through that pipeline. i think the most important thing that i can do as a united states senator these to address the constructive economic monetary policies that are created by washington deficit spending, and restore free market forces so that we can have a more thriving and vibrant economy here in north dakota. >> senator hoeven? >> will look, we need energy infrastructure not only for economic growth for job creation but also for national security. but to produce energy in this country and did it do what needs to go we need energy infrastructure. that means pipelines, transmissions, roads, bridges, all of the above. we can build the decoder access pipeline safely, not only protect the tribe has given everyone else downstream. it goes in an existing right of where there's a gas pipeline and a transmission line.

whether you're for traditional our renewable energy we need this infrastructure. we can build it safely. we need the energy infrastructure. we need regulatory certainty. we need legal certainty so we can build this. the administration needs to step up. i am pushing to not only to get this approved but also to help us with law enforcement and safety so that we protect the farmers and ranchers that live in that area so that we also make sure any protests are peaceful but that we get this project done. >> eliot glassheim, response? >> i agree that we need energy, we need to pipelines, safest means of transporting oil. we're not going to do without oil any time in our lifetimes, so we need to find a way to do it. however, we do know that pipelines occasionally break,

and so there is no absolute guarantee of safety for drinking water. i don't know how we resolve that issue, but the pipeline has to be built, but it needs to be done safely. and it needs to be done perhaps in a different place crossing the missouri, perhaps not there. but that needs to be negotiated out and discussed further. >> robert marquette. >> well, as far as i know, in the entire process they had archaeologists on site to ensure that all the historical sites were preserved. all the petitions were filed and the pipeline should just go through. i believe it's the safest and most effective way to transport

oil. we just need to ensure that we have a thriving and vibrant bakken in order to ensure we can supply the oil. spewed senator hoeven the last response and then we will move onto another topic. >> as i said can be done safely. understand it's an existing right of what we already have a gas pipeline and transmission line. that's what i make the point whether you're for fossil fuel our renewable we need this infrastructure. also it's going to be dug underneath the river so it's about 92 feet below the bottom of the river. if it were a leak it would be like almost 100 feet below the river. some of the oil would have to come up to get in the river and, of course, there's monitoring devices on it as well. also the judge, the federal district court judge in washington, and obama appointee, determined that the court had done everything they need to do for citing the pipeline and, in fact, the route has been changed

140 times to address any archaeological concerns. so again this is about doing it right and doing it well but we need legal and regulatory certainty in this country to build the necessary energy infrastructure. one final point. it's one thing to protests but they need to be peaceful and within the law. what we are seeing others protest that are not within the law. that puts a huge burden on our law enforcement. the obama administration needs to step up, help get this done and help with law enforcement efforts. i'm working very hard to get them hard to get them to do that in to get reimbursement for the state and local costs of all this law enforcement. >> let's move to national security. this is become a big issue with some attacks in san bernardino and orlando. as senator how would you deal with isis overseas and also with homegrown terrorism and would end up as will robert marquette, you start us off. >> we first have to understand the cause of the problem,

particularly with domestic terrorism, and the cause of the problem is our failed interventionist foreign policy. iraq, libya, syria, yemen, none of these countries have attacked the united states. and our military and paramilitary interventions in these regions are murdering millions of people, destabilizing the region. and these are immoral and illegal acts. and it should come as no surprise to anyone, therefore, there is low back to this activity, and data being -- blowback -- and that being people want to get even. they want revenge, they want justice for what's been done to their homeland and their people. >> senator hoeven, response. >> you need a comprehensive

strategy to take out isis. when you take an isis a working with our allies in the region, that means the peshmerga, that means the jordanians, egyptians, the iraqis, three iraq you army. we got to make sure that we are working with our allies and then we provide kind of leadership and strategy, the logistics, command and control. those types of activities that can make sure that like us to our allies in the region go in and with our leadership and strategy take out isis. we've had to take out, take them out of the route. at the same time work in our country with the fbi, cia, all of our law enforcement agencies and stenstrom with law enforcement to make sure we root them out in this country as well. and that's why when robert talks about drastically cutting our military, cutting in half come in this dangerous world, that makes no sense and that's not

something that we can do if you want to take out isis and make sure americans are safe at home and abroad. >> eliot glassheim, response. >> for saying we will have no boots on the ground in any large numbers. the country doesn't want it. we can't do it. we've had a number of adventure wars over the last three decades, and none of them have turned out well. so i don't think we need to do that. also we need to be friendly with all the muslim countries throughout the world who do not embrace terrorism, which is a billion or more people. that's why we can't have donald trump's proposals even discussed, because they alienate the muslim people from the united states, and we need them to help us in combating isis. we need to put more money into

our friends, supporting our friends in jordan and elsewhere who are willing to fight against the people who are killing their people as well. at home, we probably need to increase funding for the fbi and the intelligence services, and we need to do something about guns for people who are thought to be dangerous. there has to be a constitutional way to prevent them from getting guns if they've been judged to be dangerous, certainly the no fly now by list would help some to not have domestic terrorist. >> get robert marquette in for a response. >> i appreciate the senator

hoeven were some enough but i prefer to put them there myself. he speaks to working with our allies in the middle east. there has been a wikileaks document dump and that demonstrates that is our allies, saudi arabia and qatar there are funding and arming isis. i don't how you work with allies like that. you have to understand that in syria it's not just a civil war. the civil war, it's a cold war and it's a holy war. these three things are being played out all at the same time. as far as the holy war is concerned, it is saudi arabia and its qatar and certain kuwaitis and turkey that are supporting the radical islamists, al-nusra front, isis, other types, split organizations, supplying them with logistics and support. because they perceived bashar al-assad as a heretic for a

secular ideology. and it is part of the idea, ideology that these infidels must be removed so they can establish sharia law. plain and simple, under syria, under bashar al-assad, was a place where muslims, christians and that ca could all live in pe and harmony because of their secular progressive nature. and quite frankly the united states and its allies are on the wrong side of this fight. >> senator hoeven, response. >> again this is one of to support our military so strongly and that's what a work to do and that's what i will continue to do. at the same time we need an administration that will stand with our allies and stand up to our adversaries on a consistent basis, and put forward a strategy, working with our allies in the region to defeat isis decisively. >> eliot glassheim him last response. >> i would remind senator hoeven

that we have a president who is doing that, who has a strategy. we have to continue to drone strikes. we are pushing isis back. he's been working with our allies. i think he's waiting for some funding from the congress, i don't know what's happened to the congress, but we are doing exactly what he says he wants, and president obama is in charge of that and it's working. >> let's move to the economy, specifically north dakota's economy which in the last year we've seen with a depend on energy and to as we have across the board budget cuts with things like that and some accusations that may be north dakota's to depend on energy, too cozy with oil companies as some of alleged and what can we do to fortify the state economy from your seat in washington. senator hoeven. >> i talked about this at the outset. the solution is not more government. it's stimulating the private sector and empowering people,

part our entrepreneurs, ingenuity. and to do that by reducing the regulatory burden, reform the tax code to make a program to encourage and empower more investment. you make sure you control government spending. here i agree with robert we have to reduce government spending. those are the steps that enable job creation and investment. and for me jobs has always been job one but we have to understand that comes from private sector investment and check to create that climate will help us not on the grow the economy, build on our act base, honor energy base. i talked about the next wave of development in terms of economic growth being technology we have to continue to diversify this economy and that's been my life's work. vote and the private sector and the public sector as governor and senator this has always been an absolute priority for me. >> out of class i'm -- eliot glassheim, response. >> one of the most important

things we can do is to increase spending on research and development. much of which comes from the federal government and where new developments are discovered and then put into work in the private sector. we have a very healthy medical operation, university. we have research is needed in clean coal and in oil. and these government programs help to stimulate jobs. i would remind the senator that most government spending goes to the private sector. sometimes he acts as if the government would spend its own money on itself, but mainly governments higher private sector people to accomplish the purposes that government set out. i would think diversifying and the senator has been very active

and they need to applaud him for his work on drone activity, which is a very good next step, and i think we should develop, and we need also research money in terms of establishing an alternative energy presents in the global economy. >> robert marquette. >> first thing we have to do is recognize that the problems faced by the energy sector and the agriculture sector in north dakota are a direct result of national debt and the failed monetary policy. listen, since the great recession, the government has increased the national debt at a rate 4.5 times the economy has grown. it's a formula for bankruptcy in congress knows it. they had a choice. they could have slashed government spending and pay down the national debt, or what the chose instead to do was to bail

out their banker buddies and try to stimulate the economy in an attempt to try to grow it faster than what the debt was growing. and so the interest rate sits near zero. banks loaded up their reserves with billions of dollars, and the government coproducers you should borrow this money to expand production and increase the supply of goods and commodities. it failed. what we ended up with was an economy with a surplus of supply in things like commodities, oil and agricultural commodities. when supply exceeds demand the price collapses. and this is where we are today. i senator hoeven and congress is out of control spending that has created this problem. >> we do need to get to the last question from or cosponsored. if elected what action we take to update social security so

it's financially sound for future generations. eliot glassheim? >> social security is one of my top priorities. it's extremely important to tens of thousands of retired people in north dakota and millions throughout the country. people depend upon it. we also need to make sure the government guarantees that it will be there long into the future. right now the congress have been kicking the can down the road. they have been unable to act on it, and if nothing is done very soon, within 17 years everybody will take a 23% cut in their benefits automatically. no one will be to blame, senator hoeven and everybody and commerce will say it's not our fault, we didn't do it. but it will happen if they don't act. we need to increase the basic

level on which people pay taxes. at the up to $114,000 of wages. we need to raise that, perhaps 200, maybe 250. and that will give enough money to deal with most of the deficit. we may have to also do things to hold benefits and check and not raise the. the one thing i will say is we have to republicans and democrats agree on any fix to social security. nothing will move with. >> we need to get robert marquette. short on time. >> i'm not a professional establishment politician, side i don't need to lie to people about these things. the congressional budget, the heritage foundation released a report earlier this year based upon congressional budget numbers that showed that social

security needed an immediate injection of $50 trillion in order to maintain long-term solvency. we don't have the money. it's just simply not going to happen. cbo numbers also demonstrate that we are projected in 16 years that social security, medicare, medicaid, affordable care act subsidies and interest on the national debt are going to consume 100% of the revenues, tax revenues taken in by the treasury leaving nothing left over for anything else including national defense. we have to recognize that the federal government has destroyed all of these programs. we have to take these programs away from the people who is so severely mismanaged and. we need to turn that money back -- >> we are very short on time. >> we need to make sure salsa star is all for the long-term. right now it is often to about 2034.

the way we do that is with economic growth. gdp growth is about one to 2%. we need to get up to three or 4%. with job creation we need to get more people in the workforce. the passage the people in the workforce during the obama administration has dropped from about 66% down to about 62%. what that means us who people paying into social security. right now we've about 7.9 million people unemployed. if we get just 20% back to work, that puts $100 billion more into the social security trust fund over the next 10 years. that's why i keep going back to getting this economy going, jobs and opportunity, creating the business climate conducive. i work to do that as decoders gathered and working to do that in the senate. i agree, we've got to get people working together to do that. >> closing statements. robert marquette, you go first. >> well, consultative report has

given senator hoeven a failing score of seven on a scale of 140 big government tax borrow and spend voting record and support of corporate welfare. so your choices are these. we have a big government establish a republican that pretends the conservative wing is not a big government establishment democrat that a shameless about it, and then there's me, a true constitutional, a true constitutionalist and a fiscal conservative. and i swore to the people of north dakota that i have the courage of conviction to do what it takes to make the changes that will end the destructive economic monetary and foreign policy, and wall street's influence on government and restore the wealth, power and control of our lives back to the people, so help me god. >> robert, you said some things i have to respond to. i've been all over the state talking to north dakota and.

i think i know what they want so when you see what to legalize all drugs, legalize all drugs including math, opium, all drugs with drug problem, that's not what they want. into what the military cut in half. they do not want social security in did as we know it. so that's not -- and the don't want the farm program completely abolish which will be. is about making sure that we do we can to build our state and our country. i've enjoyed working with you in the legislation through the use. you make the point about why partisanship. look, we have to work together in this country. with to come together in a positive way. i care about our country. i care about our state. i have kids and grandkids. we got to get this economy going and we got to make sure we support law enforcement and our military so we are safe at home and abroad. that's how we build a brighter future. i want to thank the people -- >> that's one minute.

eliot glassheim, closing statement. >> thanks for having us. my mother was a great school teacher who soaks in over immigration around the turn of the century, and they believed that franklin roosevelt saved their lives. my father was a small manufacturer, 40 people working for him, and he every election season he voted for a moderate republican. so i have old of those elements in my character, and i think i'm exactly what the senate needs to be able to work across the aisle and get things done. unfortunately, i'm glad you're senator hoeven say he wants to work together with republicans, but he's voted 90% of the time with mitch mcconnell, and has been involved in the dysfunction of washington of not getting things done.

i hope to get things done and -- >> time is up. thanks to all of you. thanks to all of you for a lively debate and thank you for watching prairie public coverage of election 2016. so long. ♪ ♪ >> c-span brings you more debate from key u.s. senate races. this evening at seven live on c-span, the pennsylvania senate debate. on wednesday night at 10 on c-span, a debate for the florida senate. and thursday nights at eight eastern, the new hampshire

senate seat debate. polity debates from house, senate and governor's races on the c-span networks, c-span.org and on the c-span radio app. c-span where history unfolds daily. >> and now military service secretaries from the army, navy and air force take part in a panel discussion on national security challenges and the relationship with uniformed servicemembers. the center for a new american security is the host of this event. this is live coverage on c-span2 on c-span2. it should start in just a mome moment. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> we are live for a panel discussion on national security challenges and the relationship with the uniformed servicemembers. it is being hosted by the center for a new american security and you should start in just a moment. it is expected to run a until about 10:30 a.m. eastern and at a time the u.s. senate will gavel and for a brief pro forma session. a little air this afternoon more live coverage as this center for international strategic, scheduled to get underway at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span2. later this evening at georgetown university journalists, pollsters and political advisers will discuss the 2016 presidential race. we'll hear from columnists.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> welcome everybody and good morning. i michele flournoy, a cofounder and ceo for the center for a new american security come and we are really grateful that you all to join us this money. today we have a really rare i would say unique opportunity to hear from all three sitting secretaries of the services. second of the navy ray mabus, secretary of the air force deborah lee james and secretary of the army eric fanning. we were just beckley as to whether we've ever come anybody has ever gathered them all three together like this but i think this is a wonderful opportunity. as an of the service secretaries put a critical role in the department of defense. the report directly to the secretary of defense and provide the civilian leadership and oversight of each of the services. the services as you note are the force providers. their job is to organize, train

and equip the force. and the service secretaries provide critical direction and civilian oversight of these essential title x functions. the relationship between the service secretaries and their respective service chiefs is among the most important civil-military relationship. each of our speakers know some personal experience what is required for a strong and healthy civil-military relationship. each of these distinguished leaders has taken a tremendous responsibility of the department of defense that a particularly challenging time. first of all and that's one of the most complex and volatile security environments we've seen in decades with the rise of a resurgent russia, the rise of a powerful china, the persistent and evolving threat of transnational terrorism, new technologies and challenges like cyber, persistent rogue states like north korea, a middle east

in turmoil, and the list goes on and on. but they've also had these leadership roles at a time of severe budget constraints. it had to navigate the budget control act budget gaps, unpredictable funding as we've e lurched from continuing resolution to continuing resolution. and always living under the threat of sequestration. each has had to make some very tough trade-offs in an effort to balance readiness for current operations, force structure, and modernization. and while the combatant commands rightly focused on current operations, the service chiefs and secretaries are really charged with getting the future a seat at the table, making the investments necessary to ensure that the force will have what it needs to deter, defend and ultimately prevail in the future. each of these leaders is also championed reform within his or her service.

to reduce unnecessary cost, to free up more resources to invest in cutting-edge capabilities for the warfighter, to bring the department's business practices into the 21st century. i'm sure you're all shocked to know that wasn't the case before. to strengthen our ability to recruit and develop and retain the extraordinary people who will ensure that our all-volunteer force will remain the best military in the world, now and in the future. so this morning provides us with an extraordinary opportunity to hear from these leaders about their experiences at the helm of america's defense. what they have achieved, what they've learned, what needs to change versus what needs to continue. the challenges and opportunities that remain ahead. to moderate this discussion we are very fortunate to have with us barbara starr, pentagon correspondent from cnn, but beforehand it off, let me just note that when we get to the q&a

period will ask you to write your questions on note cards. just raised a hand or a favorite to let staff know you would like to give a question. they will provide you with a note card and then collect it and bring those questions up to barbara starr. again, thank you all for joining us, and looking forward to a really insightful conversation. thank you. [applause] >> thanks, michele. we will go about 45 minutes chatting and then go to questions. start thinking of them because if i don't get a big handful of guards, we will go turn by turn among the secretaries, i will call on you and ask you what the question is and then you can figure it out. i think what michelle said until it's everything right now as everyone in this room knows that if any, which is the future as a seat at the table. it has a seat at the table in so many ways.

let me just throw a question out there broadly and ask, we will start and come right down the line, as you come to what may be the end of your tenure, one way or the other, how has this job differed from what you thought it was going in in terms of how you do it and what the priorities are? let's just chat about that. >> first of all it's like to thank michelle and cns and you barbara and michael and i think this is an exploit the opportunity to we appreciate being included in it. how has the job differed from what i thought it would be? first of all the enemy gets a vote. i would say right at the top of my list in my three years nearly three years on the job, the world has just fundamentally changed in so many different ways. as michele flournoy mentioned, for years ago russia had not moved into crimea and, of

course, they are there now. they had not moved into syria. most americans had never heard of this terror group known as iso. all of these things have changed in the last three years and, of course, we and air force, in the u.s. military, our job is to be able to respond. so that is a key difference. and that the difference for me, something i didn't quite understand as well as i might have going in the front door was just how difficult it is now getting things done in washington. it has become truly a very divisive situation. it was mentioned about sequestration, continuing resolutions. it just seems very, very difficult to advance an agenda these days, and we have to get back to the art of compromise in this town much more than we've been able to do so in the past. >> secretary mabus? >> i will give you a different answer because i think one of the great strengths i brought to the navy as i know idea what the issues were when i came in.

i had been in the navy 45, 40 years earlier, but i had very little speed is on a different level. >> short, undistinguished service your but what he gave me the opportunity to do was i didn't have any frequency of notion as how this job should be done, and what the issues were asked to i should approach it the i didn't bring any baggage, as i got to take a fresh look. the thing that i think has been as bi biggest prize is a thing r as big a frustration is how slowly the bureaucracy moves, particularly dod wide. if you want to kill something in the pentagon, do one of two things. say we need to study this to see what the second and third order effects are, or we need to do it

dod wide. because then you go to the lowest as lowest common denominator. the army, the air force, the navy and marine corps have very different services, very different needs. and i think that you can get a whole lot more done if you a little bit of competition between these services. and if you allow them to be the experimenters to go out and see what works, either succeed fast or fail fast. >> i will approach it a little bit differently as well. i had two great teachers when i came into be secretary of the army, secretary mabus and the under-secretary. i think, and i've been in the clinton pentagon. i've been a long time to watch service secretaries of what their roles are. there were two things for me, in

the clinton administration i worked in osd. i did work in one of the military department and didn't have an appreciation for the role of the military department. one thing i find, in fact i often thought of a military department of clinical siberia. by what you want to leave the office of the secretary? that's why it's such a great job because you have become is the amount of autonomy, and the military departments, much closer to the troops that i felt i was one of working at osd which makes it a challenging job because in the ennui of 1.4 people -- 1.4 million people. that's what makes of reporting to be that much closer to the people who raised their right hands and take this commitment to defend the country. >> so if you are the civilian leaders of the services, let me

just drill down a little bit because every since i started covering the pentagon, you cover the issue of, and it's far from boring, acquisition, new weapons, research and development. it always struck me actually about finding the way to move faster and get your cycle moving faster than your adversaries decision cycle. it strikes me that is still a fundamental struggle because you can have the very low-tech insurgent movements that move very quickly. you can have north korea that just decides to move quickly without a typical research and development and test of its programs. really serious, practical advice, once and for all, if one of the three he became the next secretary of defense, what could be done to get all of this moving faster? if you look at a research and russia did and his but when you

came to office, as you look at isis, which nobody knew what that word was we came into office. i think there's a common threatd of wanted to get the bureaucracy and the politics of decision-making moving faster, practical advice. >> we will go the other way. >> two very different things. i didn't anticipate how much time would be spent on the budget because of the instability each year. we start every year come every year with a continuing resolution and don't know, don't have that stability for the long-term. so it takes an enormous amount of time of institutional leadership to constantly be rethinking through budget based on that instability year after year after year. i think in terms of trying to get the decision cycle down, that's been, i was only confirmed in my and my primary focus has been on that issue in particular for the army.

so we started something called -- i worked very close with the air force office when i was there. the army set up a little bit differently and it's designed to get capabilities fielded faster. so rather than getting the pristine solution am 100% solution out into the field, getting something into the hands of troops that they can use, experiment with and refined in the time because that's what avatar is doing. >> that's a real fontanelle change in thinking. >> it is. and the system is set up for that pristine solution, the acquisition since then, the testing, processes we have by the adversary if they got how to do things do things in very short cycle and get things into the field and experiment with it in real-time. and our soldiers can do that as well. whicwe just need to get that capability into their hands. >> exactly what eric said.

i took at one hearing a chart of what you've got to go through to get a program, and it was about this big and you couldn't read it. it was like a plate of spaghetti, all the hoops you had to jump through, all the gates you to pass through. what we've been trying to do and what eric and debbie have been trying to do, we've been doing pilot programs instead. instead of a program of record, it's something out in the field fast, succeed fast, fail fast your get something come an example in the navy as we put a laser weapon in the arabian gulf. we do that for years ago. it was supposed be a six-month pilot program, and we can't learn so many lessons, them so valuable. we are using it now to develop fall along weapons, but if we'd gone through the acquisition

program for program of record, it still wouldn't be -- it's to get it out of the lab in defense of the warfighter. and as quickly as you can while avoiding the just incredible number and complexity of things you have to go through. >> especially for both of you, not to dismiss the army but for both of you, you have huge tickets, very expensive programs, the f-35, new ships coming into the field. not unexpected i suppose. they are all having problems, challenges, getting them up to the standard that you want. you have to have these major weapons systems but it seems harder and harder the more complex they get to work on them for 20 years and think you're going to know the adversary you're going to meet 20 years from now.

on the f-35, for example, -- >> the practical advice i would offer, barbara, is actually several fold. so when it comes to the account of our programs come and get i will speak for the air force, we have many programs, some of the high profile highly complex types of programs which have run into difficulties over time, but many of them are going along. they are proceeding to they are smaller, they are low-profile. my practical advice is, if you target to send it to get you for your cube reviews and the strong oversight and ease up a bit, yes, we do, let's oversight, more empowerment for the many, many small programs that are doing well. that would allow you to better focus the time and attention on a significant view where there could indeed be difficulty. so that's one thing. another thing is to maximize the authorities that we already have in law that perhaps we haven't fully maximized yet. and i'm thinking here of an approach called the other

transaction authority. this is a provision in love with elijah to move much more quickly in which we can air force at least set up a couple new contract vehicles to try to get some innovative companies to do business with us on some key problems, to in the air and cyber. we are setting up another one for space so that we can attract new companies and innovation into the military into it more quickly. so maximized some of the authorities we've got would be another focus. the third i want to pile on about the rapid capabilities that we have in each of our services, the rapid capabiliti capabilities, and other pockets where we can already under existing authority move much more quickly. i'll give you one that top of mind for me at the moment, and that is just emerging danger that we are seeing in the middle east with respect to unmanned aerial systems, these cheap, you can buy them over the internet small drones, and explosives are placed on them as we've seen a

handful of times in syria and in iraq they can do damage. that we put our heads together on that topic quickly and figure out how to defeat that type of an approach. it's not necessarily the development of a new thing to defeat it. it to be taking what we've got already and packaging it in a different way to go after the threat but we need to do that type of work rapidly. >> i suspect you just got everyone's attention with that subject. so let's drill down a little bit. nuts and bolts, what can the u.s. military do, and we have all seen the video of this now, these little drone flying overhead and deploy their explosives. what can you do? >> i will value it was a week or two ago that there was a situation that was four killed, they were not u.s. citizens from one of these small unmanned systems. so it's a problem. i will also tell you about a week ago it was now that we were

informed, we the air force over in theater, was informed that there was one such unmanned aerial system in the vicinity, and fairly quickly we were able to bring it down. we brought it down through electronic measures. so you don't necessarily have to shoot. there's a variety of ways to attack the problem. what we need to do is put our best thinking together and focus on it on forward in the future. >> ggg and it? how did you break that electronically? >> i can't get into the specifics of it as you can imagine. but again it's a problem an example another thing we have to attack quickly. >> this is the reporter in me, i'm sorry. side note, in that particular instance since the coalition was informed, that it posed a threat to u.s. and coalition troops? >> any drone that possibly is carrying explosives is a threat. it could be a threat to troops.

it could be a threat to civilians on the ground. we brought it down is the key thing and we need to focus on this for the future. >> that's an example of where the laser weapon i talked about to bring down a drone. >> let's talk about the current practical threat you're facing. your ships, there's been some confusion about it but not all that much, fairly have been targeted by rebels in yemen firing surface-to-surface missile statue. berry low-tech threat essentially -- very. what can you do about it? >> well, what you do about it over all is enough multimission platforms and you trained your sailors, your marines to be flexible and adaptable because you don't know what the threat is going to come at you. you don't know what the next thing coming over the horizon is going to be.

but when those missiles were fired at the ships, they took out some appropriate action. nothing hit the ships, no one was harmed on the ship. and to show you the value of naval presence and being everywhere at the right time, the right place, but all the time, is that instead of saying you're in big trouble two or three weeks from now when we can get somebody here to shoot at you, we had somebody there. we had a tomahawk shooter right there that, when the decision was made to retaliate, to show people that if you attack us, you do so at your peril. we were there. we could do it instantly. >> i think it's interesting, one of the threats is while the bureaucracy, again while the bureaucracy may move a little slow in this town, enemies move

pretty fast, pretty low-tech. the only reason i say marine corps is a land force, or land forces facing an isis threat here we know that isis is challenging you rudimentary, they have that ability. this weekend we saw then set fire to an oil plant and a phosphorus plant in the iraq. that doesn't take massive multi-gazillion weapons to defend against that it does take your troops being able to still have the equipment to operate. so talk to us about that. that's a threat perhaps could be anticipated but still when it comes it's very challenging. >> we do a fairly good job of anticipating a lot of the threats, not when they're going to use them or how they're going to employ some of them but being

prepared for a multitude of threats in the battle space. but it gets back to a point that we've been talking about this morning. that decision cycle, the cycle the adversaries are so good it. in many ways there's a lot of innovation in military, a lot of innovation in industrial base that succeeds despite the prophecies and the barriers that we put up in place. in many ways the department of defense to operates like it's the 1950s and we are driving technological change. when there is all the change that we can keep up with, it's faster than we can absorb it. >> what worries you the most on that point of iterative technology moving faster? >> is everything. the rapid capabilities office, we set it up in the army because we are seeing, we been focus on certain type of fight for 15

years, and russia goes into ukraine and all of a sudden we see that they did turned into much more of a learning institution that we thought they were they have been watching us, studying in making improvements. and are decisive advantage we thought we had wasn't as big as it turns out as we hope it was for thought it was. so we set this office up for things like cybercom electronic warfare composition navigation and timing, and countering this threat of the uhf. i think the two things, the three things that worry me the most, cyber, position in china, gps, not having that in a fight and everything that is pretty much dependent on it one way or another. and then of the threat of these kind of insistence that we're starting to see proliferate. >> we could talk about this point for ever but let me shift now to the sort of service members sight of it. over the last several months everyone in this room has heard

the constant conversation whether it's aimed at congress and the budget and sequestration, the pressure on your budget, which are not going to be able to do with sequestration. we have heard from all sides in the political arena, the military, you know, broken stress, disaster, not ready. set that aside for a moment. ..

first of all in my opinion over the course of 27 years and type in the air force. we've probably gone to far which is why we have stopped downsizing and now we're modestly growing our force, particularly to the blog some important holes in the maintenance arena and also growing our rpi aircraft force and cyberforce to name just a few. so we are growing our force modestly. when it comes to our readiness, our ability to do our jobs that we are called upon to do today, you always have to ask yourself, ready to do what? which job are you talking about? the question is are we ready to do what we are doing in the middle east, the site again isil in iraq and syria comes the answer is darn right we are. we've been doing this types of operations for years and we do them extremely effectively.

what if you get into a different type of site? if i or you don't necessarily control the skies and where the enemy on the ground or elsewhere can interfere with you in a major way. but if you get into a site into a site where there's integrated air defenses to go up against the underground. this is where you have concern that you don't have enough force to take on that level aside. we will do the job but at levels of lower readiness, our worry is that it will take longer to get the job done. we may lose more lives. more people may be hurt or killed. we may lose more assets, more aircraft and the like. that's the impact of not having sufficiently high levels of readiness for what i call the huygens complex fight. >> the navy marine corps are

ready to fight tonight. we are global around the globe, around the clock. the people that we deploy, the forces we deploy are at the absolute top of readiness training. new mexico are at the same level, getting the treatment they are needed. the equipment they need, the maintenance done. it is the next force. the search force after that at the cost of sequester, the cause of declining budgets that were not getting enough training for the long-term, not doing the long-term maintenance as well or as deeply as we should. the number one theme for the navy was when i came in, we just didn't have enough ships.

the fleet had decline from 316 ships and 217 a ships in 08. you didn't have enough ships -- you are having to make choices as to where dissent assets. in the time from 01-0 wait, what the organ once ships under contract. not enough to keep our shipyards in business. in my seven years would put 86 ships under contract. we will get back to 300 ships by 20 night and 301 by 2021 what does rss need of today. we are living with the fleet size today based on decisions made 12, 15 years ago. the decisions that i make in on this big-ticket items are going to determine the fleet size

2025, 2030 in your comment about giving the future of seat at the table. you have got to do that and you got to do it in a way that you don't know what the threats are going to be. every time a striker comes back, i get a briefing on it and the one constant is they face in shame that they have not expect to comment that during their work and training and it wasn't foreseen. we are just not. the only thing we can do is have enough of the acquit and, chavez ready it changes you can possibly have. and finally, that you trained to be very flexible, and that you don't all into one mind that, but you don't fall than to fighting the last war, that you

are about to ball, that you do see their threats when they come and your good at overcoming them. >> i'll echo the army is ready. it's incredibly lethal war fighting machine, by far the best we've ever had in the best in the world. debbie was they asked the question ready for wide. but when we talk about first of all readiness, and resets the number one priority but it's resilient soldiers who are trained and properly equipped. and so i think the army is ready. we are expanding the trading. we've been focusing on that in the last year taken on decisive action that the larger scale near peer adversaries, different type of sites focused on in the last 15 years. but because of that site that we've in the last 10 years, i would never say broken.

i would never say hello because it is a very strong lethal army. but we've been running it hard for yvonne time now and there is no end in sight to that up-tempo that has been tough on the army and expanding at the expense in some ways that the future. we've cut the procurement budget pretty dramatically over the last 10, 15 years. focus on today's readiness, making sure the army of today is ready or paired for the combat situation it finds itself in. i worry about making sure the future army has what it needs to get done. >> what i hear from all three of you is yes, randy, but that such are all paid to do is to worry. essentially. so let me ask you this. secretary james, you mentioned if you had to be at the

follow-through is nobody goes a long if you are suddenly in an area where you did not control and you're in an area challenged by missiles on the ground. so let's be very specific. if for all three of you not hypothetical. it's been discussed. if you had to do a so-called no-fly zone over syria, many people in the pentagon say okay but that would take resources away from the current pace despite. could you prosecute the current site air, sea, ground and still have resources if you are ordered to do a no-fly over syria? could you do that? >> i will just begin by saying -- >> without diverting resources

away. >> let me begin by saying if we were called upon to do a no-fly zone, we know how to do this. we know how to put this together. we know how to plan it, how to execute. it's been done before. as you point out it would require money, people and resources. we would figure out how to accomplish it. remember, the united states air force is not alone. we are with the u.s. navy. we have a coalition of partners. i have to believe that we were called upon to do this we would keep the fight going at pace again isil and iraq in the area and we would find out away to do a no-fly zone. we've done it in the past. we know how it can be connect to it. >> you are suggesting it could be difficult to layer on these additional tasks as threats emerge an additional tasks emerge given what you are facing right now anyhow with the

challenge to your budget. >> difficult is that the military guys. we do planning and execution so i don't want to in any way makes it sound like it would be complex. what i'm trying to convey is if asked to do so would step up to the plate, do it with our joint war fighting partners and do it as part of the coalition. >> eric, you talked about, one of the dead, but there's been a lot of talk about pressure going into crimea and eastern ukraine at various points. you have a step g army presence in the air force president in eastern europe now. military personnel generals have expressed concerns that if russia did make a move, came the u.s. army, can nato push it back

fast enough? do you have enough to have a credible deterrent to russia right now do you need more? >> i think we are a credible deterrent to russia. let me just address that for a minute in terms of it there is a no-fly zone are stepped up her occasional presence in europe. it goes back to the readiness question. we hold our military to a higher standard as we should. we want the jury in a decisive way and we are asked to do things all over the world. adversaries just have to jam us or prevent something from happening. we have to penetrate and defeat them decisively into it at the globe. as secretary of the army i'm always going to want more to make me feel more comfortable in terms of deterrence to russia are resources for soldiers. but i think we are right now a

credible deterrent. >> i suppose it all depends what level of risk one is willing to take. you don't keep everybody at the top alert status around the world all the time, but you do have ships there just in case. >> and that's the value of the maritime forces that present day in, day out. that is the reason you need decisively that you need. you have to have enough ships to be there. haven't shifted more folk and have it shipped in san diego doesn't do much for an immediate crisis. to your question to eric, we do this is a joint course and we've got a lot of presents, protect you early navy and marines. the army has come behind the marines and the blacks rotational force. we were together incredibly

well, the air force and the navy and what used to be called air sea battle. the notion that we can control the skies. the other thing that a maritime force brings you is we operate off of sovereign u.s. territory. we don't have to ask anyone for permission to get the job done. the best example of that was when the president made the decision to strike a says in august of ford team we had a carrier stationed in less than 30 hours launching straight. we were the only strike option or 54 days. it wasn't because we didn't have other assets. we have lots of other assets in the region. but the countries with the lower planes to take off. we did not ask. >> would you tell your successors as this approaches?

not you personally, the u.s. defense part in. have you pretty much given up on that old notion that you might have to be ready to face two major regional conflicts? i made only person on this panel of math to remember. have you given up that construct? or is that still where we are. of course there's north korea out there, russia, the middle east. >> weary think of the joint force as the u.s. military, we are prepared in the event that there should be a conflict with what is sometimes called a near peer competitor. we are preparing for the possibility of a persistent fight against terror for years to come. so it is a combination of all of these elements that we are trying to make sure we are prepared to do.

but i was not one to pick a fight with anybody, this is mostly about deterrence, about being there and reassuring allies around the world. as was noted we are globally engaged force. to the extent are people feel some strain is because of the pace of operation. >> my last question before we go to all of these which are looking really good, north korea. the reason i ask about this in terms of transition and what may come next, a couple weeks ago the cia director, john brennan, publicly was talking about north korea and said that he thought it was kind in not only the current administration obviously has to prepared to deal with at any time, but that he thought a new administration needs to get ready now, that both candidates irrespective of who wins need to

be briefed up and ready, that you could literally have a new president having to deal with north korea from minute one, that they could take advantage. so talk to me as you look ahead on what you want to prioritize for yourself as you form the next budget. how much does north korea play into your thinking? you've got people rate air. >> first i just want to speak to your last question and say we have not given up on the atf has been able to do more than one thing in the world simultaneously. i don't want anyone to think. you certify that on the head when you said it's about balance that risk. that is essentially what the jobs are about. we have the incredibly potent michael force and it's a matter

of determining how you balance that risk based on the enemy having a vote in this. we've not walked back from that concept at all. we can do more than one thing and we are now in fact doing more than one thing. north korea plays heavily in my mind because it is so the situation is so one predict the bold and the pace seems to be increasing and there are quite a few soldiers that are sitting right there ready in case something happens. so making sure we are prepared for this increasing thread is north korean capabilities increase is a very important part of the calculus budget together. >> it is not just north korea. any incoming administration is ready from day one for any of the threats out there and that is part of our job to pass to our successors.

the readiness is rare, you can take north korea as an example. again, i come back to the wordpress and. our soldiers are already bear upon the ground and south korea. our ships, we've got carrier in japan. we are adding destroyers to that after. and the ballistic missile destroyers. they are there. they are forward. so if there is a crisis, you don't have to wait. we are not going to have the luxury whatever the next fight is there whenever there is the next fight as being able to take weeks or months to get forces there. it doesn't matter what the sources are. you've got to have them ready and they've got to be ready to

fight tonight. i think that's not just north korea, but that has to be the way pass on to our successors. >> i certainly agree, but leave as soon as we know what the next president will be and as soon as we have a transition team specifically at the pentagon, that very quickly there will need to be a strategic review by this team of the threats. i will prep the larger quadrennial defense review down the line, but steve will be very, very important. to understand the threat profile, to also conduct to overtime and nuclear posture review, something most administrations will do to look at the state of our enterprise and we go from here. the new administration will have to also address up front whether

or not we stay the course, a direction we have been going in space which is near and dear to my heart because in addition to being secretary of the air force the principal defense space advisor ensign years and seven years ago with that space with the peaceful domain. today we recognize it is contested and congested i have lots of satellite, debris and all sorts of things. it's terribly important will have to make decisions going forward on that as well. there will be a lot to do and on our behalf we are about organizing, training and equipping and i will be stressing some very important people issues going forward, said an important training type issues for our readiness and the importance of modernization across the board. >> let's go to some questions. everyone is probably curious about what this person is asking, which is how your services are preparing for the

upcoming transition. and there is a new on the book that actually allowed some preparation for trend mission prior to election day. can you give some insight into how the pentagon is thinking and preparing for transition for a new secretary, for new secretaries, how are you getting ready for this? >> debbie and i are both in the administration and i was in this administration very early on. i think there are really two phases to transition. there's a whole bunch of work taking place now voip altogether governing documents, explanations on what the budget is and what we are thinking about in terms of the budget we are getting ready to submit. but the second phase really kicks in and my ex.

michelle would know this as well the day after the election. the teams are thinking about staffing. they are thinking about substantive issues, but it kicks into high gear the day after the election when teams actually show up in our case at the pentagon and then you really are focused on making sure the needs of those teams are met as they get a sense that in my case the army, but the issues are and what issues they are concerned about to be organized differently. many events prepare for that to be available and drives up right after the election so we can make the transition as smooth as possible. we have a whole series of binders and information available for the team when it shows up. but they are going to give us

guidance on that day. >> i don't think i can improve much on that in there. we are ready today to transition on big programs on the budget on the way forward. after the election it will be more of the one-on-one. it will be the start of explanations. one thing the pentagon does appear well and my experience is to get you ready to go when intensive briefings than where we are in terms of making sure that nothing falls through the cracks as you move from one administration to the max because as michelle knows better than anyone here, there can't you've seen. there is no luxury of having a couple of days after the inaugural. >> you've got to be ready at

12:01 on january 20th to meet whatever comes to >> i would just add that for the department of defense as a centralized effort arrest. ost is running the sufferer, gathering up these papers and documents. each of us has thoughts about what the next team needs to know about. at the moment, all of that is being given over to the office of the secretary of defense for central management so when the time comes, we'll be ready to go. >> would be happy to give you our e-mails. >> we will keep you posted. last night's >> someone is asking a really good question.

the secretary himself has talked about this. every time you turn around, somebody attacking somebody else. and yet you are dealing with more of a personal issue, dealing with competition from private industry. what can you do to attract the best cybertalent without having them a lot to industry right away? what are your thoughts on that? it seems like that is the word the future. >> cyberencompasses so many different challenges. workforce is being one of them. i think everybody agrees that we can't build and retain a cyberforest like we have done traditionally with other aspects of the force. there are many opportunities to experiment and think differently about the defense work for us. one of the things we always have

and we do have trouble competing with industry if you just look at it on dollars, a valor is what we can pay. we have sent a no one else has, which is the mission and the challenge that attracts the best out there who want to be a part of spending in the united states. the >> eric, you can't win on valerie, but what you can't win on its people and making a difference here and that the military. people are making a difference in terms of the future of this country, in terms of other fellow citizens. we've got a lot of very patriotic people who want to come in and our job is genetic surveys more flexible for them to give them more avenues, to get in and to move up and give them orders as abilities and

reasons to stay. cyberis one of those areas that we've got to have the expertise. we've got to have enough of that broad thinking in different sorts of thinking. one of the things that all three of us have tried to do is open up the force. a military force that is predict the bull is a force that is defeatable. we've got to bring in people that think differently from different wraparound, different experiences and not just become a monolithic culture and civilians are the uniformed services. >> there is no single approach on cyber. one i will add to the narrative is to maximize and we do this in the air force. maximize their use of the air national guard and air force reserve.

if you can attract some of these top-notch cyberprofessionals in the private sector to also serve part time and a reserve unit, the individual can have it both ways if they can keep their civilian job that they have this opportunity to participate in the fantastic, very important mission. we're trying to maximize the use of a reserve. i will also say undersecretary carter's force of the future, one of the key parameters area is to try to get people from different walks of life into service could be civilian service, uniformed service or civilian service is easier. it doesn't have to be a lifetime. they can take a sabbatical and be with us in the pentagon and be working on this important matters of national security for a year or two or three and bring up some of this expertise on sort of a rotational basis. one example that has been extremely successful today relates to the world of i.t.

called the defense digital service. these are software professionals who largely come out of the west coast. they have come to the pentagon for a year or two or three. they've given up their time. they will one day of course go back but we have used them as troubleshooters on programs were of course software is king and we have run into difficulty is and they've been able to comment and help troubleshoot for us. there's a variety of ways if we open up the aperture, a little bit differently than we can get people into our ranks if not for a full career of disrepair to time. >> go in the other direction, maybe with established secretary of the navy industry tours to send some of our gallant officers and best people to great american companies particularly things inside her and i.t. to get best practices,

learn from the best and then come back and bring that back in the service. >> i am seeing some of that reflected in these countries asking about personnel, force of the future, can you stick with it and make it all happen? let me ask you as a reporter you sorted here that you are not quite yet get in the level of interest participation from female service members to immediately join combat units. let's get a reality check on that. what argues the about the pace of the dignity of women wanting to seek to join front-line combat unit including special operations forces units? are you getting the response you

anticipated? >> we are. we were expect ms to develop slowly. the army strategy was to build the leadership cadre before really trying to move out training in the larger scale. we knew that would take some time. all these things take a little time that we can stick with it, that we are sticking with it. but we have seen a lot of interest. we've been moving west bank branch in the combat arms. but we knew it was going to be slow at first. ..

if you meet the standards, you you get the job, period. it is not forcing people out because of simply gender or color or sexual orientation or something like that. from that point of view, i think going forward it's been a big success. you are going to have those standards. nobody is suggesting lowering the standards, but once you get those, once you know what the job entails, then gender, sexual orientation, whatever, shouldn't matter. the final thing i will say is we simply have not done a good

enough job of every routing enough women. we are moving up, and we lose too many women. we lose twice as many women. >> why is that? >> because too many people, the main reason is too many people have to make the choice between service and family. it's always the woman if it's a dual military couple or the woman is in. it's always the woman who decides to get out of the service. we need to do a better job paired some of the things we are trying to do, were going to let them take three years off and come back in without hurting your career. i tripled paid maternity leave from six weeks up to 18 weeks to try to get people not to have to

make that choice. we do code location policies. we have to make the military, i think we are down the road on doing this, but far more family-friendly, far more friendly to women to keep them from having to make that choice between service and family. to make it flexible enough that you can do both. >> are you seeing women yet try to apply to become part of your special operation forces, to become become navy seals? >> i think you will see that. >> but not yet? >> the cycle is such that we haven't seen it yet, but that's not a surprise. it's a fairly long cycle and i will say this about the seals, they've had the same standards for years.

80% of men don't make it. seals haven't been discombobulated at all without opening it up. you meet the standards, we go through the same thing we go through and we don't care. >> you've all seen secretary carter's effort on developing the force of the future. how much of that can really, at this point, carryover in your views into a new pentagon administration? is it far enough along yet to be institutionalized as part of the system, or does this need to have some more work done to make this an institutionalized part of the bureaucracy, to make sure it stays put? i'm just looking for your assessment. >> there are a number of aspects to his initiative that we are implementing, they are in place, but i think it's a larger

question. we have to, this is the starting point in my view. we have to keep thinking about the force of the future so we are bringing in to the department of defense, in or out of uniform, the best that we can from the largest pool of people possible. that means accessing people and talent in different ways that we have in the past, not just in a civilian way or a uniformed military way. we have to to make changes in both of those workforces, but we have to think of other more creative ways beyond what we are doing already to keep tapping into other resources, other assets that are out there. the problems we are facing are as complex if they have ever been. that iterative cycle that were talking about, what to do an experiment and change in the field is happening faster and faster so we need all hands on deck. >> whoever the next president is, whoever the next secretary of defense or service secretary,

they are all going to be acutely focused, just like like we have been, on continuing to recruit and retain and develop the best people in our armed forces that we can possibly get. as time goes by, as the economy improves, we all foresee much more difficulty in this arena. whether there is a series of initiatives that carry forward that is entitled force of the future or whether they call it something else, these issues that we discussed our issues about flexibility, trying new types of approaches to get different sores sorts of people into the military. more women, more more minority, making the standards neutral to all other factors which have held some people back in the past. i have to believe all of this will continue because it makes very good sense for future recruitment and retention and of course we also have to develop our people. >> as eric said, a lot of these

things are already in training and i'm a big fan of force of the future because we've already been doing most of these things for so many years in the navy. we are way down the road on a lot of these initiatives, but whatever you change in administration, things like personnel, things like acquisition, not the job of one administration. they can't be the job of one secretary or one for your time period. if they are, they are going to lose capability in every sense of the word. you have to, whatever you call it, you've got to keep changing on personnel initiatives because the world keeps changing in our expectations keep changing. you have to keep changing on acquisition because as we talked about before, the world gets a vote. the change that's going on in

terms of potential threats and types of threats and types of ideologies that arise, types of weapons that are out there and types of things that can be used against us, those are the types of things we have to respond to including stuff like climate change, which storms are getting bigger. our responsibilities are increasing all the time. you can't simply say, okay, were there, were solid. >> is the urban legend or true that you think the navy worries that some of the shored locations, the sea is going to rise so much that some of your bases -- >> we are the navy. we tend to have bases on the sea >> really? >> it makes sense. i know that's a unique concept. norfolk is at risk over the next few decades if we don't do

something to slow down sea level rise. >> wow. >> all our bases are in some way or another at risk. even today, we are the first responders. the navy and marine corps are the one sending in if we get a request for humanitarian assistance or relief almost every two weeks. as these storms get thicker and sea levels rise, our responsibilities increase. the arctic against to be ice free, russia russia has already said the waters to its north are an internal waterway. they are not. part of our responsibilities is keeping the sea lanes open, making sure sure that international law is followed, making sure that peaceful trade at sea can go where international law says it can. climate change and things like

that, it's a risk in the future for things like norfolk and our basis, but it's here today in terms of increasing our responsibility in terms of what we have to respond to, in terms of how we have to position ourselves and how we have to think about our roles. >> i want to go back as we begin to think about wrapping up shortly, to the question of diversity in the force, because it does strike me that this is something that has a lot to do with civil military relations that you oversee and a lot to do with the next generation of leaders coming into the pentagon and also in the force. let's chat for a minute about the importance that you see of diversity in the force, because you have all mentioned us. whether it is gender, faith, who you love, i would like to go back and ask you, i suspect you are probably talking about the

past, but i don't know, so let me ask you. where are you seeing that worries you my concerns you, wants to deal with lack of opportunity, lack of lack of diversity in the force, potential discrimination in the force that you want to put a lid on. we know the cases in the marine corps recruiting situation, so washington has all these great words about diversity, but out there in the ranks, what are you seeing, what concerns you? >> it's not diversity for diversity's sake. what it's diversity of his experience, background. >> equal opportunity. >> yes. but every time we've opened up the force, and i was talking about when we desegregated the military in the late 40s, when

we recruited women in the 80s, when we revealed don't ask, don't don't tell, when we opened ground combat to women. every single time, we have have become a stronger force. every single time that you get a more diverse force emma that you get diversity of experience and background involved, you become a stronger, more resilient force. one of the things that worried me is the divide between the american people who are being protected in the military that does the protecting. in a democracy, you can't let that divide get very large. a force are to be reflected of and representative of the people it defense. a couple examples, i brought the

navy back to columbia, yell, and others because we need it people with those background. i also instituted it at rutgers and other universities. i can have one geography that we tend to recruit from. we have to do it from all. one of the things that you do have these instances of a terrible act here and a terrible act there. one of the things we found is as you open it up, number one, there hasn't been the doomsday scenario that everybody was saying there was going to be with don't ask don't tell. i went back and looked. every single time we've opened up, starting with desegregating the military, exactly the the same arguments were used against it. were going to lower unit

cohesion. it's been physical things. african-americans in world war ii, can't fight as well, can't do land navigation. >> all of these things, to be crystal clear, completely diss true. >> all of these things are totally bogus, totally ridiculous but those arguments get recycled. with the repeal of don't ask don't tell, were going to destroy unit cohesion. you're going to have problems recruiting, you're to have problems with retention. none of that has happened. none. women in ground combat, same argument, exactly the same. the concern that i have in a larger scale is that we do get the opportunity for all americans to participate in the honor of defending this country,

that we don't exclude anybody for reasons that have nothing to do with their competence or their patriotism or their ability to do the job. >> so in this very, you know, difficult 1818 months that the country has had, do you think there needs to be some military outreach in terms of recruiting to the muslim american community to tell them specifically that they are welcome in the u.s. military, that in fact you think they bring value to it or it is this something that needs to be done at this point? >> i will echo what ray said, i think that outreach should meet everybody. the force is stronger when it's more diverse. it's better for flex society, it's better for us because we

can recruit the best from a broader pool of people, but i think everybody should feel if they want to serve and they meet the requirements that they have an opportunity and they see that opportunity and future for themselves. >> to this point, about the battle for talent like in every industry in every company across america is trying to get the best and brightest of young people, but in addition to that, diversity, there's all kind of data to back this up from the private sector, diverse teams are also the types of teams that bring you the greatest innovation. the old saying, saying, it's the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, then pretty much every problem is going to look like a nail applies in this case. people who are tackling a problem who come from diverse backgrounds and thought processes, disciplines,

different types of people, this is where you get your best innovation and we are all looking for the best people and innovation for the future. i just wanted to throw that point in as well. that's why it's important to us. >> a quick round of questions here for everybody. 7:00 a.m. november 9 when we've all been up watching the returns. november 9, 10:00 a.m., what's the first thing you do? what happens in your world that morning? >> on november 9, all of us will have several months to go, there is still work to be done. i suspect i'll get up and come to work on november 9 and of course we will all discuss the return, all americans will be discussing it. we are no different than that.

then we will get to our appointments. we will be continuing to work with the congress to try to help push over the finish line, our bills. we will continue to focus on next year's budget and deliberations and i expect there will be meetings on that as well for me i don't want to say it's a day like any other day, it will be a rather special day because we will know, i hope we will know who our next president will be, but then it's get back to work and do the best you can to complete the important work we still have the time. >> any sports metaphors? don't take your eye off the ball and run through the tape. new administration doesn't come

in for over two months. there is a whole lot to get done during that time. it's not over then. it's not over until the day you walk out. don't ignore, don't push problems forward. make decisions. don't push problems to the administration that they have to deal with. make decisions and give them the very best launching pad that they can possibly have. >> the army has 4 million people and they deserve our attention for as long as they are in. they will start to think about that second phase i talked about but we still have large

institutions that we need to run until we are no longer in the position. based on my own confirmation experiences, we have no way of knowing how long it will take for a new team to get in place. we need to stay focused on the job until were not in it anymore. >> okay. me, i'm just thinking about how much coffee and have to drink that morning. i would like to thank everybody. i think this was a really good round of discussion and conversation. >> i just want to start by thanking all of you for an incredibly insightful and candid and thoughtful discussion. also really to thank each of you for your service to the nation. please join me. [applause]

think all of you for coming to this discussion. we hope to keep this conversation going in the weeks and months ahead, but we have all learned a lot today and we have benefited from your leadership and insight. again, thank you and thank you barbara for leading such a great conversation. [applause] one last thing, if you could remain seated while the secretaries depart, that would be great. [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

>> as this discussion comes to a close, if if you missed any of it, you can see it in its entirety at our website. >> after i came up with my idea of reproductive rights, i went in research the most recent events i heard about in our news. i know i could find information on that and that would also help me figure out what points i wanted to say about it and how to form my outline for my peace. >> i don't think i took a very methodical approach to this process. i mean, i think it really was a piece at first, it's really a process of working in reworking. as i was trying to come up with what my actual theme was, i was doing research at the same time

in coming up with more ideas for what i could film and i would get an idea and i thought that would be a great shot. i would think about that and then i would think about something else to focus on so i would do research on that. the whole process was starting on other things and scratching what doesn't work until you finally get what is the finished product. this year's theme, your message to washington d.c. tell us what you think the most urgent issue for the new president and congress to address in 2017. students can work alone or in groups of 23. it's for grades six through 12. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150 students and 53 teachers. the grand prize, $5000, will go to the student or team with the best overall entry.

this year's deadline is january 20, 2017. help us spread the word to student filmmakers. for more information go to our website, student cam.org. >> cspan "washington journal", live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. this morning, republican pollster and strategist with results and analysis on the latest george washington university battle poll that provides information on potential election scenarios for president and congress. then democratic strategist peter hart discusses the attitudes of millennial's heading into the election. a recent online survey of students age 14 - 23 and their views on government, their future and the nation. watch c-span's' "washington journal" live beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern this morning.

>> cspan brings you more debates from key u.s. senate races. this evening at 7:00 p.m., live on c-span, the pennsylvania senate debate between pat toomey and katie mcginty. then a debate for the florida senate between marco rubio and patrick murphy. thursday night at 80 stern, republican senator kelly and democratic governor maggie debate for the new hampshire senate seat. now until election day, follow key debates from house senate and governor networks on the cspan network and on the c-span radio app. cspan, where history unfolds daily. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in on this monday morning for a short pro forma session. no legislative business is scheduled for today. live coverage of the senate is coming up in just a couple minutes on c-span2.

coming up shortly on c-span there will be a remark from british prime minister theresa may. she has returned from brussels where there were talks with leaders of the european union. she will be providing a report from britain's official exit. in just a moment will have live coverage of the senate as they hold a brief pro forma session.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington,d.c., october 24, 2016. to the senate, under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3 of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable michael b. enzi, a senator from the state of wyoming to perform the duties of the chair. signed orrin g. hatch. president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m. on thursday, october.