected or inspired to rup this is a ministry. if you don't care about people you not run. this is about heart and soul. we are right on all of the issues but how do we help to make sure that what we are right about on the issues perm mate through people's heart so they are motivated to come out number one and vote for their own self interest. that is part of the problem. even the folks who do vote are

voting for several interest. every election here is important. we are programmed to come out every four years. no there is a person or issue on the ballot every flipping year and we need to give as much fire power and energy to close elections every year because we are building the house. and in the next four years we get to the roof and building the house. robert, i am just stealing this thing. >> now, i feel what ej just felt. i should just pass it back. can we just get this woman to run for anything? too late to get in the

presidential? >> sounds like of good. >> right? and i am not joking here. one of the biggest things that got me to run is someone asked me to run. i felt like governor dean was talking to me saying monica i want you to run for office and i love perez in arizona. governor dean, i felt like he was speaking to me and saying i want you to run for office. i was organizing for him down in douglas where i am front. i felt like he asked me to run.

the groups there were forming and said we want you to run. there is an open seat in the legislature. i was 25 years old. i was one of the crazy people that said i want to run for office and just don't know when or where. that is the story. we got people to run for office but we asked them and we pledged to give them support and help. so those folks who were my volunteers as a field organizer than became my volunteers as a candidate and that is the beauty of me working at dfa is coming home. they got me to run. they said don't worry you haven't finished your degree, 25 years old, a single hispanic female with a strong catholic background and my mother is catholic. and don't worry that planned parenthood and emily's list have endorsed you.

it is okay. your mom will not retreat. i got kicked out of my church which i got the endorsement from planned parenthood and it came out in my local paper. i got kicked out of my church and my mom got kicked out of our neighborhood church. but my mom stood up for me. i said i will find a church that will welcome me. i am a proud pro-choice catholic. we need to find a place for all of those candidates. we need to make sure we are asking people to run, teachers, nurses, community activist, veterans are being asked to run, and when they tell you they are not ready. they may not be ready now but there are ten groups waiting to help you. i am ready to help them. i want them to endorse and apply for endorsement. we want to help them. there with people like nina turner to look up to.

i think it is asking people to run and holding them accountable. if i went back on my promises. in 2004, it was pre-sb1070 but there was an initiative at the ballot box where we had to show id. i was the only one speaking out about it. the party told me i should not speak out and stay neutral. how the well am i staying neutral from a border town? my parents were immigrants. there was no way i would say neutral on that. i may have lost my race but i kept my head high and have integrity. if they are promising us a platform, progressive values, and once they get in and close the door on us, guess what? that is what primaries are made for? we have to do that. in arizona we have to get a lot

better at that. i see folks in the legislature getting to congress and their home state might as well be washington, d.c. we have to get back to that. we have to get back to the days where we have folks that truly care about the people. where you cannot just run a campaign on direct male and facebook ads. you have to knock on doors. i don't care if the primary is in august and it is hot. you have to talk to the people. if you are not for the people you have no business running. [applause] >> one of the things i am hearing from this panel is the importance of asking people to run, asking people for your vote, it is called to mind something that i remember very well from spring of 2014.

i am in a facebook discussion that happens to be with one of the leading political consultants in washington state who works for democrats. someone posted an article on how single key women are one of the key demographics. i commented on it saying this is great. i hope anyone running in washington is reading this is planning to reach out to single women and people of color and poor people. as consultants they said that is not smart campaigning they don't show up to vote in mid-term elections. i would not advise my candidates. they should focus on the four by four voters. is that the right strategy? is that wrong? how do we deal with that? let's start with monica. >> as a single female who ran as single female i will tell you that i know i am not a targeted voter. i know that because i vote in

every election and every little bond election, everything, i am not going to get those pieces of mail or that door knock and people are not going to remind me to vote because they will rely on i am voting any way. and we are forgetiting to talk o our base. it is wrong to not talk to single women voters about family issues, economic issues, education issues, health care issues. they are the same issues. it doesn't matter if you are a non-traditional family, family with no kids, everyone has the same struggle. and we should not have direct messaging just to single women and say vote for hillary and she is a woman and you want to see her. although i work for hillary side note. we want to make sure the message is not directed at you because you are a poor single women.

let me talk to you about things that might keep you busy if you are not on match.com you might have time to read the issues a little longer than if you had kids. we all have the same struggles. it is wrong for us. it is called the rising american electorate for a reason. it is the untapped group that i guarantee on the issues they are a hundred percent with us. we are just not talking with them. or we are talking to them as if they were some odd mythical group of voters over here. and they are not. we are all the same. i care about the same issues guaranteed. >> amen to that. single women have to eat. they have to work. while i'm on that i will say this. women want their whole damm doctors. we want the dollars. we want the dollar whether we single or married. we want the whole dollar.

now, okay. steve phillip of power pack has a wonderful book coming out called "brown is the new white" please visit and support. and basically, what mr. phillips is talking about is in terms of the rising electorate and that is black and brown progressives we are the majority. we can no longer lead any sister or brother behind -- leave -- so any consultant and i can tell you i had consultants and people advising trying to run a state-wide candidate. you know about the great swing state of ohio. i will never forget i had a consultant say senator, you happen to be black.

[laughing] >> i am serious and it took everything i had to keep it together. ( ( i happen to be and even though he said now listen, don't draw too much attention. i could not make this up. don't draw too much attention to your ethnicity. i am thinking i am a chocolate sister. i could not make this stuff up. this is for another question i would get that would say how are you doing down south? i am not running in mississippi. i am running in ohio but they want to know how the sister doing down south in the rural

parts of ohio. let me tell you something when you in the room with folks that think this way. and this was not a bad person. a woman of color of african-american heritage i don't happen to be, i was born that way, it was deliberate. it wasn't my accident. so i don't have to but i am. saying all of that to say people of good consciousness with the majority and we cannot leave anybody behind. in 2012, african-american women were the largest voting bloc block in the united states america. you bring the mamas together, the latina sisters, the asian sisters and the native american sisters, women make the world go round. we cannot leave anybody behind. but women have this type of impact on their families especially a single mama in particular. when i say mom i am not talking

about birthing a child but you have the spirit of a mom. as somebody who scolds and protects and speaks truth to power that is not we need more of in this country. any consultant that advises you to leave any group behind you have to get rid of those folks. you know i saw someone tweet, i cannot keep up with nina turner, but it was said tremendous amounts of talent are lost in society because that talent wears a skirt. that was true then and all of us we stand on the sisters of a bold sister like that. she said i am running for the poor. i am running for children.

that is what we need. that is what we need. we cannot leave anybody. we can't leave anybody behind. sglp >> hell yeah to all of that. i must have done something bad in a past life. you said a few things that struck me because i think that when we think about who is running the world, right? it is women, people of color, parliament in this room, we are not pushing back and telling people candidates of color your last name looks too latino let's take it smaller and go with the first name. so the yards sign read vicky

instead of your full name. or on the list, very constructed views of you has hyperprofessional and buying into the respectability politics we are already navigating. and the fact that i am ed of the largest candidate recruitment organization in washington state and i can go days without a peer of color in the similar position is really messed up. i am a white presenting latino in a very large state with a huge latino, black and asian populations and i have zero peers that work in my industry. it doesn't have to be that way. it is that way because we are not asking hard questions or saying it is okay to call our own folks out. if they are our own folks they need to stand with us to make sure the back of the house is looking like the front. don't put us on the pamphlets or the commercial.

let us put the damn commercial together, right? i think part of this has to do with the idea of winning versus liberation. and when we look at how people are voting, the party is interested in learning from the ballot and we fill in the mark and get another d in office. but when people vote, they are looking for who is going to help them liberate their lives because they are in struggle. they are voting for security. people need to know when they are casting a vote it is going to protect their family. we are not doing a good job talking about that and part of that is because we don't have the right people running these campaigns. one of the last things i will say is this idea of voting for security, i guess what does that mean to you whenie i say that? this is a group of progressives. you are not normal people. security to many of us looks different from security to many

of the people that need to be elected most around the country. in central washington, we have a large latino population which is being suppressed from election laws in the way we elect people. it is mathematically impossible. took a federal right voting case for change this. one city that never elected a minority they have nine people running in the country.

>> we cannot change the debate without talking to the people we need to talk to. we need to grow the folks that are voting in the mid-term elections. it is critical. they continue to fight over the same 30% of the electorate to get 51% of the same 31% of the same electorate. i think that ultimately you know when i hear about how narrowly we want to talk to people. i think we have to talk to more people. we have to bring more people into the process and ask them to support us. meet them where they and talk about their issues and problem and engage them.

we want their help and involved. >> i appreciate this question. one of the things we work on

elect democrats to legislatures across-country. earlier this year we, we, you know, started a new super-pac, advantage 2020, which former congressman mark shower from michigan is directing, to put together a comprehensive redistricting, you know, strategy for legislatures, focused on 2020. but as i said earlier, what does that mean? what that means is having a short-term plan to be able to have success in 2016 because the elections coming up 2015 and 2016 are critical. we can't wait to 2020 to do some good things for people and stop a lot of bad things happening to people as well in state capitols and local offices across the country, right? we have to have a short-term plan to have some wins. but then fromhere make consistent investments in the key states and candidate recruitment, field, message development, training, to build

and be able to make gains in '16, make gains in '18 and get there in '20. a lot of times people focus on what happened with the republicans drawing maps in '10. that really put us in a hole but some people may remember, the fact that republicans drew maps and in many of the critical states after the 2001 census. they drew maps in ohio. they drew maps in michigan. they drew miles an hour in wisconsin. they drew maps in pennsylvania, some other states, in those states democrat had majorities if not one, two chambers in each of the states going into the 2010 election. we had national wave election that you know pushed oust out. so, we can get the majority by the end of the decade. these districts, that is the one thing the republicans are scared to death of. they know electorate is changing. they know that the conversation is changing. they know that they can hold off change for a little bit of time

when they redistrict. but by the end of that decade, those districts in the state look a lot different than the beginning of the decade. that is why we need to focus on having a program address that. so, one thing that we have going for us this time that we did not have going last time is the fact in 2020, it will be a presidential year. so we have opportunity in both ' 11 and '20 to have higher turnouts than 2010. we can take advantage to win more seats. >> there is a political strategy and movement-building strategy and we need to push the party to be open-minded around, i do mean the democratic party, you know around what it means to do work around the census. every person needs to be counted if we want these lines to be drawn fairly and every person get as vote that counts. in washington state we had pretty abysmal