and folks are seeing where there's not enough security but these are the same folks that voted to cut funding to the state department. i wasn't here then. i'm here now and my focus is moving forward. and in looking at the design excellence program. as i have so far, i do applaud its modularity concept. you have these components that help with security and you can put them together in different ways as appropriate to the nation, the security risk, the available land, all of those things and as opposed to the single embassy design. we don't want one single yooerm design where every one we built was the same. if i was off terrorist i just have to figure out one and then i know the weaknesses for all the embassies. but i have a concern with the design excellence program.

and that is the involvement of security experts in development of the design excellence program. i know there were some who were on the commission to develop it. but ms. munaz and mr. green, if you could address the actual input of the security experts into the program and setting standards in the program, and whether there's an ongoing effort to keep the security experts involved. beyond what the state department comes up with on its own. one of the criticisms that has happened has been that the state department has underestimated the security needs and the security threats. and i want to make sure as we move forward and build these embassies that security considerations are part of that ongoing process of assessment. so if you could sort of address that, starting from who was on the initial commission and whether that involvement and

security continues and mr. green, if you could gives your assessment as a security expert yourself. >> i'm not really a security expert. >> you led the committee that was asked by the arb and i think that you have some very valid comments that i would like to hear about in terms of security in the design excellence program. but i like ms. munoz to start, if you don't mind. >> as i mentioned earlier, the founding commitment with this program as with any other programs that would evolve over time relating to embassy and consulate yux is we meet all the security standards. they increase them and they change them over time. whatever they throw at us, we're going to implement because that's our responsibility. i want to make that point very clear. our goal with this process is also to improve our coordination

with the dip maltic security. so to have them more involved with us and have them more involved earlier to make sure that they see everything that we're doing throughout the development of the project. so i would argue that their involvement is going to increase and that the key commitment that i know is important to them is that we continue to meet all of the security standard. and i have assured the department, i assure this committee we'll continue to do that. >> mr. green? >> i don't know what the interaction today is between ds and obo as they develop new plans for embassies and consula consulates. what i do know and recognize, this report was done now more than a year ago. maybe they're all joining hands and singing now. but when we interviewed people who were concerned with security.

not just ds but people from other parts of the government also, they were not happy, the people we talked to, were not happy in their role -- with their role in the selection process and felt very strongly that the pendulum has shifted from security to design. i mentioned -- and there's several examples of our observations as i said before -- didn't come from the six of us. these were based on the interviews that we did with more than 100 people. not all of them, obviously, opined on obo and security. but many did. and so those observations that are in there, it's not my opinion. it's what we got from people who work on a daily basis or hopefully, work on a daily basis

with obo. >> thank you, i'm out of time, mr. chairman. >> if the gentle woman will yield so she could reclaim some time and respond to this. >> yes, i yield. >> mr. green speerhead this is effort and puts together this report which was an offshoot and started because of the accountability review board, ms. munoz, has the state department accepted in? has this been approved? is there anything under your mind that's been -- that did they disagree with it? >> as mr. green pointed out, the ds management review board really looked at ds's organizations. i don't know the status of the response or the implementation of the recommendations. >> i could take it back to my colleagues. >> that's my kin. >> let me finish. with respect to the questions relating to obo there was one recommendation that we look at the cost umm approximately

occasions or the security implications of this program and we have affirmed time and again, that there will be no security implications to this program. we're dedicated to meeting all of the security requirements that ds establishes, that are established in law and in working with ds to innovate better and better products every year that better meet those security standards. >> if it takes longer to build something do you consider that a security implication? >> as i explained to the committee, from the time of award, which is how obo receives its funding annually, the time to build the facility, because we're doing construction only, will be the same or shorter, which means that we'll have in safer facilities, faster than using the design build methodology, in particular, when we have advance time to plan. >> and i hope and ranking member and colleagues on both sides of

the aisle, this report was done. we asked for a kwoip. the state department has thus far refused to give us a copy. al jazeera are has it. they minuted it out on their website. we don't have one and you're in the united states congress. even though i'm holding one that i got off of al jazeera are. you have patrick kennedy in off significant post go on cbs news and say he disagrees with this report. i think it's part of our business to understanding with what does hi disagree with and what does he agree where? if the very person that's implementing this office isn't totally familiar with it, isn't necessarily implementing it, there's a problem. there's a problem. >> again, i would like to restate. it was a ds management report. it hit and touched on ds diplomatic security would be better positioned to answer that

question. >> i think they would be in a great position to answer it and i think next time we have this panel, we should include diplomatic security. if i had to do it over i would include diplomatic security here as well. >> would the gentle lady yield to me? >> yes. >> thanks. >> one question, mr. green. again, trying to get to the bottom line, security. when you did your surveying, what exactly -- exactly -- you said you talked to 100 people surveyed 100 people. can you tell us a little bit about that process? so we can fully understand and appreciate what it was that you did and what you were telling these people and why you were asking -- because that's significant. you went to people whose interests -- whose interests would be to make sure that they were secure. am i right?

>> well, yes. we interviewed more than 100 people. we had them come in and they spread across the -- all the bureaus in the state department and some from outside of the state. we interviewed some of the people that were on the review board. we asked different questions of different people. some were organizational questions. does the assistant secretary for diplomatic security have enough of a role within the running the organization? there was a lot of emphasis on high-threat posts. post benghazi to establish a special cell for high-threat posts. not all of the people that we talked to, did we ask about the relationship with obo and others, but many of them we did ask that question to. and out of those questions, came

these observations we laid out in our report. and the final recommendation, as i said before, we didn't make a determination that design excellence should be tossed out the window. all we said was -- before you go a lot further with this, we recommend that the state department do an in-depth analysis to look at the security implications of this program. >> and it seems to me that, you know, a lot of times -- we have the departments and individuals disputing issues in government. and the people suffer during the dispute. you know, at some point we've got to figure this out so that

our people are protected. i think members of congress and certainly the public, when they hear the debates, you know, not necessarily interested in watching this being made. they want to make sure that people are secure. that the costs are reasonable and that the facility is functional. and that we're doing whatever we do effectively and efficiently. i just think sometimes, you know, it seems as if we feel like we've got to argue this and argue that. but at the same time, the people who need what we're supposed to be yielding, they're not getting it. what they get they're not getting it in a timely fashion. >> what our report, obviously, focused on security. >> i understand. >> and as i said early on, if

someone can show me that we can do it just as inexpensively, just as securely, just as fast, using design excellence, i will sign up tomorrow. >> thank you, gentlemen. thank you the lady for yielding. >> thank the gentle woman. i'll now recognize myself. i want to ask the cobb sent to enter into the record, it's called "the guide to design excellence" including the message from you, ms. munoz. the question for you is -- without hearing any objections, so ordered. we'll enter it into the record. who at state department, has approved this? >> the director of obo approved that document before i was director. it was adam mann. i want to make clear that this was a development that was widely briefed with security and on the hill and briefed publicly

and was provided widely. so while it's within obo's authority to innovate and to develop programs that help us build the best buildings that we can that are cost effective and efficient, that is the -- >> and the question that we have long term is diplomatic security's feeling about that. we'll come back to that. in response to cbs news, state department put out this statement. there has been no evidence that excellence projects take longer to build. in fact, under the excellence initiative, from the fiscal year award to akpan si, facilities will be delivered -- occupancy facilities will be differented on the same if not shorter schedule. and in response to cbs news it says -- all facilities will be delivered on the same if not shorter schedules. there's no evidence to the contrary. help me understand, then, why this unclassified document help

me understand what's going on in maputo. it started as a standard embassy design with an estimated development of 39 months. and, yet, now the says that on march 28th of 2014, they were changing to design excellence and that it was going to take 46 months. >> i don't have the document that you have. i'd like to be able to respond to that but i need to be able to go back and look at detailed budgets and schedules. >> but this is something -- this is the frustration. we request this type of document formally and you play hide 567bd seek and don't provooid ide it and you make all therepresentat that everything is ahead of schedule. you put that out to the world

and you gave that to cbs news and you let everybody know, no, no, no. nothing is behind schedule and yet i find document. why is that? >> because i said i'd like to -- as i said i'd like to look at the case and the document you're holding to speak knowledgeably about that. >> do you dispute what i'm say something. >> i'm not sure what you're saying. >> i'm saying that in maputo you went from a 39 a month project to a 46-month project and if you're in africa and don't have the proper security you're going to feel the effects of that. >> again, i'll have to go back and look at the details of that project. >> tell me -- tell me about oslo. is it ahead of schedule or behind schedule? >> oslo has a new contract working on that project. >> is it behind schedule or ahead of schedule? >> at this time, it's behind schedule. >> and it's a design excellence project? >> no. it's not. >> what is it?

>> oslo was a project that was developed and could not be done as a standard embassy design because many cities, in particular in europe, have zoning requirements that require us to develop buildings differently. that's the case in oslo. >> it seems very convenient that you toggle between is it design excellence, is it standard embassy design? is it or is it not? we don't have that clear definition. there's a lot of people and i believe some documents out there that say it is design excellence. so help me with what's going on in the hague. is it ahead of schedule or behind schedule? >> i'd have to look up details about the hague. again, the hague is like an oslo project. the hague was a project that was developed based on -- it had to be an adjusted design based on city requirements. >> based on design excellence? >> no. not based on design excellence. >> is it design in the bill?

sfwhooer i believe the hague is a design and build because the requirements in those cities force a very extensive development of the project in a way that indicates that design been build is the better option. that's a condition that we find in very many cities in europe in particular. we have that issue. we had that issue in london. we are had it in oslo and we have it in the hague. but those are projects that were started before the excellence initiative. the way in which they were developed yin may very well be responsive to the environment in a way in which the excellence initiative would have. >> let's go to kiev and the ukraine. what happened there? we needed more seats. we needed more personnel? what did you do there? >> usaid aed an next in key zblooef so we added how many seats? >> i don't have that -- >> more than 100 right? more than 100 seats?

>> you've that at my fingertips. >> i do. it was standard embassy design and we add more than 100 additional seats. >> we added annex. >> still, seats. >> let me go to mr. jones. you've been so patient. you were the one in you're testimony here, let me ask you. if it takes longer to build an embassy, we have people in harm's way. and it takes longer to build it, do you think that that puts people in harm's way or not? >> in the case of this? >> yeah. >> is that the question? >> yeah. >> the situation in port morsiby is we had a increase in the number of people who would be located on site and the addition of u.s. marines. >> so for those of you that aren't as familiar, we had 41 personnel. and that number was going to go

up to 71 personnel, correct? >> right. >> but under law, we're required to co-locate the mission and would north have been able to do so had we only built a building for 41 people. so there is a way, though -- >> so there's awe way to build under standard i'll design, an increase in the number of personnel. let's go back as to why -- why was the number of personal increased. >> we started with what was essentially a standard yooem design. it was a mini standard design. when we got increase to add the marines, we were unable -- >> when did that decision that marines were going in become -- when did you get that in. >> i believe it was in march of 2013. >> and you have documentation for this? can you provide that to the committee? >> yes. when we provide the other documents you requested we'll include that among them.

>> okay. so there are no marines there now? and i think the public in general has a misconsengs as to what the marines actually do and don't do. they don't go outside the wall. they're there to protect classified information. in port morisby there's an exxonmobil project, multibillion dollar project being developed to support chinese. the chinese have a 20-year contract. so i still don't fully understand or appreciate, and you're not necessarily the right person to answer the question want i don't want to put you on the spot, as to why we had to suddenly have this surge in the number of personnel. but nevertheless, the occupancy date for port morisby was going to be may of 2014, correct? >> that is correct. >> and the cost of that embassy was estimated to be, what? >> i believe the cost of the original facility was to be somewhere around $79 million. >> my understanding is it was going to be less than $50

million. >> the cost to construct the facility itself was 49. that includes -- the number i gave you include site costs. >> so we have the site, whether it's standard embassy design or design excellence, i happen to go there in february. the chief of mission has no clue that any of this is going on. none of discussions, he had no idea. he was still anticipating and understood there was a delay but still thought that during his tenure they were going to be able to in. what is the new date that they're going to move in? >> i believe the new date will be in 2018. >> so and what is the estimated cost? >> we don't have a final cost yet because we don't have a completed design. >> because it's not a standard embassy design, correct? >> no. that's not the issue. >> are you telling me that this

is not design excellence? that this is under standard i'll design? >> no. what i'm saying is that the compound in port morisby began as a standard facility. and it experienced an significant increase in staffing which prevented us from being able to use a standard design. the facility was not capable of being modified because it was so small. so it required an anext and it is the addition of the people and the annex and the marines that are making the delivery date of 2018. that is based on a cost-benefit analysis that the department has done. that is the fastest time that we're able to get the folks from that mission colocated on the compound with the marines. >> so this is so amazingly

frustrated. the paperwork i have, not from you, but it said are said this facility costs in excess of $200 million. we're going to spend $3 million per seat! per seat! >> in port morisby, new guinea. average per capita income is like $2500. >> i'd like to take some of these questions. >> well i'm not asking you. i'm asking mr. jones. i'll come to you. i'll give you plenty of time. so we're going to spend $3 million per seat and they're not going to be there for a good four yourself. you don't have a final design. what are they supposed to do for security there for the next four years while they wait? >> we are attempting to get safe and secure facilities open the fastest time schedule that we

can. we're doing everything in our power to ensure that weir delivering safe, secure and function alpha si-- functional facilities. >> we add moed more than 105 de in the ukraine. here we're talking about 30 and it cost us about $24 million. and now we're looking at a project that was less than $50 billion to build and estimated to go north of $200 million in papa, new guinea and the consequence to this is, they're going to be in harm's way for a longer period of time. we're going to have less money to build other facilities in other parts of the world. it is behind schedule. and these poor people are working in some of the most difficult situations i've seen, in a very -- when i was there there was an attempted cash jacking of u.s. diplomatic

personnel. while i was there! we also had two people who showed up at the door trying to represent themselves as somebody that wanted to come see me and come see the -- this was on a saturday -- dressed in garb that represented that they were there to meet people in the embassy. because you can walk right up. right across the street multiple times a year, very close, the pharmacy there, armed bandits come in and try to rob that place. and there was no communication with that facility there in port morisby. the chief shouldn't have been getting that message from me, that's for sure. ms. munoz, i think you wanted to say something? >> i wanted to point out that as we explained earlier, the forces causing the change, the design, are outside of the bureau. we talked about iraq earlier. when you're in any environment when things are changing rapidly you have to adjust to these

changes. there are costs related to those changes. a decision was made two years into a construction contract to add marines to a facility. to add significantly to the staff. to add classified capacity. that adds an extraordinary amount of expense in an existing contract. i think that when we have detailed information and you have received the detailed information that you've asked, we can go over those costs in detail but i think given the location in new guinea and given the fact that we learned that all materials and labor need to be shipped into the new guinea and given the environment, the discovery of natural resources there, have led to greater competition in a small market. those cost increases can be explained when a mission doubles in size. >> i have gone way over time.

i have more on this issue but i'll recognize the ranking members' comments. >> mr. green? where do we go from here? i mean, really. >> you know, i think unfortunately, where we go is we need to see the dollars and the time that it's going to take to do design excellence. we don't have that. we're comparing apples and oranges. i'm not so concerned, personally, with the appearance of embassies. the state ig did a report in 2008 and the key findings were essentially that people were happy with the appearance. and the host countries of those 12 embassies that they looked at were happy with the appearance. so that's not what i'm worried

about. what i'm worried about and i think what ds is worried about from a security standpoint, is can you actually produce these things in the same amount of time with the same security at the same cost? and until we know that and i don't know how you get to it before you do some of them, but i think the chairman raised an issue, what is cost per desk? what is cost per desk. under standard embassy design? we have some good figures on that i'm sure. what is cost per desk under design excellence? until we can compare apples to apples, you know, i think there's going to be continue to be a lot of skepticism that you can do this as fast and as cheap. >> i'm listening carefully and

i'm concerned and i think we all should be concerned when we don't get documents. and it becomes very frustrating. time is valuable. and you know, i listen to ambassador pickering when they talk about the r&b report. you know, it was some of the most, i think it was ambassador pickering that said -- i asked him why was he -- why did he agree to do that, to get on the board? and he talked about the fact that the review board.

that he felt that he owed it to his country. and to those who died and their families, to make things better so it didn't happen to anybody else. and in some kind of way, when i listen to you, mr. green, it makes sense that if i've got something that's already designed and i mean, i've got something that i'm working with and i guess you've had years to make any adjustments that you see, right? is that right? in other words, it's like you got this house. you use the same pretty much the same materials and same structure, over and over again. and then in the meantime, if there were problems you can make those adjustments or -- and

correct me if time wrong, i'm trying to put in simple language for the american people. or, if you want to -- if you're in a country where there's unique situations where you need a different kind of door or you may have some height requirement our whatever, but still, eyesing the basic same model, is that right? >> yes. >> logic tells me that if i'm using the same model, then -- it's just logic, that it would be quicker if i didn't go to another country and use that model. that's basically what you're saying, right? >> that's the logic that makes sense. >> and so i think for the state department, listen to this, it becomes a difficult argument to sell not only to us, but to the american people. because the american people,

they don't know everything that you know. so you've got -- it's easy for us to -- and i can understand because it's your expertise and what you all do, but sometimes you have to break this stuff down so the people get what you're talking about. because to them it makes no sense. and i'm not saying -- i'm saying, with the limited knowledge it makes no sense. with all of your information, it probably makes a lot of sense. and so, we find ourselves in a situation where you've got what mr. green said and yao got what you're saying and -- the bottom line is going back to what mr. green has said -- if he had the data to show that we could get the same security costs and time, all those factors pretty

much the same, that he would sign on the dotted line, am i right? >> that's correct. >> so why can't we get the information? there seems to be reluctance and i don't know what that is. can you help us with that? because see, one of the things that happens here, and i've lived long enough and seen enough and been up here long enough, we can get distracted in the mission by getting caught up -- it doesn't allow us to do what we're exposed to be doing and that is, providing security. they are legitimate questions. they'll really are. but at the same time that's time that we could be taking our energy and focusing on making sure our folks are safe. that's what the american people want. so, go ahead. >> i think that's absolutely

right. and i'd be happy to explain in more detail why it is that if we award 100% design on the date of award, the period of performance is shorter. and we can have people into safer facilities faster. what it means is that if we know that our appropriation is fixed, we know which buildings we're doing, it might take us longer to do the design. we're going to be looking closely at the requirements. what are the materials that are going to work in that environment? how do we put the building together in that environment? from the date of award, when we award that project, it's not going to include any design time. it will be no longer than it would be with a design build standard embassy design and it will likely be shorter. i could go into more detail. we could provide the -- >> one little thing, whoa, whoa, rewind. there's one little thing that

bothers me and that is -- why? in other words, if i've got my model and if it's working, i know what it's going to cost, i know how much time it's going to take. am i missing something that i have to go to something else? so, like, okay, let me run and do something else when i've already got this -- i've got it. finally. you follow me? >> yes. i think it's a fair question. and what i've tried to lay out is that the standard embassy design was a fixed solution based on an average hypothetical size embassy or cannes what. we build yaerms and consulates in every environment. whether that's because it's very hot. whether it's because it's very cold. whether because some systems are going to work there on the sea front and other systems are not going to work in a completely different environment. we're looking at the real

requirements of missions and thinking about how do we build the best buildings for those missions. the standard embassy design was a good fixed solution but it also required us to build free-standing warehouses regardless of the location. there's some place wes don't need a warehouse. why build a warehouse if we could get -- >> then you take it off, right? i mean, you take it off. if i don't need a garage, if i got a house with a garage and i don't need a garage, i take the garage off. and by the way, it's not just one design, right? there's several designs, rite? >> there's one. >> one standard embassy design. >> so you take ta garage off. >> all of those things taken together and -- if i could try to sort of put or describe the excellence initiative in a nut shell. it's really to say that we're taking those lessons learned from the standard embassy design. we're taking those modular pieces of it but we're providing a lot more flexibility in how

those could be put together in a way that's meaningful. again, you build a very large embassy. having these two bars is not efficient. you're u crowding two with buildings as opposed to one. you're securing two separate buildings as opposed to one. so i think that using architects, engineers and folks within the department. our security professionals, we look at each case and come up with the best and the most efficient solution. in many ways, what the excellence initiative is doing, is exactly what you're suggesting, right? it's taking a sort of base line and modifying that baseline in a way that is sensible for the mission. >> right now the standard embassy design or the standard embassy design we're moving forward from was a very nixed solution. again, very horizontal. februa ten acres. warehouse. that's not always the best solution in all environments and i'd like to also state that the

cost per desk, we use that cost-p cost-per-desk to develop our budget so we have a cost-estimating office in o bureau. when we build a budget whether it's a standard design budget or an excellence project. they tell us, you know what you've spent historically in this environment? this much. that's what your budget is. we're going to work to that same budget under the excellence initiative or under the standard embassy design. >> ms. munoz, let me tell you something. you helped me. what you just explained. now i'm finally getting it. so in other words, you know, what i thought you were going to say is that circumstances change. we have new technology. i thought that's what we were going to hear. that new technology better use of certain -- in other words,

better materials, all those kinds of things, might go into it. and i don't know anything about building. but all of those things might go into changing the box. and what you're saying is that you may -- help me if i'm wrong -- yao may look at the box but you're forever changing the box. not that you don't look at it. you don't take it into consideration. but it may be changed substantially. is that -- or are you talking about just a brand new box, period? >> i would say it depends. so again, if we're looking at a very large mission, to have these -- the standard embassy design and put that in place would simply not be efficient. london is a good example in the case that not only are we building a cube which is much more efficient than sort of two separate box that go up which would wrooiv twice as much but

we're using materials that make the building significantly lighter. that reduce the size, the weight and the expense of the foundation that needs to be put down. the occ curtain wall reduces the weight which influences the foundation and it's all able to go up faster than a traditional concrete building would have been able to go up in that place. so both materials and base building in certain cases. >> last question. is it your -- do you anticipate being able to take, say, that box -- london is very unique. but other -- perhaps, the creation of another box or something that you can use in more than one place? you follow what i'm saying? as you're developing. how does that play into that? do you follow me? >> yes, i think i do. >> in other words, if you build a embassy and you do all the

things you just said and now weave gth a great design and we've got security and this. this is the best bang for our buck, time, everything is straight. do you anticipate being able to use, say, for example, that model? a model like that somewhere else? aye follow me? >> yes. let me use an example which may be too common but i think it sort of demonstrates the point. there was a time when most people who drove had a model t. it was a great car. a simple car. as we evolved, cars got better and better. they evolved. and they separated it out into the different types of cars. so today wrooisht than going with a model. the you could go with a much more secure and safe but you could also choose to have an aston mini or an suv but they defend on where you are. you want to be in a small urban environment. you can go with a smaller size

and still meet all your requirements and be more efficient to run but there's the other times when you're going to need the larger solution. you're going to need -- you're going to need the suv. and i think that being able to put the aappropriate solution with the mission and to consider those things and to make sure that we're appropriately spending the money the taxpayer gives us and considering all the long-term costs, i think that's what we're talking about doing. >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you all for being here. >> i recognize the chairman of the committee? >> thank you. thank, chairman and ranking member cummings. i appreciate your questioning and fortunately, i came back in just in time to have you talk about automobiles. and i agree that sometimes -- i actually don't think the fiat 50 o'or the mini is ever appropriate from a safety standpoint for our men and women

in the state department. i understand the difference in size and scale and some of the urban versus rural considerations. but mr. green, those considerations really aren't what we're asking about today. what we're asking about is -- do you to the greatest extent possible, use a mass production concept which is what standard build is? it's about do you build a one-of-a-kind formula race car that's beautiful and fast and has unique characteristic and each one is different? as a matter of fact, the see yets aren't even shared between formula racers. are do you build a toyota camry in order to get -- or a ford focus or a ford 500. do you build a mass-produced consistent reliable, understood, bugs worked out, repeatable product so you get a highly

reliable product, that can be maintained throughout the system? standard windows, standard other characteristic, if possible, in order to get a good product at a better price? -- good afternoon, everybody. i recently discussed the important actions that were taken today in smort of ukraine before i do. i want to take a few minutes to update the american people on pressing foreign policy challenges that i used with secretary kerry this afternoon. first of all i thanked secretary kerry and ooir outstanding civilian and military leaders in afghanistan for their success in helping to break the impasse over the presidential election there. thanks to the their efforts and, of course, thanks to the afghans and the courage of the two candidates, both of whom i spoke to last week, the candidates have agreed to abide by the results of a comprehensive and

international internationally supervised audit of all the ballots and perform a unity government. if they keep their commitments afghanistan will witness the first transfer of democrat power in history of the nation. honoring the candidates who put the interests of a united afghanistan first. the mms of afghan who defied threats to vote and the service of our troops that sacrificed so much. this progress reminds us that even as our combat in addition in afghanistan ends this year america's commitment to a sovereign within united and democratic afghanistan will endure, along with our determination that americans are never again threatened by terrorists inside of afghanistan. second, john updated me on the negotiations with iran over its nuclear program. over the last six months iran has met its commitments under the interim deal we reached last year halting the progress of its

nuclear program, allowing more inspections and rolling back its most dangerous stockpile of nuclear material. meanwhile, we're working with our of plus-one partners and iran to reach a comprehensive agreement that assures us that iran's program will, in fact been be peaceful and they won't obtain a nuclear weapon. based on consultations with secretary kerry and my national security team, it's clear to me that we made real progress in several areas and that we have a credible way forward. but as we approach a deadline of july 20th under the interim deal, there's still some significant gaps between international community and iran and we have more work to do. so over the next few days we'll continue consulting with congress and our team will continue discussions with iran and our partners as we determine whether additional time is necessary to extend on negotiations. third, we continue to support diplomatic efforts to end the violence between israel and

hamas. as i've said repeatedly, israel has a right to defend itself from rocket attacks that terrorize the israeli people. there's no yes on earth that can be yesterday, israel did agree to a cease-fire unfortunately hamas continued to fire rockets at civilians there by, prolonging the conflict. but the israeli people and the palestinian people don't want to

live like this. they deserve to live in peace and security, free from fear. that's why we're going to continue to encourage diplomatic efforts to restore the cease-fire and we support egypt's continued efforts to bring this about. over the next 24 hours, we'll continue to stay in close contact with our friends and parties in the region and we'll eyes all of our diplomatic resources and relationships to support efforts of closing a deal on a cease-fire. in the meantime we're going to continue to stress the need to protect civilians in gaza and in israel and to avoid further escalation. finally, given the continued provocations in ukraine, today i approved a new set of sanctions on some of russia's largest companies and financial institutions. along with our allies, with whom i've been coordinating closely for the last several days and weeks, i've remeetly made it clear that russia must halt the flow of weaponsnd fighters

across the border into ukraine. that russia must urge separatists to release the hostages and 'support a cease-fire. that russia needs to pursue internationally-mediated talks and agree to meaningful monitors on the border. i made this clear directly to mr. putin. many of our european partners. i've made this directly clear to mr. putin and we emphasized our preference to resolve this issue diplomatically but this we have to see concrete actions and not just words, that russia, in fact, is committed to trying to end this conflict along the russia/ukraine border. so far, russia has failed to take any of the steps that i mentioned. in fact, russia's support for the separatists and violations of you yan sovereignty has continued. on top of the same shuntion we imposed we're designating selected sectors of the economy as eligible for sanctions.

we're freezing the assets of several russian defense companies and blocking new financing of some of russia's most important banks and energy companies. these sanctions are significant but they are also targeteded. they are designed to have the d to have the maximum impact on russia while limiting spill overeffects on our american countries. we're meeting in brussels to agree on their next steps. and what we are expecting is that the russian leadership will see once again that it's actions in ukraine have consequences, including weakening russian economy and increasing diplomatic isolation. now, meanwhile, we're going to continue to stand with the ukrainian people as they seek to determine their own future. even in the midst of this crisis they have made remarkable process in the last few months. they elected a new president, supporting important reforms and signed a new association agreement with the european

union. and the united states will continue to offer our strong support to ukraine to help stabilize its economy and defend its territorial integrity. ukraine has deserved the right to forge their own destiny. we live in a complex world and at a challenging time. none of these challenges lend themselves to quick and easy solutions, but all of them require american leadership, and as commander in chief, i'm confident that if we stay patient and determined, that we will in fact meet these challenges. thanks very much. >> can you talk about your talks with angela merkel? >> the president at the white house on several foreign policy matters including the announcement of new u.s. sanctions on russian energy and defense entities as well as

major banks meanwhile, european union leaders have asked for tougher sanctions against russia asking the bank to sign no new financing agreements with moscow. the leaders also agreed to act together rather to suspend financing of the new european bank for reconstruction and development operations in russia, they announced the decisions during a summit today until brussels. 40 years ago the watergate scandal led to the resignation of the only american president. american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. this weekend opening statements from the house judiciary committee -- >> selection of the president that occupies a unique position within our political system.

it's the one act in which the entire country participates. the outcomes accepted the of course pan the of that office stands as a symbol of our national unity and commitment. the majority of the will is to be undone. if that symbol is to be replaced by the action of the representatives it must be for substantial and not trivial offenses. >> watergate 40 years later, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. a panel of advocates discusses how to help post 9/11 veterans. they talk about the challenges of getting resources for programs and how to measure

success for the programs. this is part of the george w. bush institute in dallas. >> thank you. i just want to start out by saying thank you to each and every one of you that are in this room. our business professionals, our ceo's, men and women that have worn the uniform, if it wasn't for individuals like yourself, i wouldn't be able to stand up here today. on august 3rd, 2008 i was running a convoy in kabul, afghanistan. on that particular day there were two taliban individuals that decided to detonate a roadside bomb that detonaten right under the gearshift of my truck. through the blast, it crushed every bone in my face, right arm, left hand left hand, hip, right knee, shin and right foot were all crushed.

i want to walter reed, spent a little bit of time there, i met some wonderful people that wanted to help out through nonprofit organizations. they helped me discover the game of golf. it's a frustrating game, it is, as many of you may no. i love the challenge, i love the fact that it motivated me to want to aspire to do something, do something great. it wasn't up for me yet. it gave me the motivation i needed and through the help of other nonprofit organizations i've been able to continue that success, with bush center's warrior open, i was selected to play in the first warrior open back in 2011 i believe.

justine sterling gave me a call at work and i was so excited i literally knocked my computer off my desk. after competing in that first warrior open, i made the decision i had to move to texas. four short months later i did. because of the warrior open, i met the woman of my dreams who -- she's still putting up with me today, believe it or not. and i'm a full time student at the university of north texas, i am a senior, working full time at a company in ft. worth. they do a lot of work with the government. i get to stay with my brother's sisters, which is awesome for me, so it's truly a blessing to have the help that i needed to really be successful in this transition for me, but it's my pleasure to introduce to you the

second panel. if i butcher any names i'm sorry, i'm from arkansas. it's my fault. [ applause ] jake wood. [ applause ] joe de pinto. [ applause ] >> mayor alvin brown. [ applause ] jean case. [ applause ] >> thank you so much. we're supposed to have another woman up here, okay?

>> we'll be the book ends. we have talked a bit about -- quite a bit about the nonprofit sector and the private sector, we have representatives here from business, education, philanthropy, communities. and the nonprofits, and we really want to take a deeper dive here on all of this, and joe, i want to start with you. you are the ceo of 7-eleven. you have certainly been hiring veterans, you know the value of veterans, i want you to talk about the challenges you might have had in hiring those veterans. there are fantastic success stories and we've heard it and you've had fantastic success stories. >> the challenges, first and

foremost, i agree with everything that was said earlier, particularly the gentleman from disney. i think we all have to take a look, and we appreciate the military and what the men and women in the military do for us. we need to take a look at how we're impacting that. i have an opportunity in my role to set a tone for the organization, the tone for us is, that we will hire military. because we appreciate what the military has done, we have a lot of recognition from that -- >> where does that come from, by the way? >> it comes from me, but we have many folks throughout our system that believe in that. and so the challenges that we have we're bringing folks in not only to the corporate side of our business -- i think about five and a quarter percent of our employees are military. but we're now bringing them into the franchise side. what we're recognizing is, that military veterans have a real

entrepreneurial spirit, the challenge on that side is financing. we currently offer a 10% discount for military folks, we're looking to go to 20%. we offer about 75% -- up to 75% to join 7-eleven as an owner operator. we can't get financing, they carpet get financing, they don't have the dollars to make up that 25%. that to me is the biggest obstacle. we've all talked about the values, the leadership, the can do attitude, it really am coulds down to dollars. >> jean case, you are ceo of the case foundation, philanthropist. what worries me when i look around at the atmosphere of the country war weary, a little bit

tired of hearing about veterans how do you keep this up with the waning public interest because it's all something we have to admit, there is waning public interest. and i fear by the end of this year it's going to get even worse. >> i'm glad you asked that question. we like to say we invest in people and ideas that can change the world. we're different from a lots of foundations because we're six blocks from the white house. literally in this case, we've found it to be a tremendous benefit to have the opportunity to lead public/private sector initiatives. your question is one of, is there pessimism out there, is there an opportunity. as i sat here this morning and listened to this remarkable group of folks and moved around during conversation time, i am super optimistic, because i

actually think the private sector hasn't been fully tapped for what the private sector is really good at. if you want a marketing campaign, if you want to get in the ether of pop culture, if you want to use technology to help drive a solution. you're usually not looking to government to do that, the remarkable leadership efforts already to take these issues forward, there really hasn't yet been a clarion call. and when ken fisher tacked about people raising their right hand, i'm a believer that my colleagues in philanthropy, my colleagues in business, my fellow citizens want to help. what's really honestly been lacking is a clarion call and clear onrams, where do i get started. this should be the most inside the tent group we have. still we heard questions from this audience, where do i get

started. i'm optimistic, because i think 2.5 million is a very solvable number. we built american online, when we started, only 3% of the people were online at all and it was only an hour a week. it wasn't long before society had changed. we're big believers in leveraging the change. we've seen people come out to be a part of it. the president talked this morning about the goal of the center not really just being dialogue and ideas, but taking those ideas to action. i'm encouraged by the fact that i don't believe it's been fully taken to action yet and i'm looking forward to what might come out of a day like today. >> one of the things you've done is really focus jacksonville

florida, on this issue. you have the largest municipal population of veterans in florida, there's a good reason you're doing that, how have you really involved your community your city. >> sure, i think first of all as the mayor of the city of jacksonville, once you serve your country with distinction, you should be able to get out, get a job and take care of your family. my two boys and my wife get to enjoy our freedom every day for the men and women who have served. i thank god for that. in jacksonville, i made it a top priority because we have a $14.1 billion economic impact on our city. i made it a top priority by first appointing an admiral -- recent admiral, made it a cabinet position. he reports right to the mayor. i want you to stand up.

i want everyone to see you. stand up, thank you. that's the first thing i did, invest in the infrastructure, so i have a full team of people. my director of public works is a veteran, my director of state affairs is a veteran. i brought them on. secondly, i made sure that we forge this public/private partnership i launched a partnership with the jacksonville military coalition many my goal was to put veterans back to work, those seeking jobs. i partnered with a young man, mike fleming of deutche bank. today we have over 200 companies working with the city, putting veterans back to work.

i think the private sector is the engine of our community and i think there's some great opportunities that you can really wrench to get a return on investment for your community. the other thing is i launched what i call a week of valor honoring the veterans not just on veterans day, but having a job fair for veterans, you can't show up to the job fair unless you have a job for veterans, i think it's important to have activities during that week, and then an annual summit on national issues and local issues, particularly local issues as it relates to veterans and the concerns of the military veterans in my area. we worked with the local colleges and universities bringing all the stakeholders together to address the issue of suicide.

i brought all the hospitals together to deal with those issues and come up with best practices. >> your community is not only involved with veterans, but they see veterans working and that it's successful? >> absolutely. >> that's an advantage of being mayor, you can bring attention to whatever you want -- >> jake, can you read about him in your program, team rubicon is a fantastic organization. i've met several veterans in afghanistan who are just incredible people. welcome, jake. when you hear this. jean says she seas this as an opportunity that there is not waning interest, are you seeing the same thing? >> as much of my colleagues in

the space fear the 2018/2019 time frame, the next five years post afghanistan withdrawal and what that's going to mean for funding, i think that the cream of the crop, we've all heard the number 46,000 thrown around today as the number of organizations with some charge in their mission to help veterans come home, i think that the best in class right now, we're trying to figure out ways to do better at measuring and showing progress. wane robinson was up here talking about the efficacy of education. >> students of veterans of america. >> if you don't know that one by now, come on. >> i'm not sure. >> and i think we need to do a better job at this. the space is a very young space, it's not like cancer research or a lot of the other nonprofit

organization spaces and verticals out there that have hundreds of years of history, that have sophisticated ways in measuring their progress. this is a post 9/11 vertical. we all know there were only -- there were hundreds of organizations before 9/11, there have been thousands of organizations that have sprung up afterward, and there's a new focus on veterans issues now. as a vertical in the nonprofit sector, we have to do a better job of measuring our impact. the best organizations the ones that will survive and continue to grow past this five-year window are going to be those that can prove the efficacy of our work. that's troubling and very hard. it's particularly hard in a space that -- or within an organization has resource constraints. it's hard to set up the systems and the programs and dedicate the man-hours to measuring output, to measuring progress. and often people are iladvised

on what outputs they're measuring. a lot of times we find organizations that are measurings inputs as h instead of outputs. there used to be a system to go to the case foundation and make a case of why an investment needs to be made. we've done a very good job over the last two years of measuring our impact in the disaster zone, if we go out and deploy, we can go back to our donors and show the economic output, the economic impact of our activities, in moore, oklahoma a response that cost us $400,000 to deploy military veterans in the course of five weeks, we had an economic impact of $3.7 million back into that community

based on the work we did. we have a 7x return on investment. we need to do a better job of measuring the effect -- the impact we have on veterans coming home we're trying to partner with ibmf and some other organizations that do data well. we're a burg of marine sergeants, but we don't understand the numbers as well. >> i wanted to say, i've been in the fortunate position, not only is disney my parent company. that's not why i called on you, i couldn't see you. but has made a real commitment to veterans not only in hiring veterans but as abc television has made a commitment covering veterans issues, which is

fantastic, i'm also involved in the bob woodruff foundation. he was terribly injured in iraq in 2006, and he and his wife leigh have devoted their lives to helping veterans, one of the things the woodruff foundation does is what you're talking about, trying to find where -- first of all, you have to raise the money, ann marie dougherty is here and helps us with that, but also, to do due diligence on who to give it to and who is getting results, and that is something we have to continue to measure. i want to also turn now before we go again on each of these topics to kent hance p.m. we heard a lot about education and how some of the veterans are using the money that they get from the g.i. bill.

a lot of it seems to be going online. what can you do in the colleges and -- >> i think the first thing -- you have to put the resources in. >> you do have that accent i love it. >> my boss and my heart are in west texas, where the highway ends and the west begins. we need a little humor in here. one of the things that -- if you don't put the resources in, you're not going to get a rate of return, and lee iacocca once said that the vision and the ideas at the top will be throughout the organization. that's so important, when i got to texas tech, we had one person. we have 12 now. the last three years we've had a national football game wounded warriors. we had more people with a purple

heart award on the field than ever been assembled in the united states. we had 326 on the field. our head coach, his dad was on the field. he was a purple heart representative from vietnam. we emphasized that, we got 1600 veterans and dependents at texas tech. you have one place you go, we don't care what your question is we're going to be able to help you, and the average student that comes to texas tech as a veteran, we allow the average, 26 hours that they transfer in. some of those they took, but a lot of them are things they did when they were in the service. if a young person's been a medic, there's no sense of making repeat courses if they're going to nursing school.

>> i've heard that problem. you can be a medic and you can come out and not get a job. >> we don't let them start all over. we let them have credit for what they've done, they've been on the field doing it. it's not that they've been in the classroom, i think that's something else. and the word gets out, when we graduate someone in the military, they have a camo stowe. and we introduce them, and they get a standing ovation. every year, i've never seen it fail. we introduce the people that have served, and we appreciate their service. we also have a training program for faculty members, they are certified as green zone. they have a door knob hanger to let the students know that's someone you can talk to about whatever problem that they're military friendly and we have a

bunch of them. you have to attack it in every way. >> how do you get to the colleges and universities that aren't attacking it in every way. i'm thinking of something personal, a woman who went to college not in texas, at her graduation speech which was in 2007, they did not -- which were the years of -- she started college in 2003 when the iraq war started. and she graduated in 2007. no one mentioned the war in that entire commencement speech, it was never mentioned, to me was pretty stunning. and some friends of mine noticed that at my daughter's commencement. how do you get those colleges who aren't? >> well, one of the things i would say is the amount of money that you're going to bring in, we have 12 staff members working on that, but we brought more money in, because we had more students, they're paying tuition. it's been something that's been positive for us.

it's been positive for the veterans, i think they're messy, we talk about diversity in this country, if you want diversity, go to the military, bring veterans in. i tell my students, that diversitisome so important. i want to know people that can tell them what it was like in certain areas of the world, protecting the united states i still come back to saying you have to put the resources in, you have to be aggressive, you have to let people know. one of our 12 staff members told me a story, he bumped into a young man. the guy looked like he was lost. he was at texas tech and he wanted to apply for admission, and the reason was he had seen a football game where we honored

the military veterans. and when we had the purple hearts, we had him come out, we had a flyover. it's a big deal. i mean we put on a great show, and people leave and they're proud. and i think that's the attitude that you have to have. we're proud of our students that are going into the military. we also introduce them separately at graduation we have four graduation ceremonies in may and december. there's a lot of people there, but they always give them a standing ovation. i mean, it's a proud moment. >> i'm sure it is. and i've seen many of those proud moments, jean, i want to go back to you, something jake was talking about, how do you measure the effectiveness of some of these programs that you're interested in that the

case foundation is interested in. >> if you agree that it's still somewhat early days. i'm hesitant to say that, if you have a need, every day probably feels like a year. we need to bring urgency to everything we do, i do believe if we were to step back, we're still early days and there's an opportunity to do things. some of the research we saw this morning, the worst thing for me is, when you come together in an initiative, whether it's public/private or just private or whatever, you don't have the data our foundation has funded other data, a lot of you participated in other studies, we're starting to get clear data which is great news, we know what we need to target. if we can get smarter about where the impacts are, the return on investment, we actually need to not have 46,000 organizations, we need a small

number of really really great organizations, having a significant impact and i do think each organization struggles with -- and jake hit on it, it isn't input, it's what were the outcomes of those that you set out to serve and how do you measure that, i can tell you, i'm really impressed with what i'm already seeing in terms of a focus on return of investment for many organizations we know and have worked with, and i would say even that question of, how do we define impact is a great way for the private sector to come along and play a role. because trust me, the private sector has really got it down about how do you look at return on investment getting pro bono support, here's our data, but what do they need to see to know we're having an impact here, i'm

encouraged i think there's a huge opportunity. but where we'll really be seeing some big differences is when we know the things that are there that can be scaled. i think that's what the private sector -- >> how do you scale that? >> we had someone we knew who was a mental health counselor, a psychologist, she had been seeing families, we're in the d.c. area, so we have a lot of military families and vets. she was hearing time and time again, we can't get in, the system's overloaded there's clearly a problem that more resources are needed than the system has whether you want to argue that problem or not, that's what every doctor was hearing. she said, i can't handle this, what can i as one person do, she came to us with a vision, what if we created a clab tigs in the

nation, started with a pilot, to ask each counselor out there to give an hour a week, and she called to give an hour. the lieutenant general mentioned this morning he was a beneficiary of that. that was a greated in. when it was clear that the outcomes were there then we basically did sustainable funding. it's a large organization that has not only 7,000 health counselors around the nation. we can go from 7,000 literally it's unlimited in terms of the connections that can take place between those who need it and those who are willing to provide the services. >> i think it's really important, with 36,000 organizations out there, we've run enough experiments. we can -- we should be able to pick winners moving forward and invest heavily in them.

if they've been diligent in building a foundation. if they've been diligent in putting together a good core team and instilling the principles that are going to make a 40-year organization a 100-year organization we should have a system for identifying who those organizations are. we need to kohless around those organizations and help them scale. we need to talk to fortune 500 companies that have 58,000 stores across the -- what was it, 58,000? >> 52,000. >> sorry. >> he's not so good with numbers. >> i do want to add to that, though. >> please, jump in, whoever wants to. >> the point is a great within for us. and we give in many different areas across many different nonprofits in the military sector but it's a mile wide and an everyone deep and if we can pull that together so that we

know where we're putting our dollars is having an impact, i think that's a -- you know, that's a big roadblock that if removed, we'd see a lot of money flow in. >> there's not a scarcity of resources, we need to be better and smarter in how we're investing the money that's already at the table. there could be an argument that needs more money. >> in a different way to stay connected, how do you do the collaboration of all of what you do and with the government? i mean, it's somewhat easy to say we need this, we need that. and jean that was a great explanation on how you do that and scale that down. but you're talking about transitioning from government and bringing these warriors out and taking care of them. >> i've seen success, though. >> i think it's -- leadership starts from the top and it's how

you make the case for veterans, in my case, in the city, i sell it add it helps me with my workforce. my goal as mayor is to make sure that the city of jacksonville is the most military, veteran city in america. and i always say to all the military personnel and veterans, i go on all the bases, meet with the commanders every quarter. and i always say to them, when you get out, i want you to make jacksonville your home. making a case so we can compete globally in the marketplace. if you want to expand your company and you want the best workforce, come to jacksonville. i'm doing something about it, partnering with the private sector, we have some great

company companies. csx is one of the best companies in america that hires veterans. florida blue, and they invest back into the community. a good example is the jacksonville jaguars foundation, we have probably the best nfl owner in the country. he committed a million dollars to the city for five years and november of 2013 i open a resource -- a veteran's resource reintegration center to help veterans. city hall is a point of entry for veterans we do every third thursday of the month, resume writing, interviewing skills. we're hands on, they know they can come to city hall, and we'll make sure we leverage our resources. we get a return on investment, the private sector actually sees it. >> i want to ask you, that is a

great example of what you can do and have done in your community. is this a pip cal story. >> unfortunately no. i think we need to find people that are willing to say yes rather than no. a lot of what i've heard today centered on the reasons why we can't do something. centered on the rules, you know, it. i'm a -- i've come to know lieutenant generous sell oneray over the last year he says an interesting thing, he says, rules are made for peace time. when it's wartime, rules are made to be broken. we are literally in wartime right now, but this is a national emergency. this issue of veteran reintegration, veteran suicide, this is a national emergency with national implications. it's time to break rules, the

information sharing. general, we were speaking backstage about how people can take government money to do research and that research is their intellectual property and they are not mandated to share that with people. i wrote my resume during my transition. i was a marine sergeant for four years, i wrote my resume by hand on a piece of paper. i had someone look at it for five minutes. >> that was your transition? >> i probably got yelled at for throwing it in the wrong trash can, but -- i was lucky, i had already been to college, been through resume writing worksh workshops. think about that veteran who is 18, 19 years old, he wrays his resume down. >> and he's full of adrenaline.

>> he can't wait to get out of there, what happens to that resume. make him put it on linkedin. it's a ubiquitous platform they can apply for jobs. >> the vocational skills not just going to college and higher education, vocational skills are something that our need badly. >> those mostly in the community colleges and it's one of the benefits that i still go back to giving people credit for what they've been doing in the military. that's very important. >> joe? >> what i was going to say is, go back to what president bush said. we hire folks for values and we teach them in our situation to be retailers. when i was in the military, many folks here, the way we trained was through skills,

qualification test. when we bring folks into our organization that come from the military and want to be entrepreneurs they go through seven weeks of training, self-paced, it can go longer than that, they have a test of 60 skills they have to master before we turn the keys over to them. we're training them in a career, and i think that's critically important, i know we've talked a lot about a lot of things today, from pts to integration, to medical issues to families and it's all very important. but from my lens it's pretty simple, it's about providing opportunity. these folks, guys -- i'm from chicago, so guys means everybody. they want opportunity, they

don't want handouts, they want a purpose and a mission. and if we provide jobs, the other stuff, it's going to take a lot of work, but it will work itself out. i truly believe that, it's not only a call from me, but many other large organizations in the united states. this is something that should be atoned from the top. we should have targets around it and we should work to meet it, i think it's that simple. >> i want to debunk a little bit this idea that the gov can't partner with companies in private sector, i've been in my role 17 years, we've led numerous initiatives. we do need to break rules, but we need to be clear in our goals and our language set and have a reason why it makes sense for certain members of the people to

be at the table. we launched start up america, and at that time we had noticed that start-ups in the nation were declining and we were all very concerned about it, knowing that start ups were truly the secret sauce of america, and what could we do. we linked arms with a bunch of partners, we partnered with the kaufmann foundation and at the white house with several federal agencies present we went forward with it, today it's providing a terrific platform for veterans who we think are going to be unbelievable assets in the start-up community. just last weekend start-up weekend happened in san diego, that was purely veteran focused, there are these initiatives at that launch. we asked for a billion dollars in corporate resources aimed at start-up organizations and we got there in less than a year i

think that's calls where you say, here's what we're about, here's what we're trying to achieve, join us, let's link arms, we've seen a tremendous response from the private sector, and a willingness from the public sector. mayors, governors, presidents. to say, yeah, it makes sense to have the private sector and part of this. >> i love the words you spoke, opportunity. they want the opportunity, everyone here is helping to provide that. lots of questions for this panel from the audience. yes? >> this isn't so much a question, but a comment. >> i'm here with nick the speaker. my brother is a four-year

marine, he's out now, he had this issue we've been talking about. he applied for multiple jobs in the private sector, and found every reason in the book not to hire him, he resorted to a lot of drinking and depression, he's been diagnosed with ptsd, he has it. he was in okinawa for three years. >> were the employers aware of that? >> yeah, they just -- i mean -- >> he thinks that is the reason he wasn't -- i understand that what they're doing at this level, at the top, the executive level, but the question is, how do you implement it from the executive level down to that branch. the hiring manager? >> that's a really good. let's talk about that, how -- >> my example, i would use is, i

had secretary shinseki come to the area. we sat around the table and talked about, and then i brought the ceo's from the private sector. and we discussed it. someone said it best earlier, it has to start from the top with the ceo. you have to take the fear away. companies and hr directors really need to know, they need to be educated. they need to be informed. >> it does start from the top, there are people at the bottom who can talk about it, right? i know in my own organization, i am a huge advocate for them we have to get stories on about veterans, we have to do this. and people listen. >> they do. i think the key is, at least what's working in jacksonville is, really bringing people together and talking about the issue. not running away from it. putting all the issues on the

table is the key. making sure the ceo and the director of hr and the managers are working together, and really focus on it, so for example i mentioned earlier that we have a job fair. i hosted -- the city hosts a job fair with the jacksonville veteran coalition. that job fair, have you to have a job. there is a lot of work that we go behind the scenes that admiral gillerry and his team are working on, making sure that we inform the hr directors, educating them. it's really about leadership, it's about that commitment to provide opportunity for those veterans. it's hands on. and i can tell you every company in jacksonville -- we have over 200 companies right now sign up large and small. we all meet, we talk, you have to be engaged. one of the things to take away from this session, you can go on our website and literally, you

don't have to be in jacksonville to get a job. we have people coming from all around the country getting a job in jacksonville. we're just basically, i think it's military 101, we're taking a myth out of the transition to hire a veteran. they need training and education. but at the end of the day, like i said, i'm selling it as an asset for my city to have a good workforce, they provide leadership. >> it doesn't mean there aren't huge frustrations and a long way to go on this. and i go back to the comment that we all liked so much, and it happens to be from our disney rep there, but one veteran at a time, and that -- >> one point i'd make, it's about gets folks throughout the organization in the spot that understands the military. >> and familiar with them. >> and they become a catalyst. it's leaders at all levels that understand that. examples at our company, we have several of our franchise sales

managers. one of our heads of defrancisco is military. he's hired several folks that are military. they're out, and they could communicate with these folks in their language and bring them in, and they become our biggest advocates of selling our company to other military. and so i think you have to -- it's a tone at the top, but you have to have folks at all levels that understand it and are committed to it. >> i want to take off on that point too. we're all talking about the marvelous veterans out there, there are incredible veterans who want opportunities in jobs and some of them will have challenges. and those companies have to understand that too. sometimes someone you hire might have pts. that person might face different things, i'm sure you've seen that. >> sure, disabled veterans. i haven't come across pts, but you know, we've got employees with depression, we have employees with cancer.

come on. so this is about what they bring, the skills set they bring, and why it's good for business. >> and that we as a nation have to help. if they do have challenges we have to find our way around that. >> my name is jane horton and p christopher horton, he was an army sniper killed in afghanistan in 2011. i wanted to bring into debate a little bit about all these families that are left behind. i'm here to represent the thousands of widows and widowsers that have lost their main source of income. we don't want to sit at home and cry, we want to be empowered as well. we want to take the american dream that our loved ones gave everything for and do whatever

we can with it. i have many friends that were stay at home moms, they have to find out what kind of career they're going to have. i wanted to throw in here with all the ceo's around, one of the big problems i've come across that upsets me more than anything, as well as other military families is once we lose our loved one in war or if they're killed in action, we still have the military i.d., but at&t and other type of retailers or other organizations that will give military discounts strap us, we're no longer eligible for discounts. it's not the $10 off i get on my phone bill, but that we're being pushed out of the community. most people don't know what to do with us, because they don't deal with us often. i don't necessarily think about me, i think about the mother with the child that goes to a theme park or a museum.

they tell them, we're sorry, we don't know what that i.d. means, we can't help you. >> those are excellent points. thank you. >> i do want to throw that to the panel here particularly about empowering the spouses, the family, those left behind. >> well, i was a marine sniper, and i'm very sorry for your loss. i can't offer you a job, i can't promise to offer military spouses or military widows jobs. but if you want to come and serve in your husband's honor, team rubicon would love to have you, and we'll go kick butt. >> and 7-eleven too. >> yes, but i can't offer a job, and so -- you can come see us,

we'll figure it out. we'll work with you to figure it out. >> and the mayor will help too. >> absolutely. >> absolutely. >> if you're willing to relocate, jacksonville. right now, the admiral's here, we'll make it happen. >> thank you so much for bringing that up. it's an important point. ceo's and everyone should listen to your second point as well. another question? >> i'm pretty good at pointing there. >> i'm charlene stark, the executive director for hope for the brave. i've seen this success at texas tech because the proper resources were invested. i also agree with the comments that we have a sense of urgency,

we have a short window of opportunity to help these veterans make a successful transition. my question is for jean case. how can we engage your leadership in helping to educate other foundations and funders of the importance of focusing on this area during the next five to seven years, so we can make a real difference now versus spending the next five to seven years trying to educate the 99% who haven't served. >> so i'm in the 99%. i haven't served. but i feel grateful to be on the stage because of the 1%. and wherever i go and those that i talk to, i mentioned the support we give and the st

strategic nature. we talk about that i think what i'm going to go away from, we'll walk out here with, what happens to the things? how do they turn into action. for me as i sat here, i tried to make it clear, i believe we can step up our game, i believe we're missing something if i'm only talking to my foundation colleagues. if i'm only talks about it in front of an audience. i think there's a really big idea here, and in some cases, you know, going back to the 46,000, there are some things out there already, and i actually would love to talk to the young woman who spoke earlier, there are some people we can connect her with. how can we get traction it's

beyond us talking. is there something more beyond us talking. if you're a citizen and you want to support, if you're a company and you want to support, or you're a nonprofit or philanthropy. i think we have to make it clear, it's what i said at the beginning, ready, willing and able. and the case foundation would be happy to engage in discussion with folks here who might want to talk about that further. >> thanks, jean. great point. >>. >> my name is jeff hinsley, i'm a leadership fellow i'm also the program counselor in texas. and we have a veteran's program, where we're changing lives every single day, we don't have a big microphone. i mean, we do right now, we don't typically, and we're not

able to compete with nonprofits. i think the argument can be made much of the heavy lifting is coming at the local level with local nonprofits, i wonder if you would speak to that, and how we can get our voices heard. >> i can tell you in jacksonville. >> i'm going to take kent on this. >> we have an equine program at texas tech, it's a good program. the other thing on the prior question, of our 12 people working full time, they give just as much attention to a dependent as a veteran. the equine program is great, and i appreciate you're doing that. >> i was going to say we bring all the not for profits together every quarter, they meet with the mayor, the rank and file. i work with them, because it helps me to leverage assets and

secure resources. we actually meet every quarter in the city and it's powerful. we know what we're doing. one of the ideas i have is to eradicate homelessness among veterans. you have to work with the stakeholders to make that happen. we have over 200 homeless veterans off the street, stabilized with a job, in a home. that's working with everybody. bringing that coalition together. >> one more question? yes. >> i applaud everybody's participation. >> can you give us your name and affiliation. >> linda davis i'm currently on taps and serve on the student board of veterans of america, the elizabeth dole foundation and a few others. i was honored to work for

president bush and implement the dole shalala recommendations with the help of almost everybody in this room. let's not start fresh, let's build on the legislation instructions, directives that are in place under the previous administration and this administration. we have things that are there to integrate care from a session to survivors, if we look at things like the recovery care plans and the national resource directory, which can be the one single source for things like these 46,000 different services to be integrated and add to it, the rating systems and the results

reporting and the disemenation reporting that you have all so keenly focused that does need to be done. thank you very much. >> not a question, but a good way to end there. i would like to go down the row, some final thoughts. >> this is great. i -- first of all, i appreciate president bush in all that he's done and this institute is doing. on various issues. and this is cutting edge. i appreciate the opportunity to get a chance to tell you about what we're doing. we're proud of it. you're going to see another wounded warrior game on television this year. >> one of the things we talk about with team rubicon and in the veteran space is that we have to continue to continue to peel back the layers and look at these symptomatic issues and think more abstractly about what we need to get to the root of

the problem. our output is in purpose and community for those returning service members who may have lost when they took off the uniform. i always challenge people to think of deeper about the issue and get to that core, that sense of >> a sense of mission, a sense of purpose. or maybe not. and what that really -- the impact that that potentially has and some of the issue that is we've been talking about, which aren't true. >> i just want to say i think the conversation is awesome. i think bias towards the action, we've got a lot of very influential people in this room. a lot of influential people that we interact with. and a lot of them know about the importance that a set is havete

brings. if we put veterans to work, i really believe that we're going to get the other stuff solved. >> i want to thank president bush for making this session happen. mcgill and his team, i think that's exactly what this is for. we have an opportunity to really reedge kat and reedgeucate and inform. they can add to the bottom line and create hope and opportunity. >> so i work with mba students at georgetown. and i've been taking them through something which was a '90s business book which was pretty popular called "crossing the chasm." it's moving people from, eh, why do i need this? what's it all about to oh my gosh, i can't live without it. i have to do something here. and i think we have to cross the chasm.

i feel like a broken record. but 99% do care. i'm not sure it's entirely 99%, but it's most folks out there. no matter their sector. no matter their role. i think we have to take seriously leaving this group today. how do we cross the chasm? how do we really create a significant movement here? i think the appetite and the care is there. we just have to do the work, i think, of showing them the way. >> thanks to you all. the words i'm going to take away are opportunity and eugene case traction. i think that is what this is about. traction. everything that happened today, we want to happen. we want to go forward. we want to connect all of those dots. and i will add one word, and that is remember. thank you very much for the opportunity, and we'll turn it over to colonel howell.

>> thursday, general motors, ceo testifies about the general recall, nearly 600 million vehicles.

>> so i wanted to ask what forces are contributing to this lackluster housing recovery. >> well, you know, housing did seem to be recovering throughout most of the recovery. it looked like it was on a reasonably solid course, recovering from a very low level. and then we saw, essentially, a cessation of progress when mortgage rates rose significantly last year. i think my expectation was that that would be a temporary setback for housing and with mortgage rates higher and still at very low levels, and with a period of very weak household

formation, i expected that we would see a rebound by now, a pick-up in the housing sector. frankly, it continues to be sluggish. and i can't give you a precise reason why that's occurred. we're certainly aware of the fact that mortgage credit remains very, very tight. so i said several times this morning, for a wide range of borrowers. that may be part of it. we also hear about some supply constraints that perhaps builders face. perhaps that may be part of it. >> so what more do you think the fed can do to help stimulate recovery in the housing sector, both for those homeowners who are upside down in the values as well as to help new entrants be

able to qualify for home sns. >> housing prices are continuing to increase. and they have increased substantially. and i think particularly in the markets that saw the worst booms and busts. i think there are a large fraction of homeowners who are under water. if you look at the aggregate in numbers, just the increase in house prices that we have seen, and that is, in part, reflecting our accommodative monetary policy. many fewer borrowers are under water. the numbers have diminished substantially. i know the las vegas area, particularl particularly,is one of the most hard hit and still has if not the highest, about the highest numbers on this. and i think that's helping. and i think eventually, we will see greater progress in the housing market. but, you know, there are many

impediments that servicers face in the aftermath of the problems and the foreclosure prons we've had during the crisis. things have not yet settled out there. >> 40 years ago, the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. american history visits this weekend opening statements from the house judiciary committee as members consider articles of impeach. against president nixon. the outcomes accepted, stands of a symbol of our national unity and commitment. so if the judgment of the people is to be reversed, if the

majority is to be undone, to the action of the elected representativ representatives, than it must be for substantial and not attributable offenses. >> watergate, 40 years later. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on cspan-3. next, attorney genric holder is the featured speaker at a ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of the signing of the civil rights act. from washington, d.c., this is 50 minutes. >> please welcome the interim president of howard university, dr. wayne a.i. frederick.

>> it is an honor for the university to host this symposium which will explore the history and future of this ground breaking legislation. it is my pleasure for the groups in attendants and contributions to today's program. our esteemed program guests, cabinet members, including those whom we are honored to have in our program today, attorney holder, secretary perez and secretary duncan. white house officials, members of congress and other elected officials, leaders of various agencies that are represented today, leaders and stake holders for the civil rights community and the distinguished members of

the howard university students, staff and alumni. the long road to the passage of civil rights act of 1964 was paved with the countless footsteps of many americans who marched, held sit-ins, staged boycotts and ended freedom rides. the call for comprehensive civil rights legislation gave momentum in 1963. our civil rights activists continue to organize peaceful demonstrations throughout the country. after hundreds of nonviolent protests, president john f. kennedy delivered a nationally televised speech. after president kennedy's assassination, president