>> because they used to serve as a sponge. when that storm would head 60 miles or 70 miles, you know, north of the gulf they would suck in like a spuñ a lot -- sponge a lot of the surge. now you are getting more direct impact on the levies.

you can rattle them off there. i went back not too long after the storm and i saw a family picking up their belongs. i went up as a reporter to talk to them a little and said, we are ready to rebuild right on the gulf. why wouldn't you move 12 miles inland and you can enjoy. they said my gran daddy grow up here and we are going to stay here in mississippi. you'll see people building homes along the gulf, again, in mississippi. but did you have a personal connection to that region that made this difference? >> i'm from oxford area.

there's central park of jackson and south park. [laughs] >> it was a time where we would have given them to louisiana very easily. [laughs] >> you know, we're all kind of one people. i think what happened our hurricane was camile. nobody knew about unless you are older than i am. they had building standards to that level. it's not possible. you know, this tops camile. if you look at the map to the left just right there, that's where the storm came to shore, right there in mississippi. not louisiana. in mississippi. >> right there in the mouth of

florida. >> it's gone. they wanted to build that. now you have to build 31 and a half above water line. >> one of the things that in the 20 years, 15 years before katrina hit the mississippi gulf coast, the mississippi gulf coast had -- >> yeah. >> boats that never floated. >> well, they floated but attached. you have to have the baptist church. >> yeah. [laughs] >> right in there. >> one of the most interesting stories of katrina is, you know, it wiped out most of the casinos. >> yeah. >> how could he convince

conservative mississippi to embrace the sin of casino gambling through the mississippi economy, and i think that was a political act to, in fact, make that happen. i want to paint the picture. in katrina is about 2,000 people lost their lives. people lost their lives in many, many ways. on a personal story side, i had friends whose parents literally died in their beds. waters rose and drown. the waters rose to go into their attics and break holes and wait on the roof of their homes until

the coast guard, which you have to give some credit to, ran for three con consecutive base. those for whom the trauma and shock was so bad that they couldn't withstand being on the room waiting to be rescued, and then there was the after-effect. the trauma was so difficult and challenging. the diabetics were separated from medicine. who also died maybe several days later or a few months later because of the effect of the storm. this is one of the great human tragedies in modern american history, and the reason why it's a tragedy -- i'll tell a story. i was asked the saturday after

katrina to go to a meeting at the white house, and meeting at the white house, and i will say this because it is absolutely true. at that point in time michael had just been named secretary of homeland security, who said to me in a meeting in the white house, that the reason why they could not get in there is that there was no place for quote, military helicopters to land. i challenged him because at the dome there's -- what you saw in those first few days was absolute denial, fumbling finger pointing. it ought to be a lesson.

public officials who were front and center of what you see lost tremendous credibility because of how they responded. fast-forward what i saw and i lived in new york during hurricane sandy with public officials knocking themselves out to run in front of cameras to communicate to their public what they should do to prepare for hurricane sandy. and it's a lesson to be learned that in a chris -- cri sis -- crisis you have to drop bipartisanship. i saw no one defend the fact

that he was willing, and i'll say that in a crisis that the policies of the moment need to be set aside. now, i'm not defending him in aa sense that i agree with his politics, politicians, elected officials and leaders have to remember that in a crisis the public and the people don't care about ideology, they don't care about platform. they expect you to respond and take care of them. [applause] >> in 1965 in hurricane camile, johnson came down to new orleans, got in a boat, this is your president, i'm here, you people matter, i care.

some people criticized. our country cares. george w. bush didn't care enough. he left crawford, texas where he had a meeting about it, went out to san diego and continued to give a speech on foreign policy. he didn't realize and he kept foreign policy, played air get ar in front of a camera while the gulf south was being stricken and famously did the flyover. that was in jimmy carter organization fema and once after

9/11 it became agency. they were an f, f minus. gnaw the louisiana national guard should have been able to help and control, but they didn't evacuate. they came them along the mississippi. so right along in iraq, and so you got all of those drowned louisiana national guards, they were trying to save each other let alone help anybody else. they had moved when that blob was coming. they moved inland so they can go

back to port. the coast guard did work as well. local people, because you know, a lot of people with family that evacuated, people i interviewed, bartender, a lot of people stayed and the second they saw people suffering, they went in and try to help people and did an incredible individual heroism job. they awaol it out of town.

>> they weren't big unmanageable things. on that afternoon before people drowned in their homes, we were listening -- the president is on a levy, oh, my god, i'm watching, the levy is breached. you cannot go to sleep. get out. if you can't get out, go up. they went to bed. if there had been some warning system. i went straight to the air and said the city of new orleans is going to flood. i know lots of people are doing to die. you have to spend people. we are going to be here for weeks or months, they told me i was crazy. it hadn't been reported. if people had been able to be noticed that it was about to

flood, a lot of this wouldn't have happened. we need a warning system. and third thing i want to say, we need a separation between the regulars and the irregulars. anyone that loves new orleans knows that there's a lot of community that's addicted and are caught in a cycle of lack of education and lack of opportunity and become addicted and it's cheap to do it. three days later, there's no need to be around mom and the kids. it was ugly and police didn't go in there because they were worried about it and we needed somebody to patrol the needy. >> there's addicted people everywhere. >> amen. >> i'll say, the other critical mistake was the minute you knew

you had 20,000, 30,000 at the convention center and the dome every effort should have been made to get water mri, medical supplies to facilities immediately by way of air drops. if the med i could get into emergency then emergency vehicles could get into new orleans. [applause] >> it was an absolute lie that you couldn't get supplies in one way or another on tuesday, wednesday and thursday. what happened next? and i think one of the heros of katrina was general -- >> yeah. >> he was assigned, if you will, to lead the effort to completely evacuate the city. by the time friday came, the

federal emergency management agency had mobilized hundreds and hundreds of buses to get to new orleans to bring them to houston, jackson, atlanta and memphis, temporary shelters were. i visited the temporary shelter in houston. bill clinton was there, newly minted senator barack obama was there. i'm going to tell it like it is. and so by the time you got to a weak ten days after the

hurricane, the city of new orleans was a complete ghost town. now what happened next? and this is important. this is one of the second -- this became the second chapter of tragedy. a group of leaders went to dallas, had a meeting, decided that they were going to concept a plan to rebuild the city. that plan included the building only certain neighborhoods in the city of new orleans. bingo, what neighborhoods. >> not to be built? areas that were historic predominantly african american

neighborhoods, and this group of business leaders had the gull to advance such a plan publicly as though it was the only way to rescue the city. imagine if you are laying on a sleeping bag in houston and you look up on television and you see people talking about a plan to rebuild the city that doesn't include the house you evacuated from, that doesn't include the apartment that you evacuated from, that doesn't include the neighborhood that you called home and that you love. so the second chapter that was a tragedy was this plan, i call it the dallas plan to rebuild new orleans which immediately became discredited because in its

intent, the intent was morally bankrupt in my opinion. it outraged me to such an extent that i decided that i was going to fly to new orleans and that we were going to host a a rallyn a church to say to the people and the leadership of the city. initially megyn embraced the plan. as things evolved and election was nearing, he abandoned support of the plan, but what it lead to a chaotic rebuilding that began to take place because everyone sort of through up

their goes. there really was not an organized planning process and everyone was doing their own thing. the people said, i don't care if the government doesn't have a plan, i don't care if the government is dysfunctional, i'm going to rebuild my house. we are going to rebuild this community. you have a civic uprising but the effectiveness of that plan and how it was rolled out affects where we were ten years later that some neighborhoods in the city were very late to begin the rebuilding process because doubt was thrown over whether these neighborhoods would be rebuilt, so businesses would not go back, public services would not go back, bus lines did not go back, hospitals not reopened,

clinics not reopened. >> you couldn't get a hold of them. >> so they got a late start to rebuild. i'm talking a lot of african american areas, and then don't we doubt the fact that there was st. bernard parish. mostly white rural collar area. there was doubt about st. bernard parish to be rebuilt. but abandoned the area that they should not be built. people were left at their own

devices. they took their credit. something to celebrate is determination and nerve of individuals. when government fumbled, bumbled people did their own thing and said we were going rebuild. my own mother whose house got water, spent eight years before she could bring herself to rebuild, before he could weigh through the difficults of insurance and contractors and get over the sting of what katrina did to so many people. imagine each of you about your own hometown, neighborhood, the people you love, and if all of a sudden one day you're enjoying it and a week later it seems to

all be gone. there's a really feeling that's indescribable feeling. you never know if you're going to see your friends, if you were going back to a place that you worshiped, if you're going to enjoy the places that you ate. that's the feeling that many people had in the years, months and years followed katrina whether, in fact, they would get back home. >> you look, you know the moon shock of kennedy. the fact that the generation started -- lets not blame this just an george w. bush. we built a lot of really bad

levies. so there are three major breaches. water could come in. so it's sort of a tale of two cities. if you go there now benign and neglected. some people still can't come back from houston, from atlanta. it's a huge tragedy. i want to ask you guys, look, st. paul, new orleans has one. not a lot of money in new orleans. it's often very broke.

how do you feel businesses are doing -- >> it's important to understand that the character of the port of job creator is not in 2015 what it was '65 or '85 where you had a labor loading and unloading in ships. it's still a very significant driver of the new orleans economy and important component of the new orleans economy. perhaps one of the challenges is a port of shipment, cargo from foreign countries come to the port of new orleans. it is transferred from ocean going vessels to a railroad or a

truck for transshipment to the united states as opposed to a destination port where, if you will, raw materials are for finished products. that's been one of the challenges to maximize its status as one of the leading ports in the united states. but it's still a very significant driver. 30 years ago new orleans had four, maybe four fortune headquarter companies, consolidation in oil and gas, those companies, louisiana land and exploration, lifeline, for example, either seized to exist or carried away.

one of the most exciting things is the administration medical staff and complex. it still remains to be seen whether that's going to be maximized beyond treatment to research and the ability to do the things that the cleveland or anderson medical center in houston are able to do. new orleans has always been a city of family businesses and small businesses, but also a side with wide income disparity, wide wealth disparity. when i'm asked what grade i would assign to new orleans ten years later, i give it the grade i for incomplete because the recovery is not yet complete. you have to celebrate or you have to highlight those things

that have happened that have been good. but you have a spotlight, those pieces of difficult unfinished business, neighborhoods that have not come back, poverty which still exists and challenges that still remain. >> if anyone has a question, come on right up. i'm going to ask a question and hopefully people in the audience would like to ask something. we saw you talking about the bridge and bosses on your coverage. you did a remarkable job as a journalist of breaking news, a lot of reporters started reporting rumors. you seem to constantly and spoke from the heart but also the head and you really, i think to

américa, we were impressed by your journalism shots. how did you know not to -- what to report? what's the instinct to say something that's happening when rumors were widespread even from the police department -- >> and the mayor's office. you just have to realize that's where you are. when you're in the moment, you can only know what you can see, taste, hear, you have to use your senses and you can report those things with a great of certainty. even if i don't understand the bigger context, when they started emptying the dome and they opened the doors, i could

not get in there, you can fill the blanks, the door opens, positive pressure and the smell that came out of there was like nothing i had ever experienced. largest air lift at the time in the history of the nation accomplished by the coast guard, to be able to document those things. [applause] >> yes, sir? >> with the exception of perhaps mr. smith's organization, most people in the country in the world realized that climate change -- >> i report daily. climate change is real and we're responsible for it.

i'm positive they're wrong. >> okay. [applause] [laughs] >> climate change is saying that weather patterns are getting worst, water levels are rising, from a purely economic standpoint, wouldn't it have made sense to size down new orleans and pay to move people elsewhere? realistically -- >> you could argue that you should shut ft. lauder, miami. [applause] >> i heard people say why don't you just move people to high ground in new orleans. ain't no such thing. [laughs] >> all is pretty much at or

below sea level. we built cities near water for practical reasons, and there are a handful big cities in america, atlanta, charlotte, dallas, maybe, denver, las vegas. but most of the major cities -- they're vulnerable. manhattan. vulnerable to storage surge and flooding. charleston, south carolina is vulnerable. if you are going to say it, you have to say it to all cities that are in any way at risk. >> we talked about -- if you love your country enough, we have save all of these great american cities. chicago burned and we rebuilt it. >> i want to say this, every

year when i was mayor, may first, the beginning of hurricane season. all the emergency management people, fema people. the first year i was in office i showed up at the table top exercise, people said what are you doing here. i think if a hurricane happens i have to call the shots, if i have to call the shots i have to need to understand what is going on and not rely what people tell me in the heat of a crisis. in that conversation, one of the people who was presenting the issue, this was in '95, '96. if this is nino in place.

explain to me how climate negatively affects a hurricane. so he goes through this formula about how every degree that the temperature is higher has that much of an effect on the sea level, and i got it. it was easy to understand the way it was explained, and i think we have to have a more practical conversation about climate change. we try to explain to people so they don't think it's a scientific theory. it's realistic. i am absolutely convinced with hurricane katrina that in the years that i lived through camil

e, georgia, that the warmth of the gulf waters was so warm that summer that it took a hurricane from a category 1 or 2 to category 5 in hours. you usually didn't see a hurricane grow in that kind of strength in that short period of time. we will not surrender the city. [applause] >> i don't know if you saw. thanks for raising it. >> good evening to the panel, i was one of those folks watching cnn the days after hurricane hit. i was pacing up and down my living room asking, why, why. i want to ask you your opinions

on the documentaries of how the levies broke. >> spike was either on there. i worked with them on both of his documentaries. he's a great friend of mine. great documentaries of our time. [laughs] >> some of what i said -- you know the beauty of when the levies broke is it's an an artistic triumph, what you hear are the voices of the people. you hear the emotions, spike managed to interview people from

all walks of life. i hope that some people will go and look at it again. i think on the tenth anniversary it's absolutely important to go look at it. >> spike would interview them for two hours so he created history project of hurricane katrina on film to getting to so many people so quickly. thank you. yes, sir. >> don't have a car, but there are higher percent of households don't have a car. how do we keep people that can't keep themselves away from danger? >> buses. >> let me say this, when i was in office, we worked dye -- to build a high-speed rail line.

one of the rationals was that would evacuate, evacuate once, in fact, there was an emergency. so it takes a variety -- what happens to that high-speed rail line? what happened to that high-speed rail line? a governor by the name of gendel can delled -- canceled the plans. you have to -- shepard made this point. it had 400-500 buses. >> it did.

so many school buses -- >> they were mobilized, and the city's emergency called for a distinction for essential or not essential employees. when you go to state of emergency, you can determine which are essential and you report to work and which public employees are not essential and you can go home and evacuate. you can make a determination that the employees of the bus system are essential employees because you had to mobilize an evacuation program. this is also an important subject, those of you interested in public policy, interested in emergency management, you know, what a chief elected official has to have in their head is you have a scenario play and preparation requires what are

you going to do in a worst case scenario. i have to call the tuesday after katrina from the president of amtrack. i believe that i could get, quote, some equipment to assist with the evacuation, that there was no one at home at the ranch to call. >> that would not have been possible -- >> who could coordinate it. for those communities where people don't have personal vehicles is your question, a city, community, a region and state have to have a plan in their pocket on how they're

going to mobilize an evacuation for those who don't have -- >> they didn't follow it. you have to follow your plan, you can't say i don't have the money. they're not going to notice. this one is not going to hit. it'll be fine. >> so what you're saying is because they -- because they wanted to hide from elected officials they put it in an emergency plan book, right? [laughs] >> lets try -- we are going to have to wrap up. we'll promise to get a short answer because we have to wrap it up. i'd like to get the two of you. you're standing there and going to have a baby soon. go ahead. >> my question is for shepard, how is the dynamic of reporting a disaster from reporting a --

>> this was both things. this was a natural disaster followed by human disaster. there was a natural tragedy and human tragedy and both have to be reported on. we're now that revision is history. different people of different background and interests, areas of study and people to protect are all going to be telling the stories in different ways. it's important to look back on what really happened and figure out the things on which we can make improvement for the future and the things that just happened. we could not stop katrina. we could have sent the buses. >> how are we on time? can we take anymore? >> i have a couple of questions.

had this happened in new jersey, if the math the hamptons. it would have been very different. this could be prevented from happening again, how much do you think it would cost and do you think the nation is very politically speaking concerned about it? >> the first thing is no. i said that from the very beginning. down here we down here don't have the power of the money. we don't -- we don't have the cameras, we don't have the voice, we can't project it loudly. sandy was horrible. i lived it. had to evacuate for a week. they got it done because that's

what has to happen up there. there's a million cameras over there. people parachuted to new orleans when they realized there's poverty. >> so anyways, i've been to new orleans. i survived a hurricane, lost a home, survived, so that's good, i'm here. but anyway, i would love to get a sense, nothing tragic or as emotionally as katrina, maybe you can give an afternoon of what your news gather was in between live shots.

as a producer there's a lot of down time and a lot of you have to hustle but you're in this element, you're in this natural disaster, something that mother nature caused and also human error, so what was it was like day one and day two -- >> since we're almost out of time i won't go into detail. there's a certain head and flow. there is confusion, there's separation, there's anxiety, crime and then there's anger and frustration. the kinding sl -- cycle is there. you know before it happens. this broke all the molds. the army didn't come.

people said there's water and food. no there's not. because you decided that all these people are all criminal you're not going to let them go and that's it. basically leave them there to die. i don't know what the reality was. i only know my area. we would go down the bridge and wait for people and asked if they had family there. we learned on day four, i guess, a lot of people went to attics. it didn't occur to us that people went upstairs and died in their attics. as the tragic was growing we started to realize, there wasn't sleeping, you're outdoors protecting yourself, you realize this is different, they're not coming.

and right now as we're sitting here, people are dying. you're in motion, you acted like a spoiled girl. i had never seen you like that. i've never seen where someone had to scream. they weren't there. it wasn't that they were there and failing, they didn't come, and in all of my years, i had never seen that. >> it was an international news story. it was not just a national news stories. the international media covered it. i remember being contacted by australia, south america, press from all over the world. why is that important? when the early stages of both the iraq and wars and for america to be portrayed in a fashion that it can't respond to

the challenges of its own people affected our standing as a country and our ability to demonstrate competence in the face of human tragedy. so we shouldn't forget that element, that, you know, it's the kind of thing people want to talk about but there were numerous conversations that i had that it affected and raised questions about our standing in the world because pictures tell a powerful story. what you saw wasn't a movie. what you saw what was really happening, and what you saw were people suffering, people suffering, people dying on live television. >> that's a good way to end. thank you, all. mark, shepard. [applause] >> people that have questions can ask affordwards.

thank you, all. >> next year marks the tenth year anniversary of hurricane katrina. c-span live coverage beginning monday morning. coming up tonight books by presidential candidates. also bernie sanders wrote a speech on corporate greed and decline of middle class and jeb bush on immigration wars. start tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. also this evening senator bernie sanders will be in colombia, south carolina for a town hall

meeting. live coverage at 7:00 eastern. up next former defense department officials on the roles of special operations and intelligence on 21est century warfare and battles with al-qaeda and isis. [applause] >> thank you, i want to thank clark for having us here. i also want to think admiral olson. we also have with us dr. mike vicars, and also former head of investigations within the pentagon and catherine hicks who

has held many senior roles inside the pentagon and is now at the center for strategic and international studies. so we are going to open with a question that has touched on all of your careers. you all spent time fighting extremist militants. with that experience looking at the islamic state group and al qaeda is isis or isil the threat that they putting out to be and is al-qaeda on the the back foot for good or preparing for the next battle? >> you may begin. [applause] >> feel free to share anything

with us. >> the point of terrorist attack remains our number one natural security threat is a clear present danger along with cyber attack. isil in a way is a bigger threat because of its ability to inspire so called long wolf or radicalization attacks across the world because al-qaeda is more sophisticated. that remains significant danger. al-qaeda has suffered a lot of losses but it is still very much in the gain and it can come back

in various ways. >> i do think that the isil threat has been appropriately described. i don't think it's been overblown. in part it is because of the fact that -- there's an area of territorial region that it's been able to occupy and operate from, and, of course, the essential network peace that allows it to operate worldwide. al-qaeda is not on its heels but we can try to keep it like that. and i think that's what it takes going forward whether it's isil al-qaeda, long-term effort to counter terrorism with all the

tools that we have and in coalition. >> did you expect we'd still be in a nation now all of these years later? >> it's great to be back in this forum and thank you for making this possible. it is good to be back together and pleased to be on this stage with former colleagues. i spent most of my time in uniform avoiding kim doiger. [laughs] >> but it's good to be with you today, kim. >> thank you. >> i left the military service four years. it is a new phenomena. again, i can't talk about isil

as historical perspective, but i do agree with mike and catherine that isil is a regional. it is a real threat to us. but i think that we -- when we speak of isil, it's the next generation of al-qaeda, we undercredit them as an army. al-qaeda, clearly a terrorist group, but isil is organized in behaving like an army with military equipment, seize and hold territory in a way that al-qaeda couldn't do. i think that makes it an adverse comparison. >> yet, there are other threats out there, russia in places like

ukraine, iran support, hezbollah , north korea nuclear threat. are our national security efforts skewed when they haven't caused nearly that much damage in this country ce -- recently as these other actors in overseas. >> we need to learn how to. i don't think we spent a disproportion or unreasonable amount of time focusing on ct specially in the isis threat or that is taking away from the ability to focus on long-term challenges. now having said that, resources are severely limited. that's obviously money.

it makes it much harder. you're always going to have challenges with money, people. again, lets just talk in the panel, we're trying to adapt as quickly as we can. it's very challenging to meet all of those potential threats at once and it's a -- which region to what end. it's usually that that is fine to the public. why there and not there? >> one you didn't mention was

the rise of china, east asia is the most -- probably strategic and economic competition. china, east asia, russia and europe and lots of others in the middle east and you have to deal with them all. the capabilities you need to deter with china. and so you have to have a portfolio of capabilities and strategies to deal with the range of threats. i've certainly never seen such a wide range of threats from the high end to the nonstate actors in the 40 years i've been in this business. >> do you have to tools you need to do the job? do you have enough forces to do

it or 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. what can -- they put their troops inside ukraine to direct forces. what is the u.s. doing or can it do in return? >> general will be here on friday and that's a good question for him. >> got it. [applause] >> the first word of private sector is private. i'm not going to go some place i

shouldn't go. i will say that the it was special operation in crimea and had gone to school for specials operations and concepts in executing that, but specifically special operations might be doing is something that i won't talk about. >> we -- it was no surprise that the russians are good in warfare. we certainly seen them operate. definitely not something that i would have foreseen. so what is and can and should be doing about it? it's a very good question to ask

the general is focus on working its allies particularly poland to assure the ability to those states to withstand any political pressure or approaches from russia. ukraine is obviously much harder. ..

but what wednesday is the coordination and the sharing of tactics techniques and the interoperability of the equipment is only limitation at

a very high level. so part of the challenge is both working with partners. i spent a lot of time there in my last year of government. but is building robust institutions that can protect themselves from the counterintelligence perspective against the russians winning the battle of influence, i mean one thing putin has done he may have one in the short-term he is turning ukraine into the nationalists in a way that no politician could have done. and so the longer term that is the big fight. >> so, to shift to the fight against the islamic state group in iraq into syria, the u.s. has a choice at this point 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 and choose hybrid warfare by the

kind we saw in afghanistan you would have special forces in the afghan team and they would be allowed to do the fight until they started losing and then the u.s. would step in. >> i think what we did in afghanistan in 2001 was remarkable in the taliban regime. but i was equally bad in the same way as what putin has done in ukraine and has the marriage of modern conventional precision warfare with unconventional warfare. >> you could apply that to iraq and syria. >> if it's part of the coalition and arresting the growth of isis fast enough or do you need to ramp up the number of advisers on the ground, joint air controllers, things that would make the forces of the kurdish

forces and the u.s. proxy war effective in the battlefield today. >> i would say i think that if there is room to grow the u.s. contribution to include special operators on the trained and advised side there is no doubt about that but before you throw that out there is an absorption in the capacity issue which is the ground forces that are there to work with. that's where i think there is a lot of attention right now trying to make sure that we can get the coalition to get the iraqis to put a lot of pressure on the political situation to get the forces that are aligned to feel some sort of allegiance and then are capable of working with u.s. and other trainers where we have done a obviously

the kurdish force where they've been pretty aggressive. that has worked very well in terms of the u.s. ability with there on the ground capability and training aspect. and i do think that has to be sustained. you can't do that that widely implemented and think that will take care of the situation. i think that it is a long-term issue but before we jump in with a whole lot more, we need those ground forces to start to come together. >> the ground forces can take years to grow and it seems they are growing faster and doing things like planning plots against the u.s. homeland where at least they are against the homeland so do we have the luxury of the time it's going to take to bring the forces up to speed?

>> the one model is you train the forces and you may give them some support but basically they are going to do the fight. you are a trainer. that obviously takes a lot longer to get them ready then if you are willing to advise and assist to actually go with them on the front line. but we combine the power with the ground force you reference afghanistan in 2001. >> afghanistan in 2001 you can get very dramatic effects in a short period of time. it's a policy choice. but the reason is because you have a ground force than that it doesn't have to be the worlds greatest can exploit the fact of the power. if you don't have someone employs the effect of the taliban and becomes very after shuttle and takes a lot of time just like the training takes time and the power takes a long time generally as well.

>> did use of special operations or possibly the over use of the special operations or every national security problem that this country faces. one could argue that the white house uses them like the ultimate swiss army knife of the pentagon. do you have the numbers to meet the missions that you face? i know that you've are a few-years-old but it's something that you still watch and you've been watching it closely because you needed them to either go out and protect your intelligence forces as they are collecting things over to engage. >> we've doubled the size of the special operation forces and tripled the budget and at the highest templates down a little bit right now. we've quadrupled the operational

tempo since 9/11. that is dramatic growth and there's plenty. the question is they are also in great demand and what you do with them. >> the manpower under the command is the commander of special obligations constitutes about 2.5 come immediately% of the overall manpower. the special operation is conducted by forces for which other forces are not organized, trained, and a quite. it makes the infield with guns. so much of the special operations forces be bigger because growth management frankly is a challenge. whether or not other forces should train and equip to do some of the things that have fallen on the special operations over the last few years. it is agile and responsive but

there's reasons they couldn't. >> the issue is maintaining the high level of quality that in the special operations forces. but it's a challenge that we have expanded so much. it is why there is time to look at the regular forces and seeing how it is going between them and the training needs to be done in the regular forces. it's a similar amount in 2006. the old iraq war has six of these patrols as people called them drones. we've increased that by a factor of ten. there's plenty of capacity.

>> so, while we are on the subject, do you care to give an update where the defense service was when you left because there was a move to grow it in a briefing about how you all plan to grow it to several thousand people to do the same kind of intelligence collection that of a different nature in the overseas operatives. >> there were reports that the planned growth has been curtailed. >> it is growing and it is an important initiative in terms of the human intelligence particularly important in this world against the range of challenges that you described and the department of defense and our military have something to contribute to the overall national effort. if a partner in that effort, it's a compliment, i would add that the junior partner. it's not rivaling the size of the cia. and we have had strong support from the cia and the dni in this

effort and that's all i'm going to say about it. >> it's still growing. >> if you could give a ballpark figure - >> i don't. [laughter] >> okay. that brings us to another subject. some of the tools by which the special operations carries out. sometimes guns but sometimes remotely piloted vehicles, drones, the targeting and special operations get so that the headline. it also gives a policymaker in the white house in a black-and-white resolution to a problem. there is a name that was on the list said they were backwards and then the name is crossed off the list. therefore, it is - is targeting over used? we have had 13 years in the middle east, some of the most the planet has ever seen. so yet we have the growth of the second militant group that has rivaled and has now surpassed

all qaeda according to the fbi director. is the targeting of used? >> so, one of the big revolutions than an intelligence in the past decade or so has been the operationalization of a certain portion of the analyst of the partners and that has made a dramatic difference in all forms of intelligence operations. by the counterterrorism obligations where all these operations are really intelligence driven into the analyst is really at the center of it. back to the strategic effect, you mentioned al qaeda is on its heels in the pakistan border region. only one of the senior leaders who was there for the 9/11 attacks is left. that organization is a shadow of what it was just five, six years

ago. so it has been in effect over the campaign over many years. >> did push the balloon to yemen because now all qaeda in the arabian peninsula has a bombing machine and the technology that is training. >> there is a thing called turmoil in the middle east that opened up in yemen as well. but we talked about isis that was all qaeda in iraq. we threw the kitchen sink at iraq and we knocked them down to 90% and they reconstituted syria it was the entire might of the united states for years. and why, because it is a civil war on syria. >> so, you're saying that you can help fight for - part of the

problem but it wasn't for the middle east. >> we are still working on that one. >> not every challenge is knowing that there are some out there that needs to be hammered out. >> part of it is the tactical removal is the removal of the position it's reminding everyone that isis isn't invulnerable and that they do have weaknesses that can be exploited and it damages their recruiting efforts into their own shtick to take out the key leaders from within isis.

we are operating under authority right now. to use the targeted approaches. in some cases for the targeting killing. i do think that the drone debate has become unhelpful to say the least. so so doesn't have it in that sense, absolutely. as policymakers, we have to be mindful of that reality. but if you look obviously at the progression of the warfare overtime, we go through villages, by and large we don't strategically bomb anymore. and the fact that we have a toolset that allows us to reduce the number of civilian casualties and we have reduced the number of civilian casualties involved in the conflict, that i think is the

story that is important to tell. are there civilian casualties that occur, yes. are there questions about the transparency of the process for targeting, yes. and i think that we need to address both of those. but i think it has been a good tool in the toolkit and it's something that we should look at. >> back to the earlier point, isis is different from al qaeda in that sense it is like the taliban holding a territory. you need a different strategy to attack back then you do all qaeda. there are elements against the leadership, but you have to defeat the army with an army. >> and isn't every drone strike a potential recruiting tool for the opposition? >> there is the theory we have an obligation to protect the united states of america but it's funny we have a lot of surveys in pakistan.

the closer you are to the strike if you are a local, the more in favor you generally are because those getting struck are those oppressing you. the more removed you are the more you complain about yourself to being violated and lots of other things but it's been a very, very effective support of the foreign government. we couldn't do it at others talked about it and those authorities rest in important cases on the consent of the host nation. so i just don't buy that argument. yes it is a tough business. it is a very effective one. >> they are an option. >> when you compare the option of using the drone against the option of firing the artillery round or dropping the bomb were putting the force on the ground it's not that bad of an option. for one thing it can linger.

it provides the ability to be patient and the decision to strike. it can be recalled without any affect at all if that becomes the decision so it is actually a far more disciplined way of conducting the precision strikes and some others might be. >> i just wanted to say about this issue also gets to very fundamentally is information campaigns which we are not great at. so when the strike occurs you're pointing to the fact that it's a recruiting tool. it is whether something actually happened or not because sometimes there is a factual attack and sometimes there's something else that happened for instance of course the taliban taliban attack that would've been be described in the drone strike. so if something happens and that information is exploited in the recruiting and obviously if we

jump ahead now to isis they have an incredible recruiting capability in a very low-tech way. twitter is extremely simple. they are not talking to isis. no, they follow taylor swift. but in the united states disrespect to the toolshed issue they are trying to send out a custody more organic than that and that is the biggest intelligence support and it has to be regional. the best tool is success. successful attack on the united states and conquest of territory they think they've established the caliphate and that is what

you have to defeat. >> that is what makes the transparency piece, which in full disclosure we will discuss before hand we don't agree on this one. so, i believe that when the special operations forces are used so frequently and the operations often become exposed in the social media the raid that got all qaeda they got the leader also in libya that old broken social media. so, if it does become exposed, you can take part in that campaign instead of what i often encounter is a spokesman or official saying i've got to

check to see how much we can declassify or i have to check to see what i can tell you on that. >> while, that's because we live in a fairly open world. as you mentioned, the two that made the media. they are all plans to be able to adapt rather rapidly to that. but there's also things we want to keep secret because we want to do these again. so we have to draw the line. >> so, that is the difference between saying this unit. out of raid by helicopters etc., etc. versus saying we acted in the pentagon announced that there was a strike the other day that took out the leader of the group. it kind of takes the wind out of the sails for all of the reporters that would like to get

exclusives. there it is. it is a little relief. why not have a plan like that for the operation? >> i think they do. i agree with mike. i think that it isn't a forward leaning plan. it's a response plan. but there is no - it isn't always helpful to announce the successor because sometimes the confusion of the success of who survived and who didn't quite have been taken off of the site of what was left on the side and kind of operations itself. when revealed its canned disadvantage of us and it's very carefully considered what it is and when you say it. so how about instead of the things that might be useful in terms of the information by sharing things that you know what the press.

they bring the groups of the reporters and to bring the briefings on what they are seeing. but why not release the satellite images show. why not released a study that you were talking about that the pakistanis strike support. >> it was done by the ngos and others. >> we did share satellite information with russian forces and allies to make the case for them. >> we don't want to give our high-end capabilities of the show a that show a theory exactly what we can do in

certain cases. >> i don't see it happen very often. the press was being told one thing by the russian side. we had intelligence agencies show us here are the satellite images that we are seeing and then we could go to the commercial satellite image groups and get independent verification so that gave me as a reporter a way to see what you all are seeing rather than just having to take it on faith. they are shown coming across the border. >> the special operations commander for the pentagon. it wasn't up to us to decide.

maybe the white house would spot the vehicle hot and cold david - went hot and cold. >> "the new york times" had an article out recently about the navy seals in the joint special operations command. one of the officials quoted that jsoc associate jsoc and don't have the same standards as the rest of the forces. and i can only speak from my own frustration. i would sometimes - i found out for instance that in an allegedly strike on a - the strike that hit the wedding party in yemen i found out the general had ordered the

investigation into that. he had ordered 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? it's kind of this proves the thesis or the special operation forces are great in their own homework. many of the other sources have not served lately. i can see that most of the time special operation forces are a supporting force for some bigger operations certainly where their

resources on the ground. special operations are almost always in support under the command of the geographic combatant commander and they employ other forces in almost every special operation. runways have to be provided from airspace has to be logistic support us is to be provided, medical support, intelligence, analysts. this isn't a secret society that operates independently. it operates with much transparency [inaudible] operates with full transparency in the chain of command and within the structure that is provided to do that. and i will say that as a matter of policy, a chain of command

cannot investigate in its own. 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 happened in the navy component. but to think that that's some sort of a secret covered up kind of thing is never to my knowledge been any sort of revelation of a cover-up that took place within the special operations investigations. >> so, what is the track record. >> the track record of the investigations within the force? i'm speaking now historically i don't know the case now but when i was there, there were multiple investigations underway everyday looking into things that just didn't seem right to the commanders were other leaders during response to the allegations that have been made in some way against the force and they are all educated and

there are many taking place. as you also don't blow up a disciplinary actions that have taken place. sometimes to protect embarrassment of an individual or some other aspect of the force capability. and i think my own sense is that it has all been quite well disciplined. >> i don't see secrecy is necessary to protect an individual who might have committed a crime or done something wrong under the military code of justice. >> does become a matter of record. >> that's not an openly available record. >> so, last question iran. if the deal goes through and they are allowed to wrap up its energy only nuclear enterprise,

will the u.s. intelligence community know if the chief - know if h. they cheat? >> about these things in iran of particular compliance there's is always challenges and verification, but that is what is air into the structure of the deal but we know a lot about iran. >> one of the general operations that is serving of his serving on the ground in iraq right now was at a conference recently in tampa said that the head of the force inside iraq right now honestly believes that the u.s. is supporting isis and they learned this trick intercepted communications etc.. can deal with iran foster an

understanding between the u.s. forces both inside iraq such that those misunderstandings go away? you can look at some hope that they've been able to sit down through the negotiation with our european partners and others. you can look with some hope that is an extremely long road. the conspiracy theory in the middle east runs from every which way. if you were to have the same conversation with somebody they would probably tell you they think that the u.s. and iran have struck a deal to divide up the middle east. the reality is we are in for a long period with instability in the middle east with the cross currents running every which way and the u.s. will be able - have

to talk to the parties in the region and reassure them the best they can about the interest. >> there is a lot of conflict between the united states and iran that haven't changed. they are supporting bush are all solid - bishara lessard, the government exile in iraq we find ourselves on different sides from time to time trying to undermine our influence. so there's a whole range of that to be made whole anytime soon. >> so, just one last follow-up. how quickly did we know that they had cheated? weeks, months, days. >> it depends on what they are doing.

you can't just cheap like that. the old scale of a large-scale. some of it might literally be ours. others are a week and - >> does - >> the question is what you do about it. do you do about it. speed is opening up relations mean either the u.s. or other intelligence services could have greater visibility on what's going on? >> the deal structure is to try to give us greater access. access is generally a good thing that we are not overly dependent on that. >> i would like to open up to the audience. please wait for the microphone.

>> from the association of the army army i have a question about sequestration. two weeks ago we saw a large amount spent by the army coming down 40,000-dollar troops. sequestration could take that down another 30,000 that doesn't include the cuts to the army national guard and the reserve. given that the special forces depend so much on the conventional force and military services for enabler's, what kind of impact is that going to have given that we are doing more with our special forces? >> thank you for the softball. i had the pleasure of being in fort hood texas today that the army announced that they would be included, so i kept my head low. it's going to have an effect on the forces and it's going to have an affect overall. the united states has made a decision to reduce the amount

that it's going to spend on defense at least in the base budget. and that is a national level decision. that's a political decision that has to do with what we spend, how we tax, what we spend on our entitlements and what we spend on the domestic program and then of course the national security piece. so, defense is the tail on the blog. those of us that live in the defense community, it boggles our mind because we live in that. if i keep going with that analogy, the rest of the public does not, they are not focused on that and i think the reality of the effect, whether it is the army jew all down whether it is the readiness decline which is going up in several areas, whatever it is going to be, that is going to be lagging. the telltale signs that the military have underinvested well, too late to fix some of

the problems and then we will be back in the usual mode of trying to catch up to it we do have a release valve called overseas contingency operation fund. much of it is funded. one of the things that three of us and others worked on for the last ten years or so is trying to migrate back into the base budget. that will not happen with sequestration. so we will continue to live year by year without an ability to plan long-term and when it comes to those threats at the high end where we are trying to do high-tech buildout, it is extremely challenging to do that in a world that we don't go from year to year what the budget is going to look like so just predictable but even if it is a low level of funding will help us plan the kind of defense that we need for the nation.

>> the sequestration also cuts the least effective program by the same amount. it cuts the most effective. i mean, it's about the responsibility. >> i would say it depends on how the service is prioritized. and i think i've used a biological analogy here before but organisms at risk shrink to protect their core and they are not at the core of any of the big service capabilities and so the services want to have the luxury of giving it provide the kind of things in their budget the special operations need. but most of the growth within the special operations community in the last decade haven't been in the core forces. it's been intelligence analysts into tactical air controls and it's been these things that would be provided by the big services but given the strain across the services from the

similar capabilities the special operations had to grow them themselves. so what the sequestration will do this put more pressure on each of the services to find room in the reduced budget to invest in the kind of things that the special operations depend on. >> the publicized communications from al qaeda central to al qaeda and iran about the brutality and impact that that had, i isis has been exponential what would you term as the international response to this? has there been anything in your

mind concretes directed to emphasize or d. incentivize this kind of brutality? >> we are certainly trying to d. incentivize by killing as many of them as we can. [laughter] but, isis has gotten against everybody. so, the message that you are referring to was the strategic guidance to the subsidiary at the time. we will deal with them at a future date. right now we are focused on the west and we don't pay attention to that. it's been successful to some extent. it's brutality backfired. that's what led to the awakening and at some point it's going to backfire as well.

the areas of iraq if you try to look at it industries military terms and say how data 2,000 vehicles defeat an army of 50,000 would extend $25 billion training it isn't because of the strict military balance, it's because of the politics, the loyalty to the state, the frustration in the central state etc. and that will turn on isis at some point as well. >> jennifer with fox news. i have a question for the admiral. do you see a time when women can serve in the special operations forces delta force and if you were the commander do you think that you would be asking for an extension later this year? and for the panel as a whole do you think that the u.s. created

isis by invading iraq in 2003? >> in answer to the first question to let the panel get the rest of it - [laughter] there've been operators in the special operations community for a long time. they have gone as far forward and stay there as long and lived under the same conditions as the men they served in our military information support roles and deserved in the civil affairs will. they performed with great distinction sometimes quite perilously. and there is much more opportunity to serve across the special operations community. so, i do see increased roles for women across the special operations. that doesn't mean that i am a proponent of all military

specialties being open to all when in all the time, but i do think that there is much more that women can do and very important roles in combat environments. >> what you think of it due to the unit cohesion to have her in a team? >> there are women that have served as attachments and the green beret into the marine corps. it's very small levels with a dozen or 15 people and two of them might be women and so - >> but that is different than then everyone in the team relying to drag them out of the firefight or were risking getting shot and then having to deal with being injured.

>> it is. so i think that if the question is what will it do to the unit cohesion i don't think that is in the question. it's what would it do to the tactical decision-making in the field. which is a big question about how tactical leaders will respond to being in the position for the women to take the first bullet on the target. it's been great success on the targets but the cultural support teams have been written about some lately. but i will just remind you that the role on the target wasn't to be combat soldiers and the first thing they did was take their helmet off and let their hair down and corral all of the women and children that only they could do.

and expanding that role for women in ways that they can perform. >> but it would be rather than in direct combat role going through the door first. >> if you're asking me the answer is yes but i don't want to sound like an old white guy. [laughter] we're only having part of the discussion on the women in combat and this wasn't supposed to be about that. after co but since you asked, i think that we need to ask ourselves as a society if we are willing to put them in the front combat units to take the first on target are we willing to cause every 18-year-old girl to sign up for service. are we willing to cause them to enter the units against their will as we do about 30% of infantry units are those that

didn't volunteer to be in the front line combat and if we are willing to work with them in the combat not just the volunteer then that is an entirely different discussion. if we are good to have equal opportunity we also have to have equal obligation to serve in those very dangerous roles. and if as a society we are willing to stop saying women and children first and every man for himself on a sinking ship, then that is the kind of discussion we need to be having because it does affect how we think about women in very dangerous world. so that's kind of my sense of it at this point. >> that last question to send us home. did the invasion of iraq helped create isis?

create, technically, no. al qaeda in iraq was formed before the invasion in 2002. they left afghanistan after the invasion of afghanistan and made its way into iraq. did it intensify the growth of al qaeda in iraq and the predecessor organization after 2003, you bet it did. then if you move forward to the rise after al qaeda in iraq was largely defeated, it is a creation of the civil war into the sanctuary and all that operated from there during the iraq war. it's not just al qaeda and jihad is the former iraq military officers and others.

and then created by at least allowed to expand by the iraqi government actions and how they manage their state. >> on that note, thank you very much. conversation is to be continued. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

the senate aging committee is looking into ways to help seniors maintain independent living and talks of academics and experts about some of the advancements in electronic sensors and medical alert devices. this hearing is about 90 minutes. >> the hearing will come to order.

good afternoon. this afternoon's hearing will explore the potential of new technologies to help seniors safely and to retain their independence. the u.s. population is aging. according to the census bureau projections, 21% of our population will be aged 65 and older by the year 2040. that is up from just under 14% in 2012. every day, 10,000 baby boomers turn 65. as many as 90% of them have one or more conditions. americans aged 85 and older, the oldest old are the fastest

growing segment of the population. and this is the very population that is most at risk of multiple and interacting health problems that can lead to disability and the need for long-term care. the very time that our population is growing older, the need for care and support is increasing. the population of professional and informal caregivers is however declining today there are seven caregivers for each person over age 80 and at the highest risk of requiring long-term care. by the year 2030 there will be four and by 2050, the number drops to fewer than three. as a consequence in the future,

more and more people will have to rely on fewer and fewer caregivers. as people age, they naturally want to remain active and independent for as long as possible. aging and place is the ability to live in one's own home and community safely come independently come and comfortably regardless of age or ability level. surveys taken by aarp consistently reflect the fact that aging in place is the preferred option for seniors who want to continue living independently and avoiding nursing homes and other institutionalized care for as long as possible. today's hearing will examine some of the recent advances in technology that are providing new options to allow them to

remain in their homes longer by monitoring their health status, detecting emergency situations such as debilitating holes and notifying providers of potential changes in health status or emergencies. while it isn't a replacement for professional care, or the personal attention from family members, technology can help to bridge the gap and extend the amount and length of time that a person is able to live independently. technology can also help to reduce isolation and enrich the lives of seniors by keeping them engaged and connected to their families and their communities. we will also hear this afternoon about technologies that can make the lives of family caregivers easier by giving them the tools

they need to support their loved ones as they age in place. finally, we will hear from the veterans administration a real pioneer in health which has used technology such as video conferencing and smart monitors to reduce hospital admissions and to shorten hospitals stays. this has resulted in a lower costs and it's also a loud some of our older veterans with chronic health conditions to live independently at home] want to be. many of us are familiar with the decades-old well-known phrase i have fallen and i can't get up. that was an advertisement for a medical alert system. while many seniors still rely on

this advice, breakthroughs in modern technology have brought us a long, long way providing many new options for seniors and for their families to technological solutions can be cost-effective and tailored to meet the specific needs of a senior and his or her living situation. companies that develop these technologies are starting to realize that not only is there a growing need to design products that need seniors needs, but also there are many who want technologies and devices that look just like those used by younger generations. for example, this phone is an older generation device that is specifically designed for seniors to be easy to use. it has large numbers for

example. this new generation version of the phone is the smartphone but still has the same use as the old version of the phone that looks like the smartphone that people's children and grandchildren use. much more important than a appearance however, this new generation device also includes technologies that help seniors maintain their independence. for example, it has features to help with dedication at hearings, provided 24/7 access to medical operators as well as an application that the family caregiver can download to keep them up to date on their loved one's well-being. we will also explore the challenges posed by these technological advances such as privacy concerns and the unequal

access to the internet that exists across the country. before i turn to senator mccaskill for her opening statement i want to give a special welcome today to the vice president for research at the university of maine. the university's university's successful aging initiative for living or sale program she's traveled today to tell us about the thriving in place movement that will benefit significantly from the development of new technologies, products and devices. i look forward to hearing not only from her but from all of our witnesses this afternoon. senator mccaskill. >> thank you chairman collins.

how can seniors remain in the communities and remained with dignity is an important issue and a top priority of the committee. we have assembled a great panel today and i'm looking forward to hearing about the exciting innovation that can help seniors and their families. there is a disconnect between the number of seniors that say they want to stay in their homes and communities and the number of seniors who end up having to move into nursing facilities. in fact the reason the study found that 87% of older adults would prefer to remain in their own communities as they age. while it may not be possible for every person depending on the number of factors to remain in their homes for many of us, with the right support it as possible. and it is preferable but in terms of quality of life and certainly from financial implication. recent advances in technology are providing these new options for seniors and their families that can allow them to remain home for longer by on entering health status, detecting

emergency situations and notifying healthcare providers about the changes in the status. these can also meet family member's and caregivers life easier by providing them with tools to support their loved ones and giving them peace of mind. this really is a win-win situation. they are much happier continuing their normal routines and activities where they feel comfortable. family members can make sure that their loved ones are safe and society as a whole benefits from sick of the complete the complete reduced healthcare and long-term cost. there are many technologies that are already on the market. home-improvement stores and other big-box retailers and even communication companies also can keep seniors secure in their home. developers are creating senior specific monitoring devices such as beds, toilet and pillbox sensors that can monitor activity within the home. pillbox sensors are so simple in nature that can prevent tragic accidents by making sure that seniors are not mixing

medications are seeking to many pills. ..