gas pollution, the united states has a moral imperative to show national leadership in addressing the global security threat from climate change through multilateralism, cooperation and mutual aid. global leadership on climate change begins here at home. the u.s. should push past pledgeses we made to put america on track for a greater -- [inaudible] a commitment should be made for at least 50% of our electricity to come from clean, renewable sources by 2030. this means putting in place measures to keep fossil fuel in the ground like banning mountaintop removal of coal, putting in place a moratorium on oil and gas exploration and a tax on polluters that's responsive to the needs of low income americans. to help accomplish these goals, the democratic party must commit to eliminating welfare to fossil fuel companies and banning their lobbyists that give them undue

influence over climate and energy policy. the u.s. must step up its global climate finance commitment and identify concrete sources of new money and redirecting a portion of the bloated defense budget to programs that combat climate change abroad. finally, the u.s. must show leadership by honoring its commitment to transfer technologies that help developing countries reduce carbon pollution and build their capacity to adapt to climate change. this in part means rejecting the trans-pacific partnership and other free trade agreements that put climate at risk -- [inaudible] in conclusion, the security risks posed by climate change to the united states and global populations are real, imminent and potentially catastrophic. the most critical responses are nonmilitary. reduce greenhouse gas emissions at home and support a just transition to clean energy and -- [inaudible] thank you very much.

>> bill? thank you. [applause] >> thank you for that testimony, and i recommend to the committee to read the full written testimony, because it's concise and powerful. and thank you for your work. just a couple of quick questions. as you said, the u.s. along with many other nations at paris committed to the target of holding temperature increases well below two degrees centigrade and as close to 1.5 degrees sent grade as possible in what some observers called the most important diplomatic gathering since the end of the second world war. mr. trump has said that he would immediately abrogate that agreement, and 2007 your sense of -- given your sense of american leadership and credibility, what do you think an effort like that would do to the world's attempts to deal with climate change? and secondly, given the fact

that we touched 1.5 degrees in february, could you describe for the committee your sense of how urgent this problem is and really whether even the timeline laid out in paris is sufficient to help us meet the targets that we addressed here? >> no. i think those questions, obviously, dovetail together. the assertion that we would reasonably pull out of one of -- the only negotiated treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and insure that the world's population survives one of the greatest crises that we're facing is, i think, blatantly irresponsible. it's confusing the way trump speaks about climate because he, of course, is moving to protect his own properties in coastal areas against climate change as effects of climate change -- so it's unclear what his actual position on climate change would be.

but i think when you peek about the paris -- speak about the paris timeline and the commitments we've made in paris, there's a lot more we can do. in the united states we need to do more, for example. we have made a promise of reducing our emissions by 28% by the year 2025. we need to go beyond that. that doesn't mean we should abandon that treaty, that pact with other nations. it just means we need to show increased leadership in part because we are more responsible than almost every country on earth for the crisis we find ourselves in now. so what we can do to move faster on those timelines is to eliminate the support through subsidies that we pay to the oil, gas and coal industries both at home and overseas. we need to take that money and spend it instead on clean energy research and development, but more importantly, deployment here at home. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> [inaudible]

>> thank you. and thank you for joining us today and for calling our attention to the fact that climate change is a national/global security issue. i think that's incredibly important. you mentioned -- well, first of all, you mentioned mr. trump. and i agree it can feel confusing that he's alleging climate change impacts as an argument for why he needs to build a wall. but he has -- to protect his golf course. he has repeatedly referred to climate change as a hoax. i don't know, he has, you know, he is, i think, the foremost climate denier at this point in time, and we should be very clear about that. two questions, one on the paris agreement. as you know and i think probably the committee knows, we need a certain number of countries to sort of sign it.

and we're making progress. i think it will be done by the end of the year. are you optimistic, that's my first question, that that will happen. and the second question is the, president obama's clean power plan which is, obviously, caught up in some litigation right now, but do you -- what would you do following on implementation of the clean power plan? when we think about a domestic agenda for reducing. and i certainly agree with the need for renewables, but as we kind of look at where the law is today, the clean air act -- which the president has successfully used to achievement and measurable reductions -- what would you do after power plants to continue that effort? >> yeah. thank you. i am optimistic that we will reach the number of signatories and the coverage of global emissions that will pick the paris agreement into action. i think, of course, there is work that the u.s. can do before that happens, and we need to do that, and i think we're on track for that. but we need to make sure that

we're not waiting for anyone else both because of our historic role, but because it's the right thing to do for our own economy, workers and population to keep ourselves safe. i'm excited about the clean power plan because it lays out both a very clear formula for how states can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, but also, of course, allows flexibility which states have asked for. i think there are some things we can push states to do now within the clean power plan. for example, there should be, i think, increased support for energy efficiency measures and, of course, distributed renewable energy as well as utility scaling -- [inaudible] there's also right now, i think, a problematic piece of that plan which will incentivize a lot of natural gas. that supports the fossil fuel infrastructure for decades which makes it harder then to move through the renewable energy revolution we need. so i think having even greater economic incentives, tax

incentives, programs that aren't around for five years like the solar, wind that we have now, putting those in place for a much longer term and then closing the kinds of public lands to fossil fuel exploration exploitation would be a logical follow-on to that. >> thank you. >> would you -- i was very good about not asking questions about things i didn't know anything about. [laughter] can i ask one more -- [laughter] >> we did have a two overall rule but, sure. >> in the past, the u.s. government's been very aggressive in promoting fracking abroad. given what we now know in the last year or two about methane emissions, do you think that's appropriate to continue, and what do you think about leading by example on that issue at home? >> that's a great point. i mean, that has been one of the problems.

you raised it, i think, in your with question about power africa. some of our, i think, very well-intentioned foreign aid, foreign assistance programming that is designed to enable people to have access to energy, that is designed to enable people to have the kinds of economic growth that lift people out of poverty. unfortunately, right now we are focusing a lot of that on natural gas. and that, like i said, that builds an infrastructure that will, that takes the space, that takes up the economic space, that takes up the money that could be spent doing other kinds of things. so we -- i think you're right. we could lead by example at home. we need to really -- we haven't done a good job yet of bringing the science into our planning completely. so that's the first step, really looking at what does clean and green energy mean. being honest about those emissions and then planning forward with that reality in place. >> great, thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> we will now bring up -- thank you. [applause]

we'll now bring up matt duss for the foundation for middle east peace. previously, he was a policy analyst at the center for american progress where his work focused on middle east and u.s. national security. and he was director of the center's middle east progress program. welcome, matt. >> thank you. good afternoon. and i thank you for the opportunity to share these views on an issue of real importance in u.s. foreign policy. but before i begin, i would like to acknowledge the tragic and horrific attack that took place yesterday in tel aviv which took the lives of four innocent civilians and send my sympathies and support and solidarity to the victims and their families. as i know all of you do, i look forward to the day when this conflict is ended and the people of israel and palestine live together in peace and security. the u.s. and israel have long been close partners in a relationship built upon strategic interests and shared democratic ideals. it is a relationship that is

enduring and unwavering. for decades the israeli/palestinian conflict has been one of the world's most intractable problems. successive american administrations, democratic and republican, have seen resolving the conflict as a key u.s. national security goal in the middle east. there's no question that we should be and will be israel's friend in resolving this conflict. at the same time, we must recognize that israel's continued occupation of palestinian territories and its daily restrictions on the most basic political and civic liberties run contrary. we must reject the idea that we have to sacrifice our values in order to stand with our allies. it hinders the u.s.' relationships in the region, creating a deep well of resentment from which extremists draw profitably. as was said in a 2013 interview, quote with: i paid a military

security price every day as commander of centcom because the americans were seen as biased in support of israel. unquote. a final peace agreement must ultimately be negotiated and agreed to by israelis and palestinians themselves, but the united states and must do more to help create the conditions under which such negotiations can succeed. this must be done with a commitment to israel's legitimate security concerns, but it must also focus on the creation of an economically-viable and independent palestinian state. democratic party policy should reflect the values of inclues we'veness, security, democracy, and freedom. a two-state solution is the best way to insure the continued existence of the state of israel and secure the rights of the palestinian people in a state of their own. in the absence of that solution, however, palestinians have rights under international humanitarian law that must be recognized and protected.

i'll conclude here by noting that this conflict is one of the most emotionally fraught in u.s. politics. it also touches on the deeply-held religious and ethical views of millions of americans including myself. it involves the legitimate historical claims, identities and security of two peoples in the same land. one of the most elegant reflections on this matter was offered by president obama himself in his remarks to the israel congregation in may 2015. quote: the rights i insist upon and now fight for all people here in the united states compels me to stand out for israel. the rights of the jewish people compel me to think about a palestinian child that feels trapped without opportunity. unquote. as president obama noted, these ideas are based in the same shared values that compel us to condemn anti-semitic bigotry and seek justice for palestinians. these are the ideas that should be reflected in the democratic party's platform, and the values of inclusiveness should inform

not only america's engagement with israel and palestine, but with the region and the world. thank you. >> thank you. are there any questions for matt? no? yeah? >> i'd just like you to reflect on the ironies that strikes me about our right obsession with trump's right-wing, xenophobic, narcissistic, neo-fascist. and trump-like figures in israeli life; lieberman, ariel. every society has xenophobes. why is it we can focus so clearly on them here and rightly call them into question and at times seem to be so reluctant to

call into question zien phobes in other places -- zien phobes in other places? that just strikes me as something that we as a people have to come to terms with. i can put it another way. that if there were a palestinian occupation of precious jewish brothers and sisters, would we respond in the same way as opposed to an israeli occupation of palestinian brothers and sisters? myself believing very deeply in what jane austen calls constancy, moral consistency, that i want to have moral outrage in both of those cases. and it just strikes me this is something we have to wrestle with. it's going to take a little while, i think, but we have to wrestle with both in the party and in society. >> yes, thank you, dr. west. that's a really important point. i would say some of the troubling trends we're seeing in israel, they're not isolated to israel. we see them across the world -- >> around the world, absolutely. >> and in our own country.

i would just say, you know, a way of thinking that often guides my work is a comment i heard from an israeli colleague who was very close to the negotiations who said about the united states we're not asking the united states to make peace for us. we're asking the united states to help those of us, israelis and palestinians who want to make peace, to do it. and i think that is a really helpful guide for how we should design policy. >> wendy? >> thank you for your testimony and thank you for your strong support for a two-state solution. i think, you know, we had an earlier discussion here, and i think that is a place where we are all in agreement that it needs to be a two-state solution that provides security to a democratic jewish state of israel and also insures a palestinian state that also has security and dignity. and getting there, as you imply, is really something to be

negotiated between israel and the palestinians with the united states playing the role we have traditionally played because it is in our national security interests to do so. and i think, you know, to dr. west, to your point, everything that we do in the world as the united states should be in our national security interests and values are certainly part of -- >> absolutely. >> -- our identity and national security interest. and it is why people have worked so hard to try to, over multiple administrations, to get to a two-state solution and to get to peace. >> we now have in motion a trillion dollar plan to modernize every single weapon in our arsenal. principal deputy undersecretary of defense for brian mcewen said last october we're looking at that big bow wave and wondering how the heck we're going to thank for it and

probably thank our stars we won't be here to answer that question. well, the next president will be there. she will have the responsibility of answering that question, of coming up with the solutions. i had the privilege just this monday night of being in san francisco at an event that plowshares had sponsored. governor jerry brown came and spoke with passion and eloquence about the immorality of nuclear weapons, which i agree with, about the insanity of our nuclear posture, which i agree with. but it was michele flournoy who put her finger on the budget button. there is no way, she said, that we're going to be able to pay for the weapons that we now have under order. the next nuclear posture review is going to be, by definition, a very consequential one. we have to go back to first principles, she said. do we still need the triad? do we still have to have parity? just because russia has 5,000 weapons, do we have to have 5,000 weapons?

china seems to get along perfectly fine with only 200 weapons to deter us. do we still need an icbm force? should we cancel the new nuclear cruise missile, a first-use weapon now in the pipeline? these are the kinds of questions the next administration is going to have to answer. i don't expect the platform to take poxes on all these -- positions on all these, but it would be incumbent upon us to open the door to these kinds of questions, to raise these kinds of questions. and when we're doing so, we can look to our congressional leaders who of past administrations have spoken about this and more specifically, the same act introduced by senators jeffrey merkle, bernie sanders and al franken. outlining a sensible plan for how we can trim the nuclear force. not unilaterally disarm, but in so doing, save $100 billion over

at least the ten years. if we don't do this, this nuclear excess will rob our warriors of the weapons they need to fight the threats we're fighting in the world today. i encourage the platform committee to express its concern about the nuclear budget and to at least open the door to a fresh look at what we need and why we need it. >> thank you very much. ms. tanden. [applause] >> i appreciate at this beginning of your remarks you talked about the iran nuclear deal. i just wanted to recognize that that is an issue that is still litigated in the national debate and that we have a nominee of the republican party who continues to say it's a bad deal, it's a terrible deal for american sovereignty. so i'd love to just get your specific thoughts on how the iran nuclear deal has continued to be helpful and why it's so

important and an important issue in this general election as well? >> the iran nuclear agreement addressed all of the concerns we and our allies had about the program. the best solution was to eliminate every ounce of uranium in that country, every brick of the nuclear complex. we could not get that deal. so we had to, we stripped the program down to the lowest possible level and in so doing, we effectively blocked the uranium pathway. they have ripped out two-thirds of their centrifuges, they have shipped their uranium stockpile out of the country except for a token amount. they ripped the core out of their reactor, drilled it full of holes and filled it full of concrete. we blocked the covert pathway by imposing and getting the iranians to agree to the most stringent inspections regime ever negotiated. if a republican president had negotiated that deal, they would have already named an airport after him. [laughter]

it is politics, not strategy that motivates the opposition to that deal. >> thank you. >> any other questions? thank you. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. >> phil carter? oh there, you are. phillip carter is senior fellow, johnson director of the military veterans and society program at the center for new american security. his research focuses on issues facing veterans and military personnel, force structure and readiness issues and civil- military -- [inaudible] began his career as an army officer serve anything the active and reserve components with the military police and civil affairs officer.

after retiring from the army, mr. carter became increasingly involved in veterans and national security policy issues. in 2008 he joined the obama campaign as a national veterans director responsible for policy and political engagement with the veterans and military community. mr. carter. >> thank you, congressman cummings and members of the committee. it's an honor to appear before you. as someone whos' worn our nation's uniform and now comes to peek to you about our national security. we have a sacred commitment to provide for the nation's common defense, and this date back to the founding of our republic. a strong military enabled by strong defense budgets driven by strategy, not sequestration. a cutting edge, innovation and technology agenda, smart, effective strategy and the best all-volunteer force in the world supported by our nation including our service members, veterans and their families. secretary clinton, our next

president, has said that a president has a sacred responsibility to send our troops into ballot only if we must and only with a clear and well thought out strategy. she's right. the democratic vision for a strong and sustained military acting judiciously in the world and consistently with our values is the american way. she's also noted, and i agree, that it would be a serious mistake to stumble into another costly ground war in the middle east, a place where many served -- including me -- and a place where we still have men and women deployed in harm's way. people and nations must secure their own communities. we must support them, but we cannot substitute for them in iraq and afghanistan. nonetheless, our military must be the best trained and equipped in the world, standing ready to provide for our nation's defense in a range of scenarios from counterinsurgency to counterterrorism, from humanitarian systems to high-end combat operations.

we had the finallest -- we have the finest military in the world. we must invest in our military to sharpen its edge and continuously sharpen its edge. we must also invest in our defense department; reforming it, making it more agile, efficient and effective. we must root out waste, fraud and abuse. we must protect whistleblowers and empower inspectors general, giving them the tools they need to insure that our pentagon spends our taxpayer dollars in the best way. and finally, we must also look after those who serve us in uniform and their families. we cannot just think of defense as strategy and hardware. it is people too. and we have a sacred commitment to these people that begins at the moment they enlist and continues for the rest of their lives. it continues not just in the defense department, but in the department of veterans affairs as well with timely access to quality health care, benefits like the post-9/11 g.i. bill and disability compensation.

to make sure that we serve these men and women and their families as well as they have served us. members of the committee, it's a pleasure to represent these issues to you, and i stand ready to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much for your testimony. thank you very much for your testimony. i am hopeful we will have a very, very strong plank with regard to our veterans. i often say everybody salutes them when they go off to war, and then when they come back, they're not treated the way they should be treated. and we can be better, and we can do better. and so i want to thank you very much. questions. ms. sherman. >> first of all, thank you for your service. and thank all the veterans for all of their service. and thank the families for their support for the veterans, because i know even among diplomats it's the families that really suffer as much as the veteran for what people have to go through.

we have heard from mr. trump that nobody has a better friend than he to the veteran community, that, you know, we all know the saga of the fundraiser, you know? it's not clear to me that he's ever really been a porter in the -- supporter in the past. and i think he has a notion that he can somehow say this is a high prior the city, it'll just get done, trust me, it'll get done. but you are presenting testimony about the complexity of getting this done and the skills that it takes to get this done. so i wonder if you could speak to that a little bit. >> thank you, body sherman, for that question -- ambassador sherman, for that question. i think the danger that candidate trump presents occurs in at least three dimensions. one, the unwillingness to accept candid military advice and to engage in a civil-military dialogue with our military heeders. that reflects a naivete about

both the process and substance of national security. i think, second, is a disregard for the hard work and substance of national security and the issues that my colleague discussed recently, the issues that you've worked and many others. these are hard issues, and they cannot be addressed is simply with bumper stickers. and i think, third, is the respect for the community that we see absent in his statements; treating veterans as props to be trotted out on stage as opposed to a community that served this country and is deserving of their support. these are the reasons why i have extreme concern about mr. trump and his candidacy and why i think there is only one party and one candidate who is qualified and has the judgment and the temperament to be commander in the chief. >> [inaudible] >> thank you very much. let me associate myself with all of the remarks that have been made, and thank you very much for your service and for being here. i am daughter of a veteran, 25

years. i also serve or on the subcommittee on military instruction, veteran affairs. we have tried to wrap our hands around what we need to do to make sure we honor our veterans once they return. you mentioned a clear and well thought out strategy when we send our troops in harm's way, and i'm wondering if you could comment on how you see congress' role and responsibility. some of us believe that congress has a duty to our veterans and to our country, a constitutional responsibility to pass an authorization to use military force and not use old authorizations to, you know, put our troops in harm's way. because the public needs to understand the costs and consequences as our troops do. so i'd like you to comment on what you think about the congressional responsibility as well as with regard to waste, fraud and abuse. you know, the pentagon still hasn't been audited, and we've been working as democrats, and we've been leading this for years now with republicans

onboard to try to get the pentagon audited. there's a requirement it be audited. it's the only federal agency that's been audited. we have billions of dollars that are being wasted which could be used to support our veterans' health care, personnel costs, but yet we can't get an audit of the pentagon. could you comment on the necessity or how you see this audit responsibility. >> thank you, congress woman lee -- >> i don't know whether this is a signal that we need to leave or what. [laughter] the lights suddenly came on. >> it was the congresswoman's question -- [laughter] >> maybe it's because -- yeah. congresswoman lee. >> it's a terrific question. on the issue of an aumf, you know, the constitution allocates war powers to all branches of government including congress, and i believe very strongly each branch has its role to play.

>> the department has operated more years than not on a continuing resolution that has an impact on procurement and has an impact on spending and actually creates more insufficiency, i believe, when the congress doesn't timely and feshty pass these bills. so, yes, i believe the method is important but the responsibility does not stop there. with respect to an audit, there's very clearly more than we can do to run the defense vice president like a business in a way that's appropriate and legible and auditable for the taxpayer and make sure that every dollar that we spend is going to the national security interest.

>> dr. west. dr. west. >> i just want to salute you for your public work in military uniform as well as civilian clothes. i was wondering what your definition would, i mean thinking to edward snowden, chelsea manning, sterling, to enjail someone outside of the country, would you define them as whistle blowers or would you define them in a different way? >> dr. west -- >> did i put you on the spot too much? i appreciate your reflections. >> i would define whistle blowers those who come forward with statute of whistle blowing activity to the appropriate lead ers to add -- ajudicate those

manners . in one case someone who is accused or convicted of violating code of military justice and in some other cases violations of federal law. i believe those individuals had a pathway of command to report on doing f they saw wrong doing, they should have taken it and if they took into and reported it to the appropriate authorities, they should have been protected as we should protect whistle blowers who report wrong doing through channels. >> thank you very much. we really appreciate your testimony. >> thank you, sir. >> ladies and gentlemen, our last witness is engram. same.

thank you mr. chairman, mr. mr. sang. obviously he served as a deputy of defense in oust east asia where he advised senior leadership on all matters pertain to go development and strategies and plans for the region until november 2011. special representative for afghanistan and pakistan at the u.s. department of state, welcome. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chair, thank you cochairs, thank you all of you for invite megato testify at the end of a very long day. i've been asked to talk about the nature of american leadership so i suppose coming either first in the day or last in the day is appropriate. as you said vice president for

national security and international policy center of american progress. long featured progressive in the world and that vision is going to be critical for our nation security in the years ahead. we face unparallel diversity of threats that have been touched by witnesses all day today. almost none of them can be handing by any one nation acting a loan. this is why i think american leadership is key to our future security and prosperity. when america leads well, the world becomes safer and more secure. when we turn inward it is quite the opposite. principle leadership starts with honest appraisal of the face we threat rooted in facts not fear. principle leadership requires deter conflict and encouraging path to engagement when crisis

invariably strikes. this kind of leadership finds political home in the modern democratic party for several reasons. first, democratic leadership use war as last resort, never as a first choice. democrats will always use force if needed to protect americans, but unilateralism and preventive war are failures of leadership. democrats recognize the importance of partners. we are better off with partners than we are going it alone and that we stand with our friends and allies. finally democrats understand that diplomacy, development and economic state craft are critical to stopping crises, we fight for greater investment in the nonmilitary tools in the national power in order to make us more safe. principle leadership like this is what the next president will need to deal with the challenges we face. i want to give a couple of examples. to defeat radical jihadist

terrorism including isis and al-qaeda we need to steadily help countries like iraq, syria take back territory from extreesmist. territory from which they can launch attacks not only in local area but far field in europe or in the united states. we have to go after their communications, finances and their ability to travel and toughen up defenses at home. but this is not just a military problem, we have to recognize that the ideology of hate that has created by jihadist, we need to start thinking about how we help invest in a different kind of education and help other countries do so. we need to think about states who need global help for forward for stability and find viable solutions, political solution

that is can heal the divisions in their societies specially by reducing corruption. we cannot do it for them but we can help them work at it. we need to bring nations together as the obama administration managed to do to impose sanctions and to negotiate a deal that brought an end to iran's current ambitions. that kind of by military deterrence can apply to other serious threats like north korea . to handle china's rise we need engagement. we need to welcome china's larger world on the world stage but we need to standby countries should they be subjected to coercion, bullying or the seizure of territories. we need to standby ukraine which

has been the victim of aggression and the lost of its territory through the use of force. that means we may need to continue to support long-term economic sanctions, perhaps for indefinite period. that means we need to encourage others to have resolve in this area. it does not mean we cannot do anything with russia but we should be clear about what is acceptable, what is not and what we will stand for. a last example we have to work with other nations and the private sector to share threat information and cooperate on investigation and prosecution. we cannot protect ourselves alone. i think i'm well over my time. i wanted to touch on -- [laughter] >> i wanted to touch on the contrast with republicans, but perhaps we can do that in the

questioning. >> thank you very much. and then -- >> how would you contrast with what you said with what the republican position might be? [laughter] >> i think i contrast it very starkly, the contrast with republicans right now couldn't be more stark. republicans have dominated a candidate who thinking nuclear proliferation might be okay. republicans nominated a candidate who thinking maybe we should pull out of -- maybe we should pull out of core alliances like nato or maybe it's okay to -- to target the families of terrorists to say the republican party doesn't support those kinds of view or they have an outliar as a candidate is a great disservice, that's not what we are talking about here. >> what do you think -- what would you advice us on the u.s.

paying dues at the un and pulling out of institutions, a few years ago when palestinians joined we by operation of law had to pull out, i kind of felt that it it wasn't us at our best, stepping away from multilateral institutions, could the democratic platform reflect some commitment to multilateralism and the u.s. playing a leadership role, international large organizations. >> representative, absolutely we need to focus on multilateralism being at the table. you cannot lead if you are not at the table. so simply withdrawing in protest is often a satisfying thing to do in the near term, perhaps politically expedient.

>> you mentioned the situation in ukraine. the problem is broader than that, there's georgia and there's poland and real insecurity. i want to ask you to broaden out the discussion about europe and the problems we face in europe, vis-a-vis russia and the problem with refugees now changing the political landscape in europe in a very threatening way? could you discuss -- i know that's a lot. i feel like our platform needs to reflect how we engage europe vis-a-vis russia and the challenges we face there, whether it's expansion of nato further or -- and how we deal with the issue of this radicalization process that's taking place at many fronts partly as a result of this backlash to -- to refugees coming into europe. >> this refugee crisis mr. zogby

that test us in a very profound level. when it is reacted to fear it sparks division and the rise of right-wing popularism. an openness and embracing of people that are in desperate strengths. the democratic party is well position today articulate america's, humanitarian not because it's good for the people but ultimately good for our interest. i think that this is going to be the biggest challenge the european project has faced in the last 70 years and i do not know where it will come out but i know the united states should be on the side of a unified europe that welcomes the victims

of violence and seeks to stop the root causes of the violence that is driving them from their homes. on russia i think it's quite simple, there is a pattern. it is not a new pattern. it goes back to georgia, it involves ukraine and in ukraine it was the most extreme example we have seen today. the question now is can russian behavior be channeled and shaped through steady result from the rest of the world. the rest of the world do not include everybody but it includes us and the european allies, and i hope that the bite of sanctions, the opportunity to reengage and reshape the kind of relationship, we are going to have with russia will lead to a different kind of decision down the road but in the meantime i think it's very important to know that we are going to be there with our friends and that we are going to not decide that

it's okay to accept this kind of violation of sovereignty, which is after all fundamental principles of what we are doing. >> our final question would come -- did you have a question? >> yes, sorry. i wanted to ask just a very simple question because i think these issues get very confusing about unilateralism, unilateral actions. what is your standard about military engagement? what right to use military force ever. of the candidates i'm not familiar with a presidential candidate at the moment on the democratic moment to called for unilateral action with allies, for calling boots on the ground anywhere, i would love to get your thoughts on the issues.

>> i'm glad we don't have a democratic candidates that's asking for unilateral action and boots on the ground anywhere. i do think there's a distinction between a large scale invasion and helping a country manage its own internal security or regional security challenge. putting, for example, special forces to help iraq take territory from isis is an appropriate use of american military power. i do not believe that you can ever have just a simple litmus test because most of the situations that threaten americans are complex and rapidly evolving and we sincerely all hope that we have chosen leaders who will decide wisely when they are faced with what are going to be often impossible and certainly very difficult choices. i think it requires that we comply with law of war, that we

stick to our principles, that we have identified what a threat is and what the military tool can do with that threat and that we are -- our leaders, civilian leaders taking the advice of military leaders, but if americans are really threatened, it's appropriate to use all the tools at our disposal to protect americans and if our allies and friends are threatened or are suffering a domestic catastrophe i think it's important to figure out means of security assistance to help them secure their own countries. >> did you have a question? i'm sorry, i didn't see you. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you for that testimony which was the right way to end the day, nuance and interesting and stimulating in all kinds of ways. you did job -- i was quite interested -- you were talking about the overdetermined causes of the crisis in syria. and it struck me the one you

department get to was this spade of academic studies in the last few years demonstrating that the greatest drought to hit the fertile crescent in thousands of years maybe a deep underlying factor, and i guess in the larger sense what it made me wonder, climate changes arguably maybe not even arguably the greatest global problem that we have ever faced, but it's not a problem that's not easily fit into our national security thinking in any of sort of the world's national security establishments. it's been set in some place between domestic policies and foreign policy and things, do you think that's changing post paris? do you think that -- are there ways that we can help make it a lens through which we understand

foreign policy going forward? >> thank you for that question and in the five-minute version of my testimony that was definitely in there. [laughter] >> the fact is that the united states military has long recognized that climate change is going to be one of the largest drivers of instability and conflict and therefore one of the largest threats to american national security. the national intelligence council has long recognized the same thing. so in congruence see this is a fundamental challenge. the tide is turning the same way we talk about implications of vladimir putin. i think that would be a very important change and it's something that this party can -- can highlight in this platform in ways that will advance the debate significantly. >> thank you.

thank you very much. i want to thank the -- thank you for your testimony. we really appreciate it. [applause] >> we want to thank all the witnesses that appeared today. i want to thank chairman debbie schultz for doing such a great job and the entire staff i want to thank you. in the meantime, you know, we are going to be meeting on february 17th in phoenix, if you have any concerns, issues, concerns, things that may have come up, documents you may need, andy grossman is the person you want to be in touch with. he's very excited to hear from you. [laughter] >> again, i want to thank the -- the -- all of our members of our committee for your time and for your efforts. as i said, when we first met, this is a very important time in our country's history.

it is a very important time for our country and we are so blessed to have this opportunity to be able to be a part of paving a road map not only for the next generation, next election but for the next generation and for generations yet ongoing. and so i will see you all in phoenix. bye, bye, now. [applause] where [inaudible conversations] >> the headlines republicans on the hot seat over gun control. senate democrats pressing for yet another vote that would bar suspected terrorist from purchasing firearms. swroining us on the phone with more details is jake sherman, thanks very much for being with us. >> thank you. >> what can we see this week?

>> as members of congress file back into town, democrats will up the pressure. they have done many times when it comes to guns. they want to obviously increase regulation and tighten gun laws, republicans have been very hesitant. what republicans are saying congress should focus on radicalization and what they believe is the problem, what the cancer of radical islamic terrorism. their point, new gun laws would not prevent a motivated terrorist from finding a way to kill americans, but with, you know, donald trump at the top of the ticket and the control of congress kind of up in the balance over the next couple of months this will be a very difficult political issue for both sides specially vulnerable senate republicans. in many states new gun laws tightening restrictions on guns

is a popular position so we are going to see this kind of form over the next couple of days here in washington. >> for those who follow congress closely, this came up back in december and essentially failed in the senate along party line vote of 45 to 54, did the shooting in orlando over the weekend change the dynamics in anyway? >> i don't think it did. we will see because a lot of republicans will private i will say it's a tough argument to hold to say that suspected terrorist who is are not allowed to be on airplanes or other restrictions against them, it's a definite argument to hold that they should be able to go into a gun store and buy a gun. the dynamics in congress haven't changed, one of their own was shot in the head by a crazy gunman and a number of children were mauled in a school in connecticut.

congress should not institute new restrictions on firearms. >> this comes at the same time the house speaker paul ryan meeting earlier today. house members will get a classified briefing from the national security team that would include the fbi director and secretary of homeland secretary. what new do you think we'll learn in the next 24 hours and members of congress will be learning as the attendees briefings? >> i don't think they'll be learning much in the briefings, members of congress like to discuss what they hear behind closed doors which is a difficult proposition for the administration to try to conduct a very high-level and intensive investigation. i think what we will see is how paul ryan will react and if paul ryan, mccarthy, the rest of the republican leadership team feel like they need to have some sort

of response either on the floor legislatively or politically to kind of get in the right position when it comes to keeping guns out of suspected terrorists' hands. my guess is republicans will focus narrowly on the issue of combating isis and being careful about who -- immigration laws and who the country lets into our country, into our borders. i think that's where republicans will focus energy and they will say that there are no gun laws that could prevent a motivated individual from getting a gun. >> we are talking with jay sherman, senior of politico. donald trump tragic victory lap. what's all this about? >> glen was arguing in the piece which a lot of people have been talking for several hours that donald trump immediately turned the conversation about the tragedy in orlando to try to

turn it to his own political benefit, he said he has been right on islamic extremism from the beginning, he has been saying this the country needs to get smart, needs to get tough on extremism and that's kind of what his take away was, i was right, thank you very much. and we saw a lit it bit on the speech today. we went after hillary clinton very hard in speech in new new hampshire this afternoon saying she's unfit and unable to be commander in chief and donald trump expanded his remarks on basically barring anybody who is from a country of a suspected ter,, -- terrorist. but the point glen is making that instead of focusing kind of on the attitude of the country and trying to bring people together, donald trump made it about himself and what a lot of people have been saying over the

last 24 hours since donald trump has react today this terrible attack in orlando. >> yet, shake sherman, what about the long-term of what happened in orlando, florida? will this resinate, change the direction of the trump or the clinton campaigns? >> i think that will it further heighten sensitivity about the narrative which is about keeping our country safe. donald trump has taken a different approach, which is he wants to bar again all muslims and actually people from states that have suspected terrorist ties from the u.s. which would be a overhaul to immigration policy like almost we have never seen before and hillary clinton's point is that that is not what our country is about and that tightness the focus, sharpens the focus on immigration policy and keeping our nation safe and that's a big

issue heading into november. >> all details online at politico.com. jake sherman, as always, thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> coming up this morning a hearing on the issue of visitors overstaying visa and calls for new entry and tracking exit system. homeland security takes up the issue at 10:00 a.m. eastern live coverage on c-span3 . >> now remarks by defense secretary ash carter in order to modernize military. he spoke about summit about to merge national security and innovation, this is an hour. >> please welcome kevin bar rent, executive editor and secretary of defense ash carter. [applause]

[laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> no. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for being here for sticking around, those who have been throughout the day. i hope it's been informative and fun and entertainment as we have hoped. it's a thrill and honor to have secretary of defense ash carter with us today which he will give us remarks and sit down and have questions from you. those of you at home or in offices watching on line as well. just a quick, quick points from his bio before i give him the microphone, he became secretary last year, before that, though, we have known him in the pentagon for a while, he was the deputy secretary of defense, those of you who don't know that's kind of the coo of the building, the guy that knows where things go and probably where things are buried. before that he was the secretary of defense of at&l, the shorter

headline of being the pentagon's weapon's guy, the weapon's buyer. and before that, long ago in the clinton administration he was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, a guy that has to go around the world with the stectrary. so he has been through it all. the middle part that gets more interesting and relevant where the secretary spent time, back in boston and corporations working in this field and innovation. and that's what he brought with him back to the pentagon and part of what's the core of what he is trying to do. he was senior partner of advisement investment firms goldman sachs at harvard kennedy school. chair of the international of global affairs faculty. he was on the boards of the minor corporation if you watch him you will see cia movies.

before that he had degree in history and medieval history, of course. [laughter] >> before he gets medieval on all of us, join of applause for the secretary of defense. >> thanks very much, kevin. thanks for having me here and organizing a gathering and riding on the airplane with me all over the world which we do very much appreciate and i want to thank all of you, all of you attendees here and participants from what is america's wonderful innovative, open technology community, which is one of our country's great strengths. i am committed to building and

to rebuilding the bridges between our national security endeavor at the pentagon and innovators throughout the nation from tech innovators in silicon valley but to many other hubs and places around the country, i've visited silicon valley four times as secretary of defense but a week before hahs was up with the submarines engineers in -- at electric boat in connecticut. so it's very widespread. it's the pride of the country, the strength of the country our entire technology base. and as we continue to building these bridges i'm also focused on promoting the great innovators who are within our department, at labs, battlefield battles and you heard today. our innovators and senior leaders that are involved in critical and inner connected

missions, along side the many technology and business and academic leaders who join the discussion today they play a critical role in accelerating the spirit of innovation that we need to maintain our edge in a complex and changing world. so what i wanted to do is describe the logic of my commitment to this agenda and the actions we are take to go pursue it and describe how these efforts and the continued creativity and engagement of so many of you will enable us to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow now, when i began my career as kevin pointed out in physics, most technology of consequence originated in america. much of that was sponsored by the department, particularly the department of defense. now today we are still major sponsors but much more technology is global and the

technology base is commercial. indeed, today's security environment also is dramatically different from the way it was 25 years ago, requiring new ways of investing and operating in its own right. we have today as you all know no fewer than i've immediate strategic challenges. countering the prospect of russian aggression and coercion specially in europe, managing historic change in the vital asia pacific where china is rising, which is fine but behaving aggressively, which is not. strengthening our deterrent and defense forces in the face of nuclear's provocations, checking your iranian aggression in the gulf and confronting terrorism including accelerating the certain defeat of isil in its

parent tumor like places like afghanistan and north africa and since mover we have a pretty good record of never predicting successfully strategic future and we have to to be agil. we don't have the luxury of choosing between challenges and between acting and the present and investing in the future. we have to accommodate both the changes and technological landscape and changes in strategic landscape. we have to do it all. to stay ahead of these challenges and stay the best, i've been pushing the pentagon all of as to think outside of our five-sided box and invest aggressive in innovation

technology. first to enhance our own capabilities, overall our budget invests $72 billion in rnd. i give you a little context, that's more than double what apple, intel and google spent last year combined. that includes 12 and a half billion specifically invested in science and technology to support ground-breaking in our dozens in dod labs and engineering centers across the country. it also includes investments in innovative companies in universities and in darpa to develop and advance some of the disruptive technologies and capabilities that steve talked

about with you earlier today. we are making ground-breaking advances in areas like under sea systems, electronic warfare big data analytics, advanced materials, energy and propulsion, robotics and computing. those funds also support our growing nation network of public-private manufacturing innovation institutes. we are working with universities to fund labs like 3d printing, digital manufacturing and design. our newest one this spring, the combine finers -- fibers that can change color, much more. another we announced last fall

focused on flexible hybrid electronics which makes it possible to shape lightweight, flexible sen sores right onto ships, bridges, cars, aircraft and so on. meanwhile while also investing to continue to make dod in in innovation and first highest priority defending our network and system, that's job one. they're no good if they've been hacked. our latest defense budget we are investing more than all three of the missions, a total of $35 billion over the next five years. with a great deal of that to help modernize and secure dod's

hundreds of networks. all continuing to push forward in cyber technology by creating to patch in real-time. now, invasion -- technical innovation and investments necessary but it's not sufficient and we have to pursue innovative practices and organizational structures also. the world we live in demands it. the leaders having more and bigger better weapons. today's era of technological competition is characterized by the additional variables of speed and agility. leading the race now depends on who you can out innovate faster than anyone else. it's no longer a matter of what we buy, it matters how we buy them, how quickly we bye them

and who we bye them from and how we are able to use them in different innovative ways all this to stay ahead of future threats. our dod labs and engineering centers are embracing new meths and practices to meet the needs of the work fighter more faster and efficiently and accurately. we've encouraged this and i've encouraged this through persistent reforms. dod began better buying power, initiative to continuously improve the way we bought things and you aren't the curnd frank kendall, 3.0 focused on reducing cost growth and cycle time through greater use of systems and open architectures and accelerating the integration of commercial technologies. it all comes down to meeting the needs of the war fighter faster

more efficiently and effectively and what is an intensely competitive world. existing systems in our inventory by giving them new roles and game-changing capabilities that would confound our enemies. we are building fast, drones moving at .9 in heavy winds. we are developing an arsenal plane which will function as a very large airborne magazine with different conventional payloads, network to fit generation aircrafts and targeting notes. these are just a couple of examples about what will shop be doing. so stay tune. dod has to continue to be open to new ideas and to new

partnerships and that's why we've embarked on initiatives like our start-up in silicon valley and another to come. i was there last month to announce that we're taking this effort to the next level, 2.0 if you'd like with several new features, it's a nationwide release with the second office to be located in boston. you will hear more about that in july. we will have more processing power since budget requests include $30 million with new funding towards nontraditional companies with emerging-commercially based technologies that meet our needs. of course, its purpose, principal purpose which is to connect innovative companies with that $72 billion of annual overall invasion funding.

we've upgraded the operation system with structure lead by raw shaw. combat veteran and ceo. great guy and innovating together and that's the point. that's also a reason why i recently created the defense innovation board to advice me and future defense secretaries on how to continue building bridges to the technology community so we can change and be more competitive. i'm pleased that al baa fete smith, the board will include hoffman.

and we have some additional amazing innovators lined up to stay tune there also for who else will be joining in the board. they're going to begin their work over the summer and i expect to receive their first recommendnation the fall, among other things i've charged with helping keep the secretary of receives or helping the secretary of defense to keep the dod with a culture of invasion and people, organizations, operations and technology. support figures who are willing to try new that i think -- things and ensure that we are always doing everything we can to stay ahead of potential adversaries. and i stress innovation in people because as good as america's technology is, it's nothing compared to our people.

they're the key reason why our military is the finest fighting force the world has ever known. in the future we have to continue to recruit and retain the very best talent for what is after all an all volunteer force. that's why we are building what i call the force of the future to ensure that all changes in generations and technologies and in labor markets we're always posture today bring in, develop and retain the best young men and women that america has to offer. as part of that, we are implementing several new initiatives to give some of our new people military and civilian the opportunity to get out, spend some time outside and learn how the rest of the world works outside of our walls, for example, we are expanding and broadening the fellow's program including by open -- opening it

up and military service while getting a degree, learning a new skill or starting a family. we're also looking for ways to allow more of america's brightest minds to come in to dod, maybe just for a short time, maybe just for some one project but to contribute to the great mission of protecting america and making it a better world. we are bringing in resident entrepreneurs who work with senior leaders on challenging project and hire chief recruiting officer for roles as we have in the past with people like dave packard, cofounder of hp. one of the people that got me into this business. we've always created the new defense digital service, you heard from cristlynch earlier today. he's helping us bring encoders in companies like google and

what we call a tour of duty. they saw some really solved problems already to make sure our veterans get access to their benefits. we are also nearing completion, as i stand here today, of our pilot program called hack to pentagon where we invited hackers to test our cybersecurity. this is similar to the bug bounties that many leading tech companies have. a widespread best practice in the outside world but we are conducting the first ever one done by the federal government. it succeeded all of our expectations. over 1400 hackers registered, they've discovered more than a hundred bugs so far and they're helping us to be more secure at a fraction of a cost and in a way that enlist it is brilliance of the hackers rather than wait

to learn the lessons of the black hackers. another example is mission force, these are talented people, some active duty but also national guard'sman, that's important who save networks for us by hunting down intruders and performing forensics that help keep them secure and combating in the cyber realm. we've always announced action to help retain talent within the military, helping us retain experience service members by helping them by force and their families through expanded maternity leave and offering military members with families the possibility of geographic deployment flexibility in return for additional service

commitments. and yesterday, i announced the next two links in the force of the future in the pentagon courtyard to expand the ability to keep best. allow military officers to pursue broadening opportunities like earning their doctorate or pursuing other advance training. we are doing a tour with industry to temporarily defer when they're considered for promotion without being penalized by timeline restrictions, very big move. we've also moved to allow civilians with very specific kill sets such as cyber and other scientific and it can call qualifications to enter the officer rank at level comensorate with their experience .

we are proposing change that isc too. financial, we have propose today allowing recruiters to hire talent directly from college campuses. again for the first time for us. kid graduates and get to wait around from a government of dod. that's not the way they're going to act and we are going to miss the good ones. we are also expanding dod stems, scholarships for service programs and we are going to better leverage existing authorities to hire -- to directly hire what are called highly qualified experts in the job across the department. today we only have 90 such people on board across the department. you've heard from two of them today. chris lynch and will roper. i'm sure you'll agree that we are better off for their service and we all served to include

more thinkers like them directly contributing to our mission of national defense. competing for good people from on all volunteer service is a critical part of military edge. everyone should understand the need and my commitment to it. we've always been able to outinnovate or enemies because we have the people, the builders, military and civil rain force as well as our contractors and nation overall wonderful strength which is technology based. people who think creatively reflexible, who have always been able to combine our advance technology with creative operational practices to solve a problem at hand. in order for our people to continue accelerating the breakthroughs and progress that ensure our continued dominance, we have to back them up with the freedom to innovate and take rifnlgs and also with stable and secure funding environment.

this why reason why i remain concerned about the proposals in draft funding reached just last year and it was supposed to guide our budget for two years. the unraveling of bipartisanship, sequester which is our greatest risk. also objectionable provisions cutting overseeing fighting and proposals, adding and moving books here and there that the department's leadership has not recommended it. i hope that such micro management would not be a feature. we all play a role. for those interested in foreign policy, lots of interesting challenges to work on. it's also true for those interested in technology but the

inner section of the two is truly an opportunity rich and very fulfilling environment. so i want to thank you you all for being here today, for considering the words of the forward thinking individuals from government business and academia who share their thoughts with you already today, my pledge to you is that you will always have a strong and willing partner in america's department of defense. we may not know how to do it but we are trying to do it. we are always trying to do it better. helping defend your country for you, helping defend your country is one of the noblest things that a business leader or technologist or entrepreneur or a young person can do with their life. and we are grateful to all of you here for the passion, the interest, the spirit of innovation that makes us as stronger and safer, so thank

you. [applause] >> well, thank you, mr. secretary, for those remarks and thoughts. some of those -- some of us have heard you say before repeatedly throughout the year in your effort and some are new, so many one way to start of and as i was sitting there going through the new efforts and the expansion that is are happening, this room just heard from a lot of folks who are interested but some skeptics as well about what you're trying to do either on the whole or specifically with the duix, silicon valley outreach. do you understand that skepticism and -- or perhaps better question is, if -- you just posted the budget for

$30 million, there's new leadership in place. a lot of folks who know the defense department think, you know, that's not a whole lot compared to what the defense department spends. a staff of 500, a really world-class level dod expected thing? >> two very good important points. first of all, are we making -- it is experimental for a reason. we are trying things out. and that's why i just made some big changes in it. that's fine, that's like, you know, good innovators do. they start down one direction and they decide that i should adjust a little bit and that's what we are doing and that'll continue to happen, by the way. but the fact that we are doing that and in fact, that we are establishing more reflects my confidence in the basic idea, which is to have another way just another way because we have

many ways of connecting to the wonderful innovative ecosystem of the united states. it's a way of signifying that and a way of making a funnel that can come into the department. not just the $30 million worth, but $72 billion worth. so it's the connection that is important. now, i also want diox because it'll be a -- an exchange place in a trading post from which innovative people come back and forth to have some money when itself sees an opportunity. but one of the principal things it's doing is connecting innovative people to our mission and where they can plug in to the department of defense. that's its principal focus. and you probably know, kevin, you undoubtedly know because of your own expertise, we have a

constantly to work on -- i will use an engineering term being technically trained person the impedence match between the way the government operates and the private sector. not all of that gulf will ever be bridged. the public sector is the public sector. but where we can change the way we operate to make us more connected to those who are agile, that's pretty much, principally the area speed where we can allocate funding to r&d, principally in that area, we need to do that otherwise we are not going to be the most agile. we have to be the best to protect ourselves, so we will keep changing everything we are doing here that i described.

that's the spirit of innovation. i'm confident in doix, connecting the defense department to world of innovation is one of the secret to america's future military strength. >> tell me more about the progress of that connection and bridging the gap. i think were detalked about this a little on the ride home from davus. i mentioned in the opening remark was the first u.s. defense secretary to go to the world economic forum which is a fish out of water for military guys to show up. bankers, embassadors and switzerland of all places. really not for the military. but the reception was fairly warm and i remember asking you thin, i want to give a progress report with the reception that you're hearing or feeling from meeting both at ceo level compared to perception of some of the reporting on the ground

and what's the reality and why are they willing to bridge the gap, is it because it's good for business or because of newer sense of patriotism. first of all, the reaction generally is overwhelmingly gratifyingly positive. it's not because we are so great at what we are doing or how we approach but because the -- these are people who want to make a difference in life, that's why they're in our innovative culture. so it's in their nature to make a difference and the mission really inspires people. i mean, keeping people safe, creating that life that allows people to get up in the morning and take their kids to school, leaf -- leave them safely and raise their families, that creating that environment that's

really inspiring, so these are people who want to act in an inspired way. they want to make a difference an contribute something and when they see our mission, they are understandably attracted. that's why i do this. that's why all of the people do this, and are there reservations? yeah, there are two principal reservations, kevin, you touched on both of them. i hope government is not too clunky for me to connect to. there, i think, that puts the burden on us to try to open up the door, create that impedence match that makes it possible and less -- and easier for people to connect to us. that's what diox is about. the ideas go back and forth. we have to make that easier. the other thing is are we going to put any restrictions on people?

now, we -- there we also try to minimize restrictions and the intrusiveness and we understand that it's a business community and that the internet is open and a free internet is a value all by itself and we are standing for the values for our society. that's what we are defending. we are adapting to that as well. to me those are hesitations that people legitimately have and it's our job to overcome them. >> well, one of those executives we know you met with is elan musk. what was that about? >> it was about innovation. he's -- gratify to go me that he -- he and i have a great relationship, goes back in years, he takes an interest in what we are doing. we didn't talk business there. that wasn't the point of that.

other people do that for me but we were talking innovation in every way. and i'm looking for people like that, that's why the defense innovation board is so important to me because i want people to have innovative experiences who have tried things themselves to say, you know what, here is something i did that worked. i can say to myself, i wonder where i can apply that here. that's a perfect example of that. everybody does it outside and i say, well, why aren't we doing that? it turned out to be no reason why we couldn't do it, so we did it and it's been really great. >> what are some of the prioritize successes of the challenges that come from you out of all of this, this isn't the first year like you said. you were deputy secretary, you've been trying to change and streamline acquisition for a long time. >> sure. >> a room full of folks and a lot are familiar with acquisition and program managing.

what do you think your praudest in changes so far. >> well, there are other things that we are trying to do in addition to being agile and innovative and to make -- that's why it's called better buying power to get, make sure we get the best use of the taxpayer dollar, we owe them that and by the way, and it's easy for me to argue in congress which is difficult in today's environment, you know, i mention gridlock and everything, it's tough in washington. i need to argue for the money we need to protect ourselves. i'm better off arguing for that if i can also show that we are using every dollar they give us well and i wasn't satisfied with that under secretary of acquisition technology and logistics and i wanted to

improve that and i still wanted to improve, frank kendal wants to improve that and every business out there constantly get leaner and constantly do better and drive cost out of things. we get more for the dollar and we get more trust for the dollar . we have to innovative in our war practice. i told you about the problems we face right now. you follow very closely what we are doing with isil. we are going to defeat isil. it's a new kind of enemy. we need to be innovative in how we go out at them, that's why we use air power, we are using all kinds of partners that we can work with there who can hold and govern territory that will help them take back from isil but we are using new things that we haven't used before like cyber. for all -- you say i don't know how to prioritize those things,

we have to be innovative across the board and i'm completely committed to it and moreover it's -- it is widely understood in our department that that is a key to the future, it's not just me but you heard it from other people today and most people in our society know that to be good you have to be agile. >> we have time for a couple more and we will turn for the audience. i know you have a hard stop to leave. you mentioned isil and i wanted to ask, we have a panel and about the speed of technology getting to the fighters of today's war front which are so much more either increasingly or more importantly special operators doing elite work and secretive. are you satisfied with the pace of that new technology in reaching those guys now? >> never, any question you asked

me i would give is unsatisfied. no because we have -- that's not indict us, it just means that we have to inspire to do better. so no, getting stuff out in the field faster and faster is important. i had the experience now, for you know, seven years most share time with our wars in afghanistan and iraq and getting things into the field and in the case of the m-wrap, for example, which saved lives, we had to do things outside the system in order to get the war fighter what they wanted. you say, well, what kind of system do you have where in order to get the war fighter what they need you have to go outside of the system. well, there's an answer to that, we have a system that's basically meant to buy things

for longer periods of time and the best things. that's a problem when you have ongoing operations and, by the way, it's a problem in a rapidly changing world. so making acquisition system run more quickly, the war taught us some things, otherwise there's not a whole lot to say great about having a war. we had to do what we had to do and people made great sacrifices for it, but it did have one little silver lining on it which is we learned a lot about agilitg, all of our counteried stuff, we made advance in medicine in response to pbi, and other places. but in today's fights and also

in the fights that we don't want and that could happen -- >> right. >> say north korea, you have to be innovative. if something happened there, what tomorrow would i wish i had to be done and boy you don't want that wish list to be long. >> i'm glad you mentioned north korea, because of the war that is we are hearing about that it is special operated focus and units and individuals where at the same time we have now two aircraft carriers in the same region. we do have nuclear concerns. we still have big wars. >> full spectrum. you're absolutely right from very high -- what's called high end but even the low end as i pointed out, i mean, you can consider the counterisil fight but it's not really, no fight today is truly low end so we've to do it all and we are alert to that. i mean, we stand and watch just in north korea, the slogan there

is ready to fight tonight and nobody wants to do that but we are ready. >> so one more question and i will ask our even staff to give us our game clock to make sure we are on time, out of the news there were reports in afghanistan that the rules are going to change to allow for greater strikes or to allow air strikes, can you confirm or expand on what's changing out there? >> no, i can. that's the -- the president made the decision to enable the commander there to have some additional authority to act proactively. that is to anticipate situations in which the afghan security forces would benefit from our support. this is using the forces we have here in a better way, basically, as we go through the fighting season.

rather than -- yeah, simply reactive. and this makes good sense. it's a good use of the combat power that we have there. obviously our mission is the same, which is to help the afghans maintain control over the country and to avoid having a counterterrorism challenge once again from afghanistan. so that's what we are up to. this will now enable our commander there to do this in a more effective way using the forces that he has there and this was, you know, pursuant to general and my discussions with him. the president gave it his full support and i'm grateful for that. so it's a good move to make and

should really help us help the afghans even better this fighting season. >> okay, thanks for answering. we have very limited time. these things go fast and they really depend on how fast he reads the speech, so -- [laughter] >> well, i'm going to call for one question quickly. >> you know, kevin, go ahead. >> there you go. >> to give you a short answer. >> tom from the u.s. report, thank you, mr. secretary, i know that you're very busy, have we lost some military to take advantage of china because of increasing research and the weapon systems and how are we poised to regain some of that advantage with the third offset strategy? >> well, yes and yes. i mean, china has in the last 25

years improved obviously economy, the standard of living of its people and with that comes advance of its military capabilities. no question about that. and we have a number of allies and friends in the region that we work with. and we are always watching the deterrent equation there. not just with respect to china but north korea and others in that region and you might have mentioned russia also which is trying to improve military capability, now all of these are different situations and again we're not looking for conflict with any of those, but do they measure themselves against us? i'm sure they do and is making sure that the united states military remains the best and the so to speak the firstest

with the mostest is that an objective of ours, absolutely. including the offset. >> hi, mr. secretary, computer week magazine. you talked about how hacking isil is sort of unprecedented but as you probably know during the surge in 2006-7 in iraq a lot of digital tools were used as well. i'm wondering how you draw upon those lessons learned from those -- from a few years ago? >> well, it's a good question and, yes, we did in iraq and afghanistan. i do think that you have to recognize isil's trade craft in using technology to advance evil objectives, both operationally and ideologically is

unprecedented. and, you know, it's frequently said and i think it's basically right f al-qaeda was an internet generation terrorist group, isil is a social media generation group. but, you know, this really is different even as what's on your desk is different today or in your pocket than it was three years ago, five years ago and so these guys are up to date in that regard, not there their thinking in general. >> you said in recent months. good point. [laughter] >> you said in recent months the u.s. was engaging in cyber warfare in a way like never before. how -- you know, that was months ago, but -- >> it is like never before,

which isn't to say that we have never done it before, it's like never before and we've really made it a priority. and -- and that's logical to this room but a lot of people associate the fight against isil with air strikes and the things they see on tv and they may not realize that this is part of the -- it's part of the formula for success. and we are going to have success in this area and we need to do this. >> okay, one more question, a gentleman in the back. >> thank you for capitalizing mit lincoln lab. a question about force for our future, is the initiative about broadening the education of the military and civilian leadership so they understand what they're buying, the technology, how to use it and so if there are

opportunities for world-class universities where you have large military population, can they play a role or is it just going to be just military education? >> no, first of all, military and civilian workforce and it is about the whole pipeline. it's about recruitment and making sure that we are connected to the entire population. i will remind you, for example, something i said yesterday, which is most of our new military recruits come from only six states. so we really need to reach out. that's what why women in service, that's why it's half of our population. i want to be able to draw from the entire population. people have to meet standards but i want to widest possible pool. it affects recruitment, it affects retention which is where this comes in.

partly people want to improve themselves. in today's world people know we all need to keep changing and improving. the idea that you went to school and relive the rest of your life on the backs of what you learned years ago, that doesn't fly in today's world. we all have to keep learning and people are going to only want to be with us and stick with us if they feel that they have opportunities to develop. so that's one of the reasons, plus they get better which means they do better stuff for us. and then you know retention is a complex matter. people make decisions for complicated reasons. i mentioned family programs, for example, family programs are important for the very simple reason. we are not just trying to be nice to people. that's a nice thing to do too but when people have been with us for a while and therefore we've made an investment in them and they know a lot and they're very capable and they still have a whole career ahead of them, we

don't want somebody who is at that point to leave because they can contribute to all of that going forward and we've invested all of that in the past. so you don't want to lose them then. it matters with everything consistent that you can do, we need to send people where we need to send them, you can't do anything of that, that's the profession of arms, but where we can make it possible for people easier for people to reconcile everything we tried to do, with us that's in our interest, that's our whole pipeline, retention, development in service, the whole deal and military and civilian and people innovation, innovating how we do that because people are learning all kinds of ways, human resources management that, you know, generation ago were done and internet helps that.

network linkedin is an example. that's why i'm so glad reed has joined my innovation board. but we have to keep thinking about how to manage our people to keep and retain the best. >> are you going to recruit a cyber colonel? >> we have to get authority from congress. i want our service chiefs and secretaries, i'm trying to give them latitude and not rules so i want them to decide which specialties and so for makes most sense. we will see that over time as they think about it. i'm trying to give them latitude to change where they see an opportunity that the current doesn't permit them to exploit. >> yeah. >> thank you, john harper with national defense magazine. mr. secretary, can you give us a preview of the kind of people

you'll be adding to the defense innovation board in the future? people who might surprise us and are you asking them with tackling any particular urgent challenges or more of just a general, how you're doing business and the kind of technologies you're looking at? >> well, i would have told you if i was going to tell you today -- [laughter] >> i mean, i think you catch the tune, right, when you see aaron, hoffman, these are people who know something about innovation and have actually done it. and so are there going to be surprises? i hope there are surprises for you. i'm certainly looking for surprise ifs. >> me, that's the whole reason to have them. is i want to learn from them things that we haven't thought of that would be good for us. now i'm not expecting them just to show you -- i'm not expecting them to know about defense. i know about defense, our people

know about defense. that's not my problem. i would like to know what's going on in the outside world that i might not know about that has proven successful that might be applicable to us. that's what i'm looking for. and these are all innovative people and i just in conversations i have this all of the time. people say, here is what i did to build my company, think my way through this problem, to get people i needed. and i say to myself, hmm, why haven't we done that and a bug bounty is a perfect example. that was chris lynch, i don't know if chris is still around. why haven't anybody the federal government done that? it's a pretty successful thing. it's essentially free and you get all of this talent and you're having a great time and you're getting a security audit for free. it's like, wow. pretty good deal, well, somebody else thought of that. we didn't think of that.

if all we ever apply is things we thought of, we're not going to remain the best. you know as wonderful as we are we are not going to think of everything. the whole point is to connect a larger world of innovation. >> reporter, formerly investigative reporter we would ask the military the same thing, how come you don't do that and their answer is because congress doesn't tell us to. [laughter] >> we don't have that rule. >> i will take last question. you mentioned earlier congress you need afriewfl do a lot of changes you want, some of them specially with reforming acquisition and john mccain has put forth some things. what's your response to some of those suggestions right now? >> well, it's mixed. i appreciate the effort that both chairman and mccain and chairman thornwesterny have -- thornberry and i do have some

differences and in general micro management from the hill of what our executive and leadership function is not a good idea. these things take some time. and i would -- i would think that they are important ideas having to do with, for example, the role of the chairman in integrating, combating commands, i made some proposals there. i think there's definitely a -- some -- a need there. and i would like to talk to people about that. improving our acquisition system. and i'm always ready to talk to people about this, ideas, the two things that i hope we could work through and that i really can't agree with are deferring wartime funding in a time of war

and budget instability. that's just -- that really hurts us and all i can do is ask people to come together behind she and all of this management proposals and so forth, again, again micromanagement by the congress is not a good way to go, i'm willing to work with them in terms of provisions. and i just made some proposals yesterday. this is the first -- the futures ones that are -- will require being enacted. but they're the ones that our senior leadership, our service secretaries, our joint chiefs of staff and i and the senior leadership, you know, we really thought hard about these things. we took months and years working through them and they're considered proposals by the people they have charged with running the department of defense. and i think that we need to respect the judgment, the collective judgment, the leadership of the department of defense.

and i'm -- i hope we can work some of the things with them. >> the third defense secretary to worry about those things. >> yeah. >> since i've come to the pentagon. so, you know are you going to be around to keep these -- all the changes initiative going. >> president obama every day he's president as long as he wants me to. i am confident that the ideas that we have been talking about today makes so much sense that they'll continue in the future. i mean, look at these -- people like will roper, this is necessary. i think everybody gets it. everybody gets the logic of it and so i'm confident that long after i am gone or any individual leader is gone these things are going to continue because they make so much sense. >> thank you, as we wrap up, i

think it's very important to have this conversation now and i thank you very much for coming here because again it's been about a year plus since your initiative has started and i said on the top there's been a lot of reporting at different levels for the national security press core to head around technology and i have been with you on the road, it's a whole other ash carter, talk about that versus white house policies and budget lines. it's an exciting field and i hope it does take hold and we have a lot more to talk about. so we want to thank all of the participants today. our underwriters and the rest, and i will also take the privilege to announce, this is our tech summit but the biggest defense is in the fall, our fourth one in november 17th and i hope ash carter will help me get a lot of great speakers for that as well.

you're welcome to come back at any time also and anybody nels the room, i have to thank my mother and father who are here. front row and center. [applause] >> gave my mother a great birthday present. thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> coming up this morning a hearing on the issue of visitors overstaying their visas and calls for new entry and exit tracking system. the house homeland security subcommittee on border and security takes up the issue, live coverage on c-span3. >> the senate returns today for their seventh and final day of work on the 2017 defense programs and policy bill.

the 6002.2 authorization bill sets policy and funding level for the defense department and includes language that would require women to register for the draft and would make it harder for president obama to close the guantanamo bay detention center. we expect a vote on final passage of the bill in about an hour. this is live coverage on c-span2.