have input before it in the public comment period as the dietary advisory group was meeting to go a series of public meetings, opportunities for people of input. there's also been continued opportunity to have input in the process. the challenge i have is does the process, your data finale to a. you have to have a stopping point to it. in order for us to be able to factor into that there is other decisions we could make that are in some places based on the guidelines. i'm concerned about how long you extended this process -- >> the last thing i would say is the focus of with commenting on this and that is they could decide not to follow them. they could decide to be critical of them once they are proposed to there is an ongoing debate and conversation. >> my concern is right from the start, you made the comment and i appreciate it, the that you wt to prejudge what the guidelines will be.

it's not a complete process. the reality is is when she published those guidelines those of the guidelines and there's no avenue for the public to have input on that and i think that's troubling. >> i would disagree in the sense there'there is already been sevl places where they have input and they can continue to have input. they continue to respond to the 2010 guidelines, which are part of the foundation and the information we take into consideration. so it's an ongoing education process. i don't think it ever stops. that may not be a formalized period of time but it never stops. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to the witnesses were testifying today. a few questions to the comp might after all this discussion we've had. the first one that i have is that when i look at data on the

students that are overweight or obese, have we had any evidence that, which direction the weight has gone? first to ms. burwell. do we have any education on whether this program is reducing the overweight is a virtual to physical of whether it may be working against us speaks with regard to the specifics of programs in schools, i will refer to my colleague, secretary vilsack in terms of those programs. what i think we do know is in younger children were starting see over arching across the board not just from a programmatic school-based but we are starting to see the numbers go in the right direction. with regard to the specific fiscal programs i would differ. >> i was prepared to redirect to that question after your response so thanks for pointing that out. according to center for disease control we saw the obesity rate of high school students decrease by 9% in the four years prior to the healthy and hunger free kids

act implementation. in the four years after that the obesity rate increased by 16%. have you seen any data like that and as a cause you to wonder what the result of this might be? >> i would be happy to take a look at that information to better understand it but i think there's no question in my mind this is not a situation where we're going to see fundamental change in thank you. i think it's going to be a generational process, and i'm convinced that from a generational process we will see progress. i think secretary burwell is correct we've begun to see progress, particularly among younger children. >> this data so the opposite. this is the obesity rate of high school students are reduced -- which is picked up four years since has been a better four years since has been a better and went to the four years prior so is the longest period of time with the data without balance.

four years before, four years after and before you before basic rates went down 9% according to cdc and four years to cdc and for your staff obesity rates for high school students went up 16% according to the cdc. i don't not explained that because what i'm getting back from my constituents and across this country is more and more complaints about not enough food for these kids. i would ask we're all aware of those complaints a special as this was implement in the fall of 2014. now we're well into the school year 2015. are those complaints go going ur down in comparison to the earlier speak with they have gone down. some schools tha have left the program have come back to the program. >> i'm glad you do that. how is that program been in rhode island that was spawned by the waste was use any measure on the waste of the food -- the program in rhode island i'm referring to is aptly named come into north smithfield road on where they are feeding 3000 pics from the waste from the school.

i us to get a lot of complaints on hungry kids. so i'm concerned is that any, that question, and then is there evidence that our students k-12 are getting overweight because of school lunch program, or the eating that the summer else is making an overweight? was there evidence indicated it came from the school lunch? >> in terms of food waste there's a study of the universe of connecticut, the harvard public health school study, a study at berkeley university of california, berkeley suggesting that kids are eating more fruits and vegetables -- >> we will be visiting at this point to go live to the brookingbrookings institution fr senators john mccain and congressman mac thornberry. they are both chairs of the respective chambers armed service committee they will talk this way about defense department funding and a possible presidential veto. bruce jones, vice president and director the foreign policy programs at the brookings will

open for discussion and brookings senior fellow michael lohan is also the author of the future of land warfare is the moderator. they should get started in just a moment. >> just give us one minute. this is on? great. good morning.

thank you for joining us to i see we have a standing room only at 8:00 in the morning. i'm a new york's always impressed when people are at a meeting before about 9:30 a.m. but this is impressive. minus bruce jones, i'm the vice president and director of foreign policy at the brookings am delighted to welcome you today and to welcome our very distinguished guests. we are very honored to have come to be joined by senator john mccain and congressman mac thornberry, chairman of the senate and house armed services committee respectively to discuss the national defense authorizatiothe national defenst 12 in the pentagon approaches you over to 60 which is vital to the national conversation. moderating our discussion will be offered on michael o'hanlon, codirector of the center for 21st century security and intelligence and brookings. every well-known expert on defense budget. senator mccain position well known for his service to the nation both in u.s. navy and and represent the people of arizona

in the u.s. congress. even when the key voices in the fight to strengthen american nationals good to eliminate wasteful government spending and reform government. congressman thornberry has served in the house permanent select committee on intelligence as those on the budget committee come resources committee of the select committee on homeland hod security and is widely known as an innovator and a strategic thinker in national security and the two have been working together to put together the national defense authorization act. in a moment i will turn to mike to frame the discussion but let me make two briefs point of contact. seems to me were clearly into a moment of intensifying geopolitical challenge in both asia and europe as well as confronting the collapse in the face with a huge implications of our interests and our values. the second is despite premature reports of our decline, the united states remains the most important actor on the world stage and most important potential contributor to

stability in asia, and europe in the middle east it seems to me that the context in which we have to have the debate and the discussion about our defense appropriations act and the tools we need for american national security. mike, with that, over to you. >> thank you, bruce. chairman thornberry, chairman mccain, great honor for us to have you both here. i think all of you know where we stand in just a couple of words before turning to our testing which guests, when we stand in the defense debate. but just to remind today i believe that congress will send the president a national defense authorization act, but these two children and their colleagues from both parties and both houses of congress have been working on all year. that would in addition to funding the pentagon at the $612 billion of which is the level the president had requested by the way last winter also takes in for the steps forward on acquisition reform, on authorizing these steps in

regard to syria from ukraine, other places, deal with the military pension question was so far in our modern history the military has given a generous pension to those who did 20 or service but nothing to those who do 19 or less and, therefore, there some changes in the bill that would address of that. many other important bipartisan achievements but, of course, we are at a juncture where high budget politics are in keeping with the likely prospects of this bill, and the president has threatened to veto get any will not 10 days excepting sundays as i just went from a chairman for how this is counted, to make his decision about whether to veto or not. and if he does we will lose all the potential to lose all of the reforms. in addition to the $612 billion authorization. ascended and the company both point out the president could in theory support this bill and then potentially veto an appropriations bill if you wish literally because as you are aware what's going on right now

is competition i did find a way to fully fund defense but the budget control act continues to prevent the funding levels the president would advocate for nondefense. so we are at this juncture, how do you reconcile these competing concerns, and will get to that big high level question whenever the chairman which and certainly by the second half of this conversation. but i thought we would begin to talk about some of the specifics that are in the bill that are so important. i think regardless of one's position whether the president should veto or not, most would agree that the reforms and initiatives in this legislation are very, very helpful to our national defense and it would be wonderful to find a way to institute them and law. so that's what the subject with which i want to begin. storm again if i could begin by asking you pashtun senator mccain, address the military pension from anything us want to touch on and then we work through acquisition some of the

overseas crises hotspots in as well before getting to the big picture questions. but thank you for being here, if i could ask about military pension reform. >> thank you, mike as always a when i return here and am always happy to come it's nice to see old friends and enemies back your at a brookings, so i thank you for inviting me back. and could also say that it's been a real honor for me to have worked with chairman thornberry, a very dedicated and hard-working chairman who also is committed to many of the reforms that we were able to enact together, particularly each of acquisition reform, ending the reforms that acquisition reform has been, back has been engaged in that for many years and that does not mean that we agree on everything always. in fact, with a very spirited discussions on occasion, but

really am proud of the product the we and the members of our committee's overwhelmingly bipartisan have approved of, both in our committee it was like 14-4, and someone else. so it's not, our product is a bipartisan product your if there was a check into it it was by members who are concerned or objected to this oco process which made we can talk about a little better on. but the product was overwhelmingly bipartisan, which is maybe unusual in congress these days, but i think it shows a commitment of members on both sides of the aisle to the men and women who are serving in a bipartisan approach to defense. my friends, today 85% of the men and women who serve in the

military, when they leave the military don't have any financial benefit. they serve have a veterans benefits and g.i. bill and other benefits, as far as pure financial is concerned, 85%, because those 85% don't serve 20 years. so with the benefit of a very excellent commission, that was composed with some pretty outstanding people. we adopted largely their recommendation, which now allows someone come after two years and one month, to contribute as in a 401(k) and the matching funds are required. this way some 85% of those who serve will receive a financial benefit from their service, even if it's only a minimum of two years. and if i could expand one second on that.

there are other reforms that are going to have to be made in the entitlements in the military. secretary gates a few years ago said we are going to be eaten alive by the personal costs which continue to rise, a lot of it understandable in an all-volunteer military. but will have to make some very tough decisions. so another aspect in taliban aspect of the military over time, and it's not going to be easy. >> you found a way to compromise on the innocents with the military pay increase, which is modest but it is at least there. so that sort of a step in that direction and also somebody tried to issues. thank you, mr. chairman putting as well. but if you want to comment on this but maybe launched into the discussion of acquisition reform under you and senator mccain have done so much to work on. >> again, thank you for having us. and i very much enjoyed and

appreciated the opportunity work with chairman mccain occupies truly a unique place in american history and political -- and just end up eliminate what i want to emphasize what he just said. and that is, when you look at the merits of the bill until it is a bipartisan product. our bill came out of committee 60-2 and it was one of each who were a part of the to. so from the very inception, it has been republicans and democrats working together in committee on the floor in conference that is producing this product. it is only this overlay of what i believe is essentially politics that is even causing us to be here to have any sort of controversy. and i think we have, because a defense authorization bill has been signed into law every year for 53 straight years, we may take for granted all the

individual provisions. chairman mccain was just talking about the retirement reform. let me just mention one other little provision in the personal section, and that is a requirement that dod and the va have the same formulary when treating people for pts complete disorder and pain management. general verrilli has testified that he could just do one thing to pts victims, make sure the drug to get on with in the military they can stay on when he moved to the va system, and they haven't been able to do that. assistance have not been able to do that. we require them to do that in this bill. so if the bill goes down that requirement does not get enacted. my point is there are 600 something provisions in this bill that two important things that the system is not able to do on its own. and so that's part of the reason we have a separate branch of

government to pass a defense authorization bill. among the reforms as chairman mccain mentioned is a beginning of acquisition reform. and my shortened version of it is if they continue to take us 20 years to build a new airplane, the airplanes going to be hopelessly out of date by the time it gets there. we've got to do better. we've got to do better at being more agile in fielding technology quicker, and responding to threats, and by the way, getting more value for the taxpayer dollars. so we have a number of reforms kind of fundamental reforms thing at some of the regulations, requiring more of the work be done up front, not into it as you go in acquisition. it's only a beginning, and we are committed on a bipartisan basis to doing much more work in the future. but as i said even the first step doesn't happen if the bill doesn't become law.

>> the our seminal moments in people's experiences, and i mentioned this to you earlier, mike. it was two years ago we had a hearing with the navy witness, chief of naval operations, and asked who, if the chief of naval operations knew who was responsible for a $2.4 billion cost overrun on the uss gerald r. ford, our latest aircraft carrier. i said it was responsible for this $2.4 billion cost overrun, and he said i don't know. my friends, we now have a pentagon that a multibillion dollar cost overrun and nobody knows who is responsible. one of the major features of our legislation to start with as mac pointed out is that the service chiefs had to sign off, when there's a cost overrun, then they have to sign off on that. and they are responsible. and guess what.

the service chiefs want that responsibility. they crave that responsibility goes they want a better army, navy and air force, when gore as well. -- marine corps -- as mac mentioned which is beginning because we belong long way to go. finally, got i just mentioned, we've both been out to silicon valley. and i'm sorry to tell you that right now is not a lot of interest in silicon valley in being engaged in acquisition with the military and with the pentagon, because they don't see any benefit in getting involved in the labyrinth that is called defense acquisition. and that has got to be another one of our priorities, and thus we are -- that's where we are making the first step so that we can engage silicon valley because we all know the nature of warfare. when we see in the paper this

month the director of the cia has had his server hacked, my friends, we are in an interesting high-tech cyber situation. >> if i could follow-up on acquisition policy, with apologies to some of you who i know are here to talk about the different top level budget issues, we'll get to that but these gentlemen have been working on acquisition policy advocate for so long and with such commitment that it is worth bring to promote or two on that question. if i could just ask you to talk to about where we stand in the history of defense acquisition reform. because if we go back to today when you are a a navy pilot, the point the service did when acquisition service world and it was before goldwater-nichols and the centralization -- >> that western the coolidge administration, yes last night and, of course, we thought at the junction made were wrong at the time but we ultimately concluded at that juncture would

given that too much leeway to make their own decisions. they weren't doing enough things that were joined. they were perhaps putting too much high technology or silverplated into weapons, the cultures, the fighter jock and the carrier and so forth, that really put a premium on high-performance him and cost was is officially considered or timeliness, some of acquisition programs. we try to centralize. goldwater-nichols reforms of the '80s tried to do that. here we are today, are you essentially saying we have overdone it and we need to go back to the old days, or if the current model you're proposing in this legislation essentially a new approach that gives the service of more authority but in a different way than in the old days? >> it was not 30 years ago that goldwater-nichols was enacted into one thing we're committed to is a thorough and complete review of goldwater-nichols. overall goldwater-nichols was a great success. we will all admit. but times have changed over the

last 30 years. ththat challenges have changed a lot of things have changed and so we're committed to starting frankly soon as we get through this portal starting hearings to review goldwater-nichols so that we can make the changes that are necessary. it's not as difficult as one of first things to let me give you one example. when we saw that the ieds, many of them imported from iran, many of them sent by mr. sullivan any who now seems to be according to the "washington post" -- so let me -- in charge of conflict and at least three countries, sent in these copper tipped ieds and discover to ieds went right through light armor. humvees were getting taken out after casualties were really high. so we went through because the

mrap wasn't an income we were for rapid acquisition process, got the mrap over to iraq and i don't know how many lies that it's safe. we used an accelerated process it if we take in the 20 root that mac is referred of the f-35, god knows what would've happened. so that is a model out there at least in some areas already in being that we could look at. that mrap was already developed technology. it wasn't something brand-new that leave these were able to gt to the battlefield in a matter of weeks, or months, i'm not, but in a very rapid process that i don't have many lives that it saved because the ieds couldn't penetrate the mrap. that's an example of what we can do if we get the right processed into the pentagon. >> i would just i don't think anybody says turn back the clock and that was perfect by any

stretch. but it is true that pendulum swing and we've swung in a direction where there are more layers of bureaucracy which, chairman mccain indicates, results in the accountability for the decision because everybody does this. plus, it is incredibly slow. that's part of our just over all theme is to simplify so that somebody makes a decision and you can hold them accountable for the decision. and also to speed up the innovation so that we can get capability so that i'm so that the mrap s. not the exception, so that that is more the norm. and i would say there's a fundamental change, and that is a number of complex national security threats that we face all at the same time.

dr. kissinger testified in front of chairman mccain about this, is unique in history. we have to respond in a more agile way. you cannot respond with this layers of bureaucracy that has developed. i will also admit we are part of the problem. so part of what happens is there's a cost overrun in the past, what do we do? we set a new bureaucracy under procedure to make sure that never happens again. well, we can't do that and we can talk more about that if you want to get it comes back to the simplify and accountability is direction to go, not all these checks and balances that paralyzed the system. and so i think that's the direction we're trying to go. just the other point to emphasize. too many programs we are inventing as we are buying, that is a source of a lot of the cost overruns and the delays. want other things that we want to move more toward is come is

have your technology development over here then you bought established technology so you're not inventing on-the-fly. and i think we'd end up with better results. >> i have to more question before we will turn to you. speaking of global hotspots will be a sum of things in your bill that would allow the president new authority to do different things in syria, ukraine and other parts of the world. secondly i would ask about the hypothetical come with the president to veto this bill can we imagine a path forward? can you propose a possible roadmap, recognizing other people will have a say in that as well. we are getting ahead of ourselves to speculate but it seems like it is a fairly imminent debate. back to the bill itself into the hotspots. you've got important language on syria, ukraine, other areas, iraq there i would be the view want to be connected maybe the other follow up on those questions. >> we try to give the president

more tools to do with the complex world. for example, we have authority to provide defense legal assistance to ukraine. and there is a huge amount of bipartisan consensus in the house and the senate that that should be done. in iraq, we say that if the secretary cannot certify that the iraqi government is inclusive, then they are authorized to give weapons directly to the kurds come to the sunni tribes and other groups. so that everything doesn't have to go through baghdad. we can't make the president take any one of the specific option but we're trying to get in more tools to do with the rapidly evolving situation. >> and we're expressing the sense of congress bipartisan on both of those issues. i hope that we remain very careful that the constitution says the president of the united

states is the commander-in-chief. so for us to say that he has to give those weapons, that in my view, is not in our area of responsibility. but we not only give him the authority but overwhelmingly that is the policy we want him to pursue. my friends, i've been to ukraine on many occasions, and when these people are crying for a javelin because russian tanks either in eastern ukraine and we won't give them.com we won't give them intelligence. it's heartbreaking is what it is. i used to get angry. now i'm just heartbroken that so many people who have been killed, they were fighting bravely with 20th century weapons against 21st century weapons, which vladimir putin is sending in. and as far as the kurds in baghdad is concerned, again, it's obviously a vacuum that has been created, but a new

intelligence sharing between iraq, russia, syria and iran, that's an interesting scenario, one that frankly i never would have anticipated fairly short time ago and now there's talk about, and i hope it's only talk, about russian air power being brought into iraq against isis. might be nice to see them doing something against isis from one standpoint instead of the moderate opposition, which is the object of almost all of their attacks. ..

>> if we gave the kurds the weapons they probably need, they could be much more effective in achieving at least some of our short-term goals that we are not achieving right now. >> so, thank you. and let me ask my final question which has to do with the big picture. and, again, to remind those of you, i think everybody in this room is following this to some extent, but the basic idea is the president has said he's happy with a higher level of defense spending, but he objects to the oversea contingency operations to do it, essentially, a safety valve that the defense department has available to it that domestic accounts don't have available, and he wants to demand some kind of a bill, like the ryan-murray compromise of two years ago, that would increase funding on

both the defense and nondefense sides. the congress has basically said we're not going to do that, but we do have a safety valve in the defense realm, isn't that better than nothing, to at least address defense needs and save the domestic debate for a different day and next year's campaign. perhaps i'm oversimplifying, but this leads to my question and, obviously, you can challenge whatever you want, challenge my rendition of where we stand. but in terms of if there is a veto, wouldn't a natural compromise essentially be for the domestic accounts to get maybe half as much of a plus-up as defense? in other words, a ryan-murray bill, but tilted more in favor of defense because that would essentially be a compromise between where the president and the congressional leadership is. so one imagines preserving the the funding levels that you've got in your bill, but maybe increasing the domestic accounts roughly half as much for this year and next year. if you don't like that proposal, obviously, i'd love to hear anything else that you think may

be a viable way forward so we can someday get a defense bill even if the president vetoes this in the short term. chairman mccain, would you like to start? >> first of all, we authorized the level that the president requested. i think that's an important, fundamental fact. he asked for 681, i believe it was, mac? whatever -- >> [inaudible] >> the level the president requested. second of all, it's an authorizing bill. it is not a money bill. the money is in the appropriations committee. so if he has a problem with the level of appropriations, then it seems to me that fight should be with the appropriateors and that aspect of funding. we authorize, we've just been through a small number. this is a big bill. of all the reforms, all the benefits and pay and all the things that we're doing, the reforms. so it seems to me he's picked the wrong target.

second of all, second or third of all, he has accepted other bills with oco in it. it is not as if this is a brand new problem. and oco, we don't like oco. we don't like i. mac and i really dislike it because we'd like to see a multiyear level of authorization that we can plan on rather than lurching from one year to the next to see whether the budget committee is going to approve oco or not. i don't like it. and we'd rather, in a perfect world, see that level of budgeting that we can plan on and that, more importantly, that the military can plan on. they're lurching from year to year, my friends. they don't -- how can you, over in the pentagon, how can you plan ahead on almost anything if you don't know what the following year's spending level is going to be? so it's a broken system. the president decides to veto

this, then it seems to me that he is placing a higher priority over his concern and opposition to the funding budgetary mechanism than he is over the defense of the country. because if he cared most about the defense of the nation, then he would focus his attention on the appropriations bills. veto the appropriations bills then, mr. president, because you don't like the way the money, where the money is coming from. so it really is, it's hard for me to understand why the president of the united states should focus on the defense in the nation. and finally getting at sequestration, my friends, it is a disaster. it is a disaster in so many ways. in -- look at the world in 2011 when we enacted it. the budget control act and look

at the world today. and yet we continue to cut defense spending. i wouldn't mind increases in some spending, particularly where intelligence and other aspects are concerned, the cia, many other agencies of government. but this is really an unnecessary fight, and i really wish that the president would reserve that fight if he feels that strongly about the overseas contingency operations to the appropriations process. >> chairman thornberry. >> just to reiterate just a bit. the president submitted a budget request for defense that the chairman of the joint chiefs said is the lower, ragged edge of what is necessary to defend the country. he did not follow the budget control act, and he asked for more base than was allowed in the budget control act, and he asked for $50 billion in oco

funding. $50 billion. when the house and senate come up with a budget resolution, we have to follow the law, we believe, on the budget control act, so we have a lower base, but we make up the difference in oco, so it's an extra $38 billion in oco, but the total is exactly the same. the only question is which category the funding is put in. all of that extra oco, by the way -- i think, essentially, all of it -- is operations and maintenance accounts, and every dollar of it is authorized just like the base is. so there's no difference between being allocated to specific programs by being in oco versus being in base. in addition, section 1501 of the ndaa says if there is a change in the sequestration numbers or the caps or anything, then that oco is automatically adjusted to the base. so we have this automatic flexibility mechanism to reflect whatever budget agreement comes up.

but here, to me, is the bigger point. if you are a counterterrorism soldier in afghanistan today or if you are training the iraqi army today or if you are at a navy, air force or marine or army base in the united states supporting those efforts, do you really care whether your operation and maintenance funds are classified as oco or whether they're classified as base? don't you just want the money? done -- don't you just want the support to know that it's there? so in some ways i think this is kind of an inside washington political game that loses sight of what we are asking men and women to do for us all around the country. and in that way, i think it is tragic. i think it is, as "the washington post" has written, if he vetoes it, it'll be historic but not in a good way. because there is nothing we could do in this bill that would fix the problem he's complaining about. i mean, i'd be fine with your

solution to put more money in some domestic programs, and i suspect that at the end of the day as john says, there will be appropriations, you know, something has to be worked out before december 11th. so i'm for whatever can be done. but i'm not willing to put at risk all of the reforms that we were talking about and just last point. the world as we've been talking is growing more dangerous and more complex. i think if there's ever a time the world -- not to mention our troops -- need to see institutions of the american government operating for national defense, it's now. and so i don't pretend that signing a defense authorization bill solves all this other problem. we still have these other problems to deal with. but good heavens, wouldn't it -- with such strong bipartisan support of the bill, wouldn't it be a good thing for the country and the world to see that we can

do something together instead of playing political games? >> i also point out one additional factoid. in this bill there's $11 billion in elimination of waste and excessive spending that is saved. for example, we require a 7.5% cut per year for four years in the size of staffs and headquarters. and so we are saving $11 billion in this legislation that is much needed and, frankly, we're skimming the -- we're taking out the easy targets in this bill. and it's easy, and so we're now going to dispense with his veto of $11 billion in savings. >> thank you. let's go to you, please. get my attention, wait for a microphone, identify yourself, and if you could, just ask one question x we'll -- and we'll try to make room for everyone

who would like to get into this. we'll start over here, please. >> good morning. my name is erica mccann with the it alliance for the public sector, and we really appreciate the commercial item and regulatory review provisions in this bill around acquisition reform. but you both emphasized the word beginning when talking about acquisition reform. where do you see the fy-17 bill going? >> well, as i mentioned, i think one of the big challengings we face is in -- challenges we face is in inventing technology as we are purchasing it. so i think focusing on that issue is something for the future. we have a lot more thenning out of -- thinning out of the regulations and simplification to do. as john was talking about, the challenge of silicon valley doing business their -- it's not just silicon valley. there's all sorts of key industries that are saying i

don't really think it's worth doing business those people. they're so bureaucratic, it's so difficult, i have to have so many lawyers and regulators and accountants to deal with them. that is a huge problem because a key strength for us has always been the innovation that comes from the private sector that we plug into defense. so there is so much more to do, and we will never fix it, by the way, all the way. it is taking steps each year to make it better. >> i would only add that there is a perception in many areas of industry that there, that the pentagon only does business certain favored industry that they've done business for years and years and years. whether that is accurate or not, i can't say. but that's the perception when i talk to people who don't traditionally do business the pentagon. and i think that's -- and the

other aspect is we're going to have to look at the entitlements. we're going to have to look at tricare. we're going to have to look at a number of those aspects of defense spending and that need reform. and don't think that's going to be easy. that may be one of our most difficult challenges. >> incidentally, quick vignette, we had an event in april with undersecretary kendall who is in charge of dod acquisition and also bill lynn who, of course, had been deputy secretary. first, i asked secretary kendall the question how would you rate our acquisition problems. we also have the best equipment in the world, and i'm sure you two would agree with that -- >> not always at a reasonable cost. [laughter] >> not always at a reasonable cost or schedule. and he said so overall for all the work we still have to do, i give us a b+. and then i asked bill lynn the same question, and he said, well, maybe for some of the

things we've been traditionally good at, but anything where moore's law is involved, i'd say more like a c-. we'll stay here in the front row for a moment. >> hello, good morning. [inaudible] i'm from saudi arabia. political commentator. i would like, first of all, to thank you all for this beautiful panel. i would like to thank senator mccain for his support for global security which is right now we are seeing it to be at stake. specifically, there was an article that was written in "wall street journal" just yesterday that talked about the fact that obama is somehow taking the military hostage, and you've retweeted this just yesterday. i would like to say that current administration of the united states is not taking the military hostage, but it's taking the global security hostage. why? because of the issues that we are facing in ukraine, in syria, in iraq, in so many different

areas around the world without crucial actions that are taken into place. but at the same time, representative mac said something beautiful which is political game, and that's what we are seeing from this administration at the moment. so -- >> please get to the question. >> what is your point of view regarding the future of the united states when it comes to global security? will they still follow the same path that president obama has assigned which is the military new doctrine? >> well, i'll try to be as brief as possible. long term i am incredibly optimistic about america and its role in the world, whether you're talking about technology, whether you're talking about the fact we are now energy independent, whether you're talking about all of the new devices, the new ways of

conveying information and knowledge or invented the united states, manufacturing capabilities improved. long term i am very bullish on america. in the short term, i agree with henry kissinger. the world has not seen more crises that we're in today since the end of world war ii. we see, if there's any benefit, we now see an alliance or relationship between israel and some of the sunni nations that we have never seen before. that's really digging for the pony, to tell you the truth. but i see an absence of american leadership. and i see, frankly, some of the countries in the be -- in the region kind of hedging their bets and accommodating. saudi arabia just made a $9 billion arms deal with russia. i don't believe that russia can provide them with superior weapons. i think it's because that saudi arabia has been looking at the relationships, and i still think

that seminal moment was the day when saudi arabia had planes on the runway ready to strike syria, and they found out on cnn that crossing the red line was basically meaningless on chemical weapons. so i think in the short term we are in the most serious challenge, and you didn't even mention the south china sea, by the way. that's another area. but finally, we're seeing what iran is seeking and russia is helping them, and this is an arc of shia influence in the region. as we see the latest activities, military activities in syria and the continued slaughter of young men who we are training and equipping and sending in to syria, we're watching the russians bomb and kill them while our major priority is

deconfliction. that's a new word for appeasement. we don't want to have any -- we don't want to run into any russian airplanes. certainly, we wouldn't want to run into any russian airplanes while they're bombing the hell out of the people that we train and equip and send into syria. don't think that that lesson is lost on other young people who we might ask to go in and fight against isis and against a brutal regime which has killed 240,000 of its own people and driven millions into refugee status. >> care to comment? >> i'd just -- the point was made in the introduction, the united states is a unique force for good in the world. political dysfunction and political gamesmanship here has consequences far beyond our shores. it is even more the reason where if we can do something together, we ought to do that. >> sidney. you're in the third row, please.

>> good morning. gentlemen, sidney freedberg, breaking defense. to get back to the agonizing political games for a moment, your favorite thing, i know. if there is a veto, is there some way to start disaggregating the ndaa? that's never done before, never had to. are there ways to split off pieces, to put placeholders in to say we offer certain things so that you can preserve, for example, the acquisition reforms, the compensation reforms while deferring perhaps parts of the bill that authorize specific amounts and from specific sources which is what's the matter of contention? >> well, i just -- there is -- the president's basic complaint is he wants to spend more money on domestic programs, the epa, irs, whatever. we can't do that in the defense

authorization bill. we can take it apart, we can put it together, we can put the pieces back a different way. we cannot fix his basic problem in any defense authorization bill because his basic problem is he wants to spend more money on other stuff. now, i might agree on some of those other things that we ought to spend money on, but we can't fix it in this bill which is why the washington post says vetoing it not for anything that's in it, but because of this broader budget disagreement, using it as a hostage would be historic. >> we will stay here in the front row -- or second row, and then we'll work our way back in just a moment. yes, please. >> john harper with national defense magazine. my question for both of you. you've talked about the differences with the white house over oco versus base budget funding, but are there any substantive policy disagreements, and if so, would you be willing to negotiate on any of those in order to preserve, you know, acquisition

reform in the white house is willing to approve an authorization act and fight over the money later in an appropriations bill? >> there's one major issue that i know of, and that is, of course, guantanamo. we have pretty strict provisions on the bill. and, by the way, i would remind you when the president released five prisoners in exchange for bergdahl, he broke the law which no one seems to be too concerned about. but what we have asked for is a plan. we've asked for the president to submit to us -- i've been waiting six and a half years for a plan as to how they want to close guantanamo and how they want to move those prisoners and where to. i don't think that's a lot to ask for us to authorize such a thing to get a plan. and as short a time ago as four months ago, the president

assured me that he would send us a plan, and lisa monaco and ash carter came over and sat in my be office two months ago and said -- three months ago and said we'll give you a plan. so far there is no plan. but that is an issue that is of continuing disagreement between the president and us. >> and, just as a reminder, the language that the president primarily complains about on guantanamo is exactly the same language he signed into law in 2010, in 2011, in 2012, in 2013 and in 2014. so he doesn't really like it, but until there's a plan that can get the support of the american people and their representatives, i suspect most members of congress are going to say don't bring 'em here and don't modify facilities here which is, basically, the provisions. of course there are other

differences between what the president asked for and what's in our bill. the president proposed to retire the a-10 aircraft. well, it turns out they are sending a-10s into the middle east today and relying on 'em. and our judgement was probably it's not -- judgment was probably it's not a good idea. so, of course, there are differences of opinion. no congress rubber stamps a president's request. but you look at the constitution, it says that congress has the responsibility to build and provide and maintain armies, navies and other military forces. so of course there are differences. but our colleagues in congress and the president really is focused on the oco issue. >> in the very back. woman in the white coat against the door. >> victoria -- [inaudible] with green cross international. the 2016 nding aa conference

report -- ndaa conference report states there's congressional intent to reject the budget request to authorize another -- [inaudible] in 2017, and i was just wondering why is that since it saves money and long term there seems to be an improvement in recovery in most local communities? >> because the 2005 brach has not yet broken even. in other words, ten years later it has still cost the taxpayers more money than it has saved. so i think there are a lot of members who who were here for 25 and say we're not going to have a repeat of that. now, there is another provision in the bill that says the department has to come to congress with more specific data about where you think you have excess infrastructure. because what we've heard for the past several years is all based on a study they did in 2004, and we're saying, okay, let's not

just trot out old information over and over again. if you think you have too much infrastructure, come give us more specifics about it, and we'll look at it, and there may well be another brach in the be future. but for this year -- and, remember, this is a one-year authorization bill whether we're talking gitmo or brach -- for this year there will not be another brach. >> just quickly, a couple of decisions that i think looking back we never should have taken that was a result of brach. one was closing the naval air station in cecil field, leaving us only with oceana which is having enormous encroachment problems, and the other was this consolidation of bethesda and walter reed. i don't know of anybody when you look at the money that's going to be spent on transportation and the road, all that kind of -- that was another bad decision. so to think somehow that brachs are nirvana is really not an

accurate depiction. and we all know, too, what brachs are. it's an abrogation, an act of cowardice on the act of congress because they can't close a single base on their own. [laughter] but i would never repeat that. [laughter] >> go here in the third row. >> hi, good morning. christian that moore with the government accountability office. our sister organization, cbo and cbrs, have a whole body of work on defense business operations that have come out, basically, that the department of defense is on an unsustainable path. can you speak to that, please? >> i can speak to those studies have been very important to us. they've been very helpful to us in developing the legislation that we have, and we will continue to use them. i think all of us, particularly where mac and i sit, appreciate the gao particularly and the work that they do.

they really are the watchdogs, and they've become more and more important over the years as their knowledge and background on many of these issues. we had a very interesting hearing on the carriers, you know, a couple of weeks ago. the gao representative there, witness, was very important in providing balance in that hearing. >> yeah. and we have used gao on the act act -- acquisition reform steps we have taken so far and will continue to do so. i just emphasize a lot of things y'all focus on, the business sorts of things with the department, have a huge effect on acquisition and buying goods and services. so that's part of the reason that we're committed to take many more steps in order to improve the way that taxpayer dollars are used for those things, and we'll need y'all's help to do it. >> here in the fifth row,

please. >> morning. jeff phillips with the reserve officers' association. with the linkage of the national guard and reserve equipment accounts to oco, what will happen to modern nation equipping of -- modernization equipping of our reserve men and women, a million strong? >> well, if -- it depends on what happens with these bills. obviously, you cannot buy things if there's not some sort of agreement on the authorizing the purchases and appropriating the dollars to do so. and that's participant of the reason you've -- part of the reason you've seen a large number of house members say that just operating for the rest of the fiscal year on a continuing resolution is unacceptable. because we're doing some things we don't need to keep doing, and

we need to do more of some things that we're not doing now. and crs do not allow you that flexibility. so there are needs in all sorts of areas, needs to be filled that will not be filled if this bill is vetoed and if there's not some sort of a budget agreement. >> i can't emphasize enough a continuing resolution for the rest of this year is incredibly damaging to our ability to defend this nation. you know, general odierno who we have the greatest respect for, you know him very well, mike, has painted a very stark picture of what happens if we don't, if we don't stop sequestration. you don't stop sequestration and have a continuing resolution, i'll tell ya, it is going to be more damaging than any time that i've ever seen. >> by the way, clarifying question from me. you mentioned, chairman

thornberry, that a lot of the extra 38 billion is in operations and maintenance accounts, but i assume by doing things that way you allowed yourself more play in the base budget for procurement. if we don't get a resolution and we go back to a ca in addition to having condition -- to a cr, we're also going to be at a lower level of acquisition? >> and a lower level of operations and maintenance. essentially, if you look at it, if -- if sequestration kicks in and you have those across the board cuts, that is essentially the same level as a cr. so as john says, it would be devastating to any semblance of what it takes to defend the country. >> please don't underestimate the effect that this has on the men and women who are serving. a lot of the really good ones and others are saying i've had enough. they can't operate, they can't maintain, they can't do the exercises, they don't know when their next operation or exercise

is. talk to some of 'em, these young captains and majors and senior enlisted. they are, they are hurting very badly. and over time this is going to hurt retention of the really outstanding people we have. >> by the way, bob hale, who i see in the audience, has also noted we hurt the civilian employees with these kinds of messages as well, because they've the ones that also have been furloughed and lost pay or at least temporarily and gotten the message they weren't valued as much as they should. i think we have time for one last question in the very back row. >> hi. my name is -- [inaudible] i'm with the voice of america, the persian service, and my question is directed to senator mccain. you mentioned, you talked yesterday about the possibility or recommendation for a no-fly zone on syria. i was wondering whether to counter the russian campaign there. wouldn't that be a

counterproductive with the coalition air campaign there? and my second question is if you are still in contact with the abadi government in iraq, prime minister, have you recommended them to restrict the activities of general sulemani there on whether they have come back with any kind of response to that? thank you. >> i've had several conversations with the prime minister of iraq but, frankly, i have not recently, and it does not need to be up to me to carry the message of what we think of sulemani. in a hearing before the armed services committee, senator cotton asked general dunford how many marines and be soldiers that he believed were killed by the copper-tipped ieds that i referred to earlier that the iranians shipped into iraq, and general dunford said he thought 500 were killed.

i think it's a little less than that actually. so now we're seeing mr. sulemani flip-flop, hopping around to different places including a visit to moscow as, and orchestrating activities in iraq itself. we've come a long way. i didn't get the -- i couldn't hear the first question. >> it was about syria, right? and the no-fly zone? is that -- >> well, even secretary, former secretary clinton as well as general petraeus and others have all recommended a no-fly zone, buffer zone for where refugees could locate, stop the barrel bombing. and an area where we could train and equip moderates. as far as i can tell, almost everybody that i know and respect approves of some form of that except for susan rice and

valerie jarrett and barack obama. >> well, we've been very privileged to have these gentlemen here today, so please join me in a round of applause for the chairmen. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> if you to missed this discussion this morning, you'll be able to see it in the c-span video library in its entirety. go to c-span.org. both the house and senate are in today. the house returns this afternoon for the first time since the columbus day break. members will gavel in at noon eastern. a number of homeland security measures to be considered today, and later this week they'll consider budgetary and fiscal legislation including what's called a reconciliation measure. and the latest in the search for a new house chief, house republicans are scheduled to meet this evening at seven eastern to blaze a path forward to choose a house speaker candidate. we'll bring you updates as they

become available. the senate will gavel in in about an hour. lawmakers will take a vote to advance a bill-cutting -- bill cutting federal funding for so-called sanctuary cities. you can watch the house on c-span, of course, the senate right here on c-span2. later today we'll bring you a discussion on the refugee crisis in europe with tens of thousands of asylum seekers, the commission on security and cooperation in europe will examine possible responses from host nations. you can watch that live starting at 2 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span3. also join us at four eastern for a hearing looking at different legislative proposals to combat drug abuse. the house energy and commerce committee is looking into that. you can see that hearing live, it's also on c-span3. ♪ ♪ >> c-span presents landmark cases, the book, a guide to our landmark cases series which

explores 12 historic supreme court decisions including marbury v. madison, core mat sue v. united states, brown v. the board of education, miranda v. or arizona and roe v. wade. landmark cases, the book, features introductions, background, highlights and the impact of each case. written by veteran supreme court journaltist tony morrow and published by c-span in cooperation with cq press. be landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping. get your copy today at c-span.org/landmarkcases. ♪ ♪ >> the association of the united states army held its annual meeting here in washington, d.c. recently. it included a panel discussion with military and local law enforcement officials to discuss interagency cooperation, information sharing and training efforts to prepare for and to

counter threats of violent extremism against military personnel and facilities. this is about an hour. >> morning, everybody. i'm dom lauren, and i have the pleasure of introducing the subject and moderating today's panel. i'd like to thank general sullivan and my good friend guy swann for inviting me to do so this year, but more importantly, for including these homeland sessions in this year's program. defense support of civil authority and countering the violet extremist threat to the nation are increasingly important elements of today's military environment. and it's fitting that we have a meaningful discussion on this topic. i had the honor of moderating last year's first-ever panel on homeland security issues here at ausa, and i'm pleased to see that this year ausa has expanded

the discussion to several extremely relevant panels. i believe there are four panels this year, and we all saw secretary johnson kick off yesterday morning. now, first, as the duty navy flag officer in this crowd, our services tell many, many customs and traditions. while we in the navy do not do as good a job as pronouncing hoo ad you all do, we do share the custom of the challenge coin. and in boast services -- both services, those who cannot produce must entertain those who can at the bar. so to my good friend, guy swann, dave per kips, terry wiggins, jeff snowe and mike smith, here's my 31st anniversary army 10-miler finisher coin, my 15th, and i invite you to produce your coin or meet me at the bar later today, and we can discuss it. [laughter] i can remember in the mid 1990s while a fellow at

harvard university having general sullivan visit us and engage the military fellows in stimulating discussion. i can remember distinctly his frequently-used mantra the united states army exists to fight and win the nation's wars. and while i will remain silent on the responsibilities of my own service -- which, by the way, celebrated its 240th birthday yesterday -- i will say there is no truer statement, nor one that has become more relevant than that which general sullivan professed then. fight and win the nation's wars. i've heard general sullivan say that for 20 years now. we heard the chief of staff say that yesterday and add to that statement in defense of the nation. and make no mistake about it, there's no other army, no other military, no other entity on the planet as capable and competent at doing that as our united

states army. but the nature of our nation's wars has changed considerably over the 20 years that have passed since general sullivan first said that to me. it's not as is simple as ten soviet divisions coming across the gap anymore. no strategy document no longer addresses how we will fight and win two major theater wars simultaneously while conducting counterinsurgency, peacekeeping or military operations other than war elsewhere. the nature of military operations has become more encompassing. in fact, the very substance of these panel discussions attempts to get our hands around what it means to defend the country. the threats we face as a nation have become more complex. these threats can come from rogue nation-states, failed states, terrorist organizations or lone wolfs. not only do we have to defend

the nation, defend our deployed forces, defend our interests abroad, but we now have to defend our installations and our personnel here at home. connectivity and communications make actions once only the purview of nations possible by small groups of individuals. the separation between homeland defense and homeland security has become gray and less defined. as the u.s. military organize toes, trains and equips to play a role in this threat environment, it must do so in an environment defined by the rule of law. an environment under the national jurisdiction of the department of justice. an environment that spans 50 states, the territories, the municipalities, the tribal nations that make up america. and as the chief told us yesterday, it must employ all of its components; active, guard

and reserve. it must learn to interface with 72 fusion centers. it must operate with 8,000 law enforcement agencies and nearly 18,000 first responder entities. when combating the cbrn and wmd threat -- and i personally would add sign tore this threat list as all are weapons of mass effect -- today's military must plan and train for missions that are not necessarily lesser included functions of war fighting, but are every bit as important. they must apportion scarce resources to these important missions but cannot sacrifice the core competencies that make us the premier fighting force in the world. and they must not only seek a whole-of-government approach to this task, but they must participate in a whole-of-nation mission as presidential decision directive eight mandates.

whole-of-nation. not merely joint and interservice. not merely interagency, but whole of nation; federal, state, municipal government and private sector. and citizenry. we must defend critical infrastructure of which 85% resides in the private sector. we must defend military personnel in shopping center recruiting stations. we must defend military installations that are integral parts of their communities. we must defend these installations against classic kinetic attack, but against cbrne and against cyber intrusion and against inspired and direct canned terrorist attack. -- directed terrorist attack. the 2014 qdr and the 2015 national security strategy clearly direct the u.s. military to defend the u.s. and support civil authorities at home.

the national security strategy addresses the top strategic risks to our nation which include catastrophic attack on the u.s. homeland or critical infrastructure. the threat of attacks against u.s. citizens abroad and our allies, the proliferation and the use of weapons of mass destruction and the effect of severe global infectious disease. the dod strategy for force protection and mission assurance tells us the criticality of insuring we are capable of doing these things and perform our core we competencies as well. the recently released national military strategy of the united states requires an integrated approach to the tasks of providing for the military defense of the homeland, combating terrorism, counterrerring weapons of mass destruction and providing support to civil authorities. and my dear friend dave perkins'

trade-off pamphlet, the u.s. army operating concept, win in a complex world -- the same title as this conference title -- poses that the u.s. army is faced with multiple dilemmas, it is faced with multiple operations, must operate in multiple environments and must work with multiple partners. these are our marching orders. this is the strategic guidance that defines the world we must operate in. this is the complex environment in which we must defend america and keep the homeland safe. this is the battlefield in which we must fight and win the nation's wars to defend america. as the strategic guidance directs, we must understand the threats to the force including those posed by home grown violent extremists. we must understand the issues surrounding force protection in the domestic environment and the

cooperation required across agencies to better protect our stand-alone forces. we must undertake initiatives across state, local, municipal and tribal domestic agencies and the army that enhance our force protection. and we must eliminate barriers that impede our abilities and take actions that increase our awareness, preparedness and exchange of threat information in a law environment-centric homeland environment. today's panel will continue with perry wiggins' discussion from yesterday, a discussion which included active, guard, reserve, osd and unified commander responsibility in defending america and keeping our homeland secure. our panel today is eminently qualified to continue that discussion, and from the multidimensional perspective suggested by such an encompassing threat, a perspective that is whole of nation; state, local, municipal

and private sector. a perspective that is predicated on relationships, on planning, on training, on exercising. a perspective that truly embodies the concept of one team, one fight. leading off the discussion we're fortunate to have major general mike smith, the director hqdag34 protection. we then have major general jeff snowe, commanding general u.s. army recruiting command. we have mr. chris klein, deputy directer federal protective service, national protection and programs directorate, dhs. we have assistant chief lamar green, assistant chief for homeland security bureau metropolitan police department of the district of columbia. and we have my good friend sheriff al cannon, charleston county sheriff and mr. michael trap, deputy provost marshal of

u.s. army north. we've got a lot to talk about, but this all centers around your questions after everybody's done making their statements. so thank you very much, and let me turn it over to mike. >> admiral, thank you very much for that introduction and those opening remarks. lieutenant general wiggins, major general, ladies and gentlemen, i am michael smith, major general, currently since the first of october the deputy chief of army reserve. i want to thank lieutenant general talley for being gracious enough for me to continue on this important work and follow through. it's important that we have knowledgeable people here and show the importance of working across the interagency community working with local law enforcement. the army g34, army force protection, was established in response to the investigation following the first fort hood shooting in 2009. the army decided to reduce gaps

and seams across protection programs by operationalizing the family of protection programs under the auspices of the newly-established g34. the g34 is tasked with integrating, coordinating and synchronizing all components of army protection to insure unity of effort among headquarters, department of the army staff, army commands and other army organizations in order to develop, prioritize resource, manage, execute and assess the full spectrum of army protection-related programs. the g34 also leads army's efforts to coordinate with the air force, the navy, the marines, the office of the secretary of defense and the joint staff and other government agencies including the department of homeland security and the fbi. after the fort hood 2009 shooting, the army recognized that the threat from home grown violent extremists is real, and we must take actions to protect

the force. in the past few years, we have hardened our installations, those being large bases with their own assigned provost march shacials, that is law enforcement, and now we are placing additional emphasis on the security of our off-installation facilities. you would know them as recruiting stations, many army reserve centers, national guard armories where they don't have dedicated, assigned force protection for specifically law enforcement officials. in the, you may remember the september 2013 washington navy be yard shooting, not long after that there was a second fort hood shooting in april of 2014. while our response to that incident showed that we had made significant progress and we were better prepared to respond, it also highlighted the complexities of trying to prevent these types of incidents. in the 2014 fort hood shooting,

the shooter was not motivated by radical, anti-american agenda but, rather, a series of problems that spiraled out of control which eventually led him to lash out at those who he perceived wronged him. most recently, the chattanooga incident highlighted that attacks targeting mill tear personnel -- military personnel can occur in the communities, large and small, where members of the army reserve and national guard live and work. attacks involving military personnel and facilities are often used as propaganda. regardless of the original motivation of the shooters, our enemies will attempt to exploit the event. radical publications will proclaim the shooters to be jihadists and martyrs even though that that was not the shooter's original intention.

to encourage individuals in the united states to use their residence within the united states to enable attacks and further their radical objectives. during the past year, hundreds of names have been -- containing personally-identifiable information, have been released in a hope to inspire people to take action. targeting can occur in many ways ranging from simple harassment to identifying people more specifically. we must insure that the entire army team is aware of the threat and are properly trained to identify and report suspicious activities and respond when needed. one of the toughest challenges for the army is how do we address a threat that metastasizes in the shadows like the shooter in chattanooga and only becomes physical at the outset of violence? to be successful, we must address this at a few levels. at the federal, state and local level, we need to continue to expand, and our cooperation with local law enforcement partners by sharing information with

agencies to our mutual benefit. we need to continue to respond in coordination with these local partners through execution of the national incident management system and insure that our policies enhance interoperability and synchronize responses across judicial -- jurisdictional boundaries. within the army we assure commanders that they have the authorities and the responsibility to respond whenever and wherever warranted. we rapidly inform uniform service members and former service members when they are identified and potentially at risk. we coordinate emergency action exercises. our personnel know how to react when presented with a dangerous situation, particularly when law enforcement arrives. we continually assess and improve mass warning notification procedures and capabilities. at an individual level, service

members and family members are trained and understand that they could be targeted just because of the affiliation with the military and department of defense. we encourage them to be aware of their digital foot print, insuring that privacy settings are properly set for all social media accounts. with that, i look forward to your questions and hearing from the rest of the panel. >> thank you, mike. jeff? >> thanks. and, first of all, thanks, don, for the introduction. let me just tell you, general wiggins, i appreciate the opportunity to participate on the panel. obviously, in a topic that is near and dear to my heart. so like many here, we're all products of our experience. i've got the good fortune of commanding u.s. army recruiting command, and i assumed command in late june, 23rd to be exact, and i can tell you the first trip i took was down to little rock, arkansas, to actually pin

a purple heart -- or to hand a purple heart to the parents of a young man who was killed in 2009 standing outside of a recruiting center. and pinned another one on another young man who had been severely wounded but, fortunately, had recovered. and then two weeks later we had chat nothing baa. so i share that to tell you the threat is real. and i've been in command long enough to circulate amongst those recruiting centers, and as an army, all components of the army, we have got more recruiting centers than all of the services together, okay? all across the united states. and my assessment was that there were things that we could do to enhance our force protection. obviously, in the wake of chattanooga, it caused all of us to take a ten back and look at what are -- a step back and look at whatever those things we can do to enhance force protection. and a big part of it, as general smith has articulated, is

enhance those relationships. i will tell you, i think we've got a good relationship. but for our recruiting centers and stations, we are very much reliant upon those relationships, the sharing of intel and information and, certainly, are reliant upon local law enforcement to respond when a particular threat is identified to our stations, etc. so there's a number of things i could share with you, but i've got to tell you, i'm really -- i'm one that is very much interested in your questions as opposed to me telling you the number of things that we've done. i will just tell you i'm happy to do so. there are a number of things that we and should do to enhance the force protection, some of our soft facilities, recruiting centers being one of those, and we have taken steps to do so. and there's a lot more that we plan to do to do so. but a big part of it will be to continue to enhance these

relationships. as was highlighted yesterday on the panel, the importance of those relationships cannot be understated. it is one of those things that you've got to work in day in and day out. it's not something you do one week and then three, four, five, six weeks later you reach out. these are routine. i think we do a very good job of sharing information, but we've got to continue to do that. but it's also one of those things, you can never rest on your laurels. you've got to continue to work at it. like general smith, i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you. chris? >> all right, thanks. i promise, i had a blue jacket in the car that i was coming over here in, and doris said you probably need to take that and wear it, because everyone's going to be dressed up. i said, no be, it's a pretty simple panel. so i'm the only one up here without a jacket on, which makes me look bad. [laughter] so the federal protective service is a very small department within the department of homeland security. our responsibility is the protection and law enforcement of all gsa, general services

administration owned and leased facilities, about 9500 across the united states, dod offices and agencies occupy space in 995 of those buildings including 46 military processing stations and 127 armed forces recruiting centers. last september, as most of you are aware, an online chat room associated with the foreign terrorist service association directed their followers in their united states to act on their own and to target government officials, military and law enforcement. so within those 9500 gsa facilities, a number of those three agencies are in there. immediately following this announcement, the federal protective service enhanced the protection of our highest risk facilities. by implementing 12 new protective measures at those facilities. and then not long after, on october 22nd, was an incident at the ottawa war memorial. so if the inspiration to attack

government officials, military and law enforcement, two of the three took place in ottawa on the 22nd of october. on the 27th of october, secretary johnson directed the federal protective service to enhance the protection of high risk facilities in five cities. that lasted for 37 days. other incidents occurred across the world. "charlie hebdo", jordanian pilot getting burnt to death in a cage, a number of incidents happened, and we continue to respond to other cities. it started with 20 cities -- 5 cities, 20 cities, 101 cities, and this operationç which we cl blue surge continues today. ..

once again after the incident in chattanooga we set our folks back out to talk to make sure they were adequately protected. don't want to take up too much time talking about things we've done. look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. >> thank you inviting the metropolitan police department to be a part of this board. one of the things we continue to hear from the first panelist that spoke is partnership. partnership is important in establishing partnership after an incident is just simply too late. we need to know each other, work

with each other, be familiar with each other's tactics and procedures well before we have an incident. in terms of force protection, the lone wolf active shooter, it represents a major threat to force protection efforts in a domestic environment. there have been recent attacks throughout the country and have been so frequent in nature that it's becoming something that just seems regular throughout the united states. it's just unacceptable. recent mass shootings come to give examples like california, police killed, seal beach california. subjects attacked and herz has . carson city, nevada. gunman comes in and fires, opened fire on several national guard members are simply just having breakfast. here in our own nation's capital the washington navy yard, subject interest that location and commits mass murder.

tthe arbiters challenges as are mentioned earlier. active shooters, lone wolves are hard to detect, hard to counter. so our intelligence collection, our intelligence dissemination, our partnership has to be operating at an optimal level. active shooters usually work alone. there's usually, they usually the damage of knowing a location, working at a location, being familiar with their environment before they conduct these outrageous attacks. want a mosque learning qualities about qualities about these events is that usually low-tech and high-yield nhb person usually doesn't have a lot of turn. that's not a lot of ways to track subjects are coming and commit these types of atrocities. some of the lessons learned from the navy yard. i'll touch on a few really quicker i know we're trying to get to the question portion of this. communications come one of the things we learned through our experiences at the navy yard in

both incidents, we had the actual shooting that occurred in 2013, and tissue had a call that turned out to be, thank god, a false alarm but it was an excellent opportunity to see if some of the strategies, procedures, things that we put in place actually were effective. in many cases they were. it may be prudent for military installations, especially those located near largely pocketed areas to review their emergency call taken procedures and policies, ensure their guidelines for actions and events of a large-scale incident. your emergency call takers inside of your bases should really have that partnership and communication with your cities, 911 call center. one of the things we realized during the navy yard is about inside a military facility, existed actually like a small

subdivision of washington, d.c., it was a separate city. the 911 calls and all of that intelligence related to those calls were not related, were not passed on to the citywide 911 call center. that was a gap we had to expose. the first responders that were responding were not getting the information that your call takers were receiving for the base communications. so that's something that we worked on, and i think that's something we should take from here and if you command a vase or something you should look at in your procedures. emergency call takers should train together. your police forces that are on your bases should train together. we currently trying with fort mcnair on an annual basis so we are for me with each other's tactics, procedures and how we respond to additionally when we respond to the navy yard since that was a separate environment, the navy yard went on lockdown. that's one procedure we sat down

with the base commander, sat down with joint forces and we talked about whether it is prudent to go into a lockdown situation if you have an emergency under base which, in essence, blocks out your first responders. so procedures were put in place to mitigate that type of issue. we're still kind of working on that right now. again, training together is key. doing tabletop exercises so that you are familiar with each other before an incident occurs, full-scale exercises so we could actually act out our procedures in response to a major incident. i'll touch on intelligence. here in washington, d.c., we have excellent documentation with our military partners. our jttf, fbi, the fusion center plays a major role in sharing intelligence back and forth with

our military workers. i'm going to end right there and open up for questions. thank you. >> as i was reflecting back, my first assignment as a police officer specialist assignment was as a police committee relations officer in north charleston. it did not take me long to figure that a critical part of what i need to do, given that we have a charleston naval base and a charleston air force base, was to convince everybody that military community was a part of the community and not apart from the community. that was 40 years ago. i don't know if it it has been any truer than it is today. we've come a long way since 9/11 in terms of sharing information. and i would do that to you that charleston for a number of reasons represents the best of that kind of communications

based on the efforts that we made to stand up for port security program. but i will say that lamar in a sense indebted to interact on a daily basis out of necessity here in washington district, fact of the matter is the further away you get out in the hinterlands, not so much. and with that mantra part of the community and not apart from the kennedy, it becomes incumbent both on base and local law enforcement to come together in ways that they have not come together before. my air force buddy here, i don't want to, i give you an example, post 9/11. interoperability was a major buzzword. much was directed towards that. to allocate a lot of money to

put, to build the capability of interoperability in their security force vehicle. well, what that resulted in was that security forces vehicle at charleston air force base could communicate with security forces vehicle at scott air force base. the likelihood of those vehicles being close enough to do that is very unlikely. we have says, and i'm happy to say, that the joint base to come on our local radio system, and where in the past it had a walkie-talkie at the law-enforcement desk there, went out and had complete communications as circumstances dictate. and, unfortunately, in the past there has been need for having that kind of communications.

charleston small as it is and it's a real challenge that we are confronted has elements of the navy still there, nuclear school, and consolidated brig. i'm not saying that for love because i don't want to meet people to know that. they've already unfortunately know that cat is out of the bag into the look at that as possible alternative to guantánamo. consolidated. 40% shift to the middle east left out of port charles to get up until dover -- we are carrying the bulk of the airlift. we have remnants of, like i said, the navy nuclear school is still there. put the electronic suites in the mraps. one of the originators of the mrap design force protection, is

a charleston. so we've got a lot going on for a relatively small place. and quite frankly because of that port initiative, ports it could initiative, we built a unified command approach, and to date anybody that has assets that can bring to the table has a seat at the table. every participant. we actually do have some pretty important army folks there, the corps of engineers. we are open -- were hoping to deepen the channel and help out there. but when you look at the nature of the threat, and as recent as yesterday secretary johnson talks about resurrecting a national threat assessment system with a focusing more on the domestic threats, we all see them. we share them. law enforcement is as much a target, perhaps for different reasons, then the military but we are targets as well. so it's incumbent upon us to

communicate better and to coordinate efforts. windows lists are posted by isis, those personnel have off-base addresses that are provided as well. and you need to be, you know, you don't want a situation where you go off and leave her family, and then have, nobody that's really focus on them in terms of law enforcement. so that's an element in and of itself that should prompt greater communication and coordination. but the most recent issue of inspire magazine, aqap, which was a theme of that issue was assassinations, how much they had a picture of dylann roof was the perpetrator of issues at the church at emanuel mother ame church in charleston. i mean, we've been through a number of incidents in

charleston. and just as soon not have anymore. so to the extent that we can work together as a part of the kennedy, it's very challenging. very challenging to the military as they look out, try to figure out who the players are in terms of law enforcement. the jurisdiction. whether it's a concurrent jurisdiction or whether it's a military reservation, those issues are very challenging. and i'll be honest with you. it's not going to be the fbi if you're on exclusive military reservation that you call first or who are most likely to respond first. to go to your local police officers and you need to get to know them better and coordinate. and i would recommend to you that one of your biggest handicaps is the fact that you turn over periodically. and one of the responsibilities particularly of the provost marshal order law enforcement cid is to write a collection

requirement ought to be a signed to write up something about local military, our police personalities so that the incoming commander has some insight into who does what come who's responsible for what. and i'm not sure those messages get passed on to the extent that they should be. those are crucial crucial parts of that relationship. and as we found in defining port security, what we were doing was defining that port further away from the water line. i would submit to you that military needs to be looking at that from that perspective as well. that air base, that naval base is not defined by the chain-link fence. you've got to have a broader perspective than that, and that includes your local law enforcement.

who do you turn to? what s.w.a.t. teams do you turn to? do you have that capability on pace to? if not you need to find who you're going to call when you have somebody that is holed up in a building or something, maybe with a domestic situation, but there are whole host of regions to go to the effort to go to one, identify hoosier players are locally law enforcement lives. identify ways of developing memorandum of understanding with those sorts of things to clarify and clear up the jurisdictional issues. i think being an attorney, i'm always mindful of the legal ramifications, but i would say something. good faith and good intentions have a significant role in determining legal outcomes.

so if you set out to do the right thing and enter into a memorandum under lawyers obviously are going to be involved, but you do and don't you say can i do this, but make sure you say if i can't this way, how can i do to accomplish 90% of what i want to accomplish. those are probably the two most important things, learning the police people and what they're capable of, who the personalities are commented overcome whatever shortcomings you have ever led to the jurisdictional issues. thank you. >> well, the joy of being the cleanup batter is to look down and realize realize that prettyh everything you intended to say has been covered probably by people substantially more intelligent than yourself, but i do want to on behalf of jenna wiggins are committed welcome and thank you, you for taking part in despair i think all of our panelists for being a great variety of points of view of things when you can all talk about to the table.

if you for anything yesterday and today repeated more, i doubt it's been relationships. every panel member has talked about relationships and the other side of the bang is not the time for relationships. we've tried that in the past. nation we know it doesn't work. so what army north brings is that centerpiece we're responsible for force protection and antiterrorism for the 300,000 plus soldiers and their families and civilians are in north america. we were close with united states northern command on a daily basis. we will close with provost marshal general's office under general pace and, of course, the cheaper for protection. we are that commander with the responsibility for force protection in north america, and it's our job to make sure we're all talking to one another so that every individual soldier

knows what's going on, knows what the threat is, knows whether safe place to be is, no pseudo-law-enforcement presence is into to call and what to expect when the call is made. our responsibility is to give medicaid daily with the 20 a constant the i used to let them know what the threat picture is coming to let them know what's going on out of there. i'm very proud of our 24 hour 365 fusion cell. we sit right next to the army north treachery and every day are talking to sheriff's office, the department of state, federal. of investigation so that we know what's going on out there. we know the threats that are developing. one of our bosses primary things is the site that you. what's going on, how can he reach out if there's an event in north carolina can't anything in

california, and an event in north dakota against a stand-alone facility? do they have something to do with each other? is this a trend? this is something that every soldier in north america needs to be made aware of? one of the greatest things our bosses drive and works her hard on is a common operating picture. first want to be able to see what's going on out there, understand what it could mean, analyze it, it very quickly get that information not only to those 20 commands but to be able to reach out to every individual soldier so we have a number of things we're working with, with northcom to make that our reality as you figured out the army is a big place. the more we dig, the more we are surprised that in all of our efforts to take out post chattanooga exactly how many stand-alone facilities that united states army has in north america, we begin with a rough number of about 5600. at last count went up to 8900.

because besides the ones we are aware of, recruiting centers, research centers, national guard officers, we army north have folks and better with every e-mail region and the country under friends in the federal protective service provider tech and for most of them -- fema. some of them are in store fronts. but we've got to find a way not only to process and share information, but to make sure every single soldier knows what actions he or she needs to take to protect themselves and their families. one of my favorite sayings of the famous things people say when george washington said, when we assumed the soldier we did not set aside citizen. our soldiers lives, operate, take care of their families, and commit to their communities. they need to understand where their protection comes from. we could come through have secretary johnson said

yesterday, we can build a secure internet. we can build secure borders. we can make air travel completely safe. but that's not who we are and that's not what we do. we are not going to all run to the garrison and hide. we are part of the american community, part of the fabric of the society. so what a general wiggins leads us to do is remain a part of the community, be prepared to execute our mission but know how to manage risk, take care of our soldiers and their families, and to close with relationships. we can only do that with the relationships across the army, relationships across the services, and relationships with the state, federal, tribal, county, every level of law enforcement. and we have to be talking every day. again, we cannot learn to we need to be talking to on the wrong side of the bang. i will turn it back over to

admiral loren, and begin to thank you all for joining us. >> those are pretty broad ranging comments on a very broad ranging subject or i want to thank everybody for your comment. i do like to open it up for questions, and i will take the prerogative to ask the first question of course can which is would talk about relationships, and yesterday the chief talk to the readiness an integral part of that is planning a very importantly training. and training can be at various levels as we all know. the relatives that has to go from the actual lowest tactical level all the way up to the senior level. my expenses here in washington on the lf periodically the president, the cabinet and sectors are sitting at a tabletop exercise, you only get 90% of the effectiveness of veteran politico's all the way to the top. i asked our panel is what are some of the initiatives that perhaps they have been involved

in in their respective relationships within their communities and the broader reaching relationship with the total army that they may have pursued and are engaged in? so who would like to start? >> i can begin addressing the. from the department of army standpoint, we established policy at the headquarters but it's executor down at the unit level. when we talk about off installation facilities such as army reserve centers and national guard armories, they rejected the local community to conduct these exercises that you mentioned. with local law enforcement establishing relationship, many members of the army reserve and national guard are also local law enforcement members. so it's a natural fit and an actual tied to bring that together to those exercises are conducted periodically and we try to combine that if there's multiple units in the building rather than having local law enforcement reaching out three, four, five times to the same

location. that's an important part of that. but in addition it's a continuation of information. as was mentioned it is in one's ear or i take command on a local unit and meet the local police and then two years later i rolled out and somebody else comes in. it's important that dialogue and get to know each other, share information about what's going on in the community. that works both ways between military members and with law enforcement as well. i keep up with made i think that when military were transient, therefore a short bit of time and we move on. it's important as part of that battle handled, head over that those relationships are handed over as well so that law enforcement knows that mike isn't there anymore, that market seminal how to get hold of more to continue that relationship that is there. it's about teamwork, about the partnership and exciting at the local of the and recording that up through headquarters. what resources are needed to

improve the response, if its interoperability for conductivity. how could that help -- connectivity spent in the ashes of time what a protective when you say training i get to you for us, the priority has been really rehearsing our battle chose within some of the recruiting centers. so what are the actions individuals him who do they call? but really it is beyond the emphasis so that which we can control has only been relationship. it's interesting, i reached out to some battalion commanders and said i'm going to have this opportunity, just give me some feedback in terms of the things that you are doing. i got to do i ge get a different battalions here get a different battalion to your comment talk about direct relationship, local police department, sharing of information. they listed all the organizations that came up in a

briefing. breggin force protection interaction with jdf that directly, i got names of individuals. some of the points we talked about, about the importance of this relationship and you've got to work at it. that really has been our emphasis. >> from a local police perspective, we have done tabletops exercise with several other military partners. the tabletops were more an executive level, higher management, going over incident command, making sure all of our components from the military, the proper people from the military would respond incident command. up with one of the things we realized in our navy yard interaction was that we didn't have the proper people in the initial incident command. we actually there was confusion as to who was in charge of the base at that time. we've had several briefings where we have sat down with their executive level and just really gotten more of a training on who's in charge we need an

incident command. and from their perspective who they need to send out to the incident command. we have done tactical level training through full-scale exercises where we have done drills of the navy yard facility. we've done drills over fort mcnair as will. so that communication, learning each other's procedures and who needs to be face-to-face has been excellent. >> thank you. >> i will add one other thing, which is always pressing that push to test button. monthly we do an exercise where we reach up on the headquarters to the 20 command within north america, and we purposely change it with a response must be by e-mail or next month it must be by telephone or next month that must be by message. because as you know it never fails that something isn't going to work. each month we find a whole. each month someone has moved and

we did know about it. so you just, sheriff cannon talked about making sure that the first thing you pass on if you need to talk to, who you need to go to, who they need to have a relationship with. even if it's internal. you have got to push the price to test button on the record paces because people change, things happen, communications systems go down. i will just add that. what ever great plan you have you will have to check it to make sure it will survive first contact with the enemy. >> thank you. your question, please. matt has a microphone so please speak into the microphone, identify yourself and do your best to make it a question. >> patrick doctor with a defense when. in 2000 after the fort hood shootings the president establish an insider threat task force, one of the mandates was an integration center for analysis of baghdad as applied to that threat assessment. to the question, can you speak to some of the nascent efforts

to apply the data analytics to the job of detecting early warning signs of an attack both within the broader population and within the service population, of course different populations of datasets bikes thank you. >> bob, i'll start with response on that. you made a reference to the insider threat task force, the g. 34 leads the army's effort as part of a national insider threat task force. that is the ethics do. active shooters which is what we're talking about is one element of it. -- >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in office tuesday and so we'll leave this discussion at this point you to see it in its entirety to go to our website c-span.org, check the c-span video library. general speeches to begin did and said it will consider a judicial nomination. later lawmakers will make remarks on immigration legislation followed by a vote to cut federal funding so for

so-called sanctuary cities. live now to the senate floor. the chaplain: let us pray. soo righteous and holy god, we worship you. we see your glory in the beauty of sunrise and the splendor of sunset. great and marvelous are your works, for your faithfulness sustains us. guide our lawmakers to connect to your eternal, essential and unchanging holiness. with the power of your righteous presen