accurate recordings of what they said and the complete, unedited recordings. >> if i might respond. >> we're going to compound injury upon injury if we're going to admit to this committee a set of transcripts that are inaccurate that distort exactly what happened. we have a responsibility to ensure that they're complete and accurate. >> as the gentleman is requesting that a transcript of the public video be made a part of the record? >> yes, these are the public videos that appear on -- >> so much like a transcript of any other program that is made available through a news organization or anything else, that's what the gentleman is requesting. >> may i reserve the right to object? >> you are not characterizing it. you're putting into the record the public, a transcript of the public record. >> reserving the right to object. >> what purpose? >> i would like to comment, it

has been the policy of the committee to tonight putting anything in the record of whatever of any evidentiary value. so i understand that tradition and it is not my intention in the end to object. but i would like to note that if we are going to agree with this, we must also include the forensic report by the fusion group that analyzed the video showing that it has no evidentiary value. >> if the gentle woman wishes to offer that, i would be happy to put that in the record as well. >> that would be my request. >> without objection both of those documents can be made a part of the record. and now recognize the gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you to the witnesses for being here today and offering your differing viewpoints on this difficult issue, and i know the passion that accompanies both sides as well as passion from high colleagues. i'm still struggling with what exactly this hearing is about. issues have been raised with respect to the fetal tissue

research. it's clear that there are established scientific protocols that were followed. there was a correspondence in the record from august 27th that confirms that. there's been a lot of discussion about late-term abortion, which, of course, is prohibited under federal law. and then a lot of discussion about the central question about whether women have a constitutional right to make decisions regarding their own reproductive health care. that's also a settled question of law. you reviewed these and they revealed many legal issues regarding fetal tissue procurement. and you based it on your view of these video recordings, and them were you asked about a series of allegations that laws may have been broken in the generation of these videos, federal tax laws, laws in california that prohibit fraud and forgery, making false charitable solicitations and the

like. and that he intends to invoke his fifth amendment right. and you said further that you were advised by this committee not to discuss the circumstances that occurred in the production and editing and alteration and securing of these videos, is that correct? ? >> as you're aware, the purpose of this hearing, that is not -- >> that is not my question. were you advised by the committee counsel not to discuss the allegations of criminal behavior in the generation of these videos? >> no. >> yes or no. >> i'm not answering yes or no to that question. >> you said you were not. >> you misstated what i was advised about, so how can i say yes or no. >> were you advised not to discuss how these videos were produced. >> i was advised that is not the purpose of the hearing and i shouldn't comment. >> what this really is, mr. chairman is creating an

opportunity to defund planned parenthood and to make it more difficult for women to have access to full reproductive health care. we know the value of planned parenthood each year provides essential care to 2.7 million patients, men and women. one in five women of the united states has visited planned parenthood once in her lifetime. that 1.5 million adults and young people have information readily available. 700 clinics throughout the country have provided 900,000 cancer screenings to help women dete detect krifx cal cancer. hundreds of thousands of children, siblings and parents are still able to be with their loved ones because of planned parenthood saved their lives.

i want to associate myself with the comments made by congressman deutsch. the cruel irony to defund planned parenthood which is already prohibited to use any federal funds for abortion services means that the other 97% of the service which i just outlined would be compromised. so douefunding planned parentho is likely to cause the thing they don't want which is more abortions. >> the campaign against abortion goes beyond abortion and it's also a campaign against contraceptives. we've seen that campaign heat up recently. and there's a number of -- i just wrote a paper about this, not to promote my own research, but, called contraceptive

comstockery which has revised some of the tactics of anti-abortion and anti-contracepti anti-contraceptive advocates into the late 18 hundreds and 1950s. >> many of us had hoped that this issue has been settled. women have the right to full reproductive health care. they have the right though make decisions about their own bodies and consultation with their own physicians and their own conscience and to have our first hearing of the judiciary hearing to make it more difficult for women to access high-quality health care is disappointing. >> the chair recognizes -- >> i would enter into the record an opening statement. >> without objection it will be made part of the record. >> as i have said many times, many times as being a member last time on this last congress

and now this congress. i'm sort of down here toward the end, and after hearing everything, there are many times that you come to points of really wondering, you know, the points of why we're here, and i'm able to talk about a lot of different things. ms. smith, i may, i'm not even sure, and i may get to questions. what i've heard from you is context. i'm not sure any of these you could ever put into proper context. i don't care how many ways you want to spin it. what was on those videos and what was said, there's no way you put some of these in context that are not abhorrent to anyone who would watch those videos, but i think there's a bigger issue here that really for me carries out something. you made a statement in your opening statement about, you talk about, and i've heard this, and i've counseled many who have either had abortions or was thinking about abortions in my

life but also as an attorney. a baby is disabled, we need to terminate the pregnancy, as if someone on the outside can determine a quality of life. and that, frankly, from my position, was what was mentioned by a friend of mine, he's a friend. we disagreed greatly on this issue. it is many times a mom and a dad who are facing a tough decision. just like we did 23 years ago. when my daughter -- we found out she had spinal bifida. my wife went back to work. and in a time of much emotional turmoil, a colleague of hers said, i'm in very interesting ways i am aebing helpful. you know, you have choices. you don't have to go through

this. we were a young couple back then. she was just starting teaching, and i was working. yeah. there's life choices made, ms. smith. but, as you go along, and you look at this, my wife finally figured out ha she was trying to tell her. she was telling her, you can go kill your child and you won't have to worry about it anymore. when my wife understood that, she said you're talking about my baby, not a fetus, a baby. today i think we miss this. and this is what gets lost in this debate about quality of life and other issues of when they're born and how they're not born. but the two of you have lives that are so productive, that were, you're not a failure. you're a failure of a misguided person who would want to kill you before you could say you're killing me. but you're not a failure. cerebral palsy, i love how you said that, my blessing. i never thought id va a chance

to think that the first steps my daughter would ever take was rolling in a wheelchair. she texted me earlier today. and she bawas just asking how yr day was going. i said it's a pretty hard day. didn't tell her what i was doing. she's at a place getting job skills and life training to be independent. and she said, well, dad, whatever you're going through, i'm praying for you. my child has a life. and there are many in the abortion industry that are willingly telling people that if you have a child that has the most debilitating condition or even up to spina bifida, you don't have to go through with it. we forget in this today, i'm so over context, and we like this

clinic better than other clinics. there are other clinics that can help women and in these issues. you know that. you may not like them. but it's your choice. but i am so over the fact that we miss a fundamental issue hire, ahir here, and that's life. for me, i commend the hearing, i think it is something, because i just don't sigh a context it can actually be explained away. we want to, and if i was you, ms. smith i'd want to as well. but at the end of the day, let's stand up and ask the hard questions and remember that life, and remember that those, as you said, even those who don't really have a voice, if we don't let them have a voice, then they are silent. for many of us, we'll never be silent, because life is precious, and for me, they deserve a birthday, and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. peters. >> thank you. it's been a long day fort

witnesses in particular. i want to thank you for being here. i do observe that there's a sad, a cruel irony in those who say they are against abortion trying to defund an organization that works so hard to prevent them. and one of the core admissions of planned parenthood is to prevent unwanted pregnancies and my colleagues apparently want to shut it down. we're late in the day. and a lot of people have said a number of things, but i'd emphasize a couple. we called out as taxpayers here. and i'm a taxpayer too. and i want you to know that appreciate what planned parenthood has done to prevent stds, to give cancer screenings to low-income women, and to provide contraceptive care. all of those things save us money as taxpayers. that should not be lost on us. we've commented that the person who made the video is not here, and in my experience in law that

would be an important witness, but that's been covered. and i'd say, too, that, you know, i acknowledge, and i agree that the discussion of these issues on these videos was somewhat disturbing, at least insensitive. the issue for us in the judiciary committee is to look at what's legal, and just on that point, i don't think anything today has shown that there's been something illegal here. and, if you wanted to test that, you could ask the opponents if they would agree that there was a schedule of the amounts that they would agree was reimbursement as opposed to profit. and they would never agree that $30 was the receipt number or $50 was the right number. because that's not really what's at issue here of the legality of this is not the issue. this is about abortion choice, contraception and everything but legality. i'd also observe that planned parenthood has not been accused of committing fraud, violating

licensing laws, violating the medicaid statute. so there is a legal issue with respect to carving them out for medicaid. and that's been litigated in a number of states, because any provider may provide these kinds of care unless they're found to have violated these laws. planned parenthood hasn't been. and attempts to cut them off in tennessee, indiana, arizona, north carolina, have all been fruitless for those reasons. so, i, i think it's illuminating in many ways to have this hearing. i think it hasn't really been about legality, it's been about a much broader issue, an issue we all thought would have been settled 40 years ago. that these are decisions that are very, very difficult for families, and my colleague just shared his. and gosh, what a thing to have to go through. le but they are not decisions that ultimately should be made by our government.

they are decisions to be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor in consultation with her family. it's not for the united states government or any government to say how a family should handle that i have tough issue. with respect to the legality, i hope we've run our course. we've had enough time to discuss it. i don't think we have found what legality would justify any fourth discussion on this and i would yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> you did not deserve to be called ignorant by mr. nadler. i think you made a very informed decision when you called this hearing and appreciate you doing so. and following near the end as i apparently have, get a chance to address some of the things that have been raised. first of all, my friend from new york, mr. nadler said these people who did the videos were liars because they would have, if they were otherwise, if the

videos were legitimate, they would have gone to the prosecutor to get these matters prosecuted. but i can answer that, because i've advised people that came in as whistle employ blowers about about their administration where they defend them at all costs as they all have even after the videos were made public. unfortunately, if you go to a prosecutor as a whistle blower on an organization or group that this administration protects, they prosecute you. i have seen that over and over. and that's why, at times, i've advised people you get a lawyer. and we go a different route, but if you go to the justice department, you will find it's a department of injustice. because we've seen it over and

over with this administration. and, as far as cutting and being selective they did take excerpts and put them online, but they also put the long video, just so that people would not be able to come in here and honestly say what has been dishonestly said, that they were only trying to show a portion. they cut straight to what they fe felt was important, but they put the whole thing up there. then, as far as the continued statement that the first hearing this chairman called after the august recess was to launch an attack on wellomen's health, i this as a hearing to protect the health of females. i see the fox news show "outnumbered." that's been my life for many years now. i have a wife for 37 years.

thanks to her. and i have three wonderful daughters. the and our first was born eight to ten weeks prematurely. she got down to three pounds before she started gaining weight again. i know what it is to hold a three-pound child in my hand. and i didn't know whether to stay with my wife and toddler to follow the ambulance. my wife said go do anything you can for our child. i followed the blachblts the doctor said she can't see you. her ice aren't good enough, but she hears you. she knows your voice. you talk to her, you caress her. she grabbed the end of my finger, and she held it. they said i could stay for two hours at a time. after eight hours, after they had noted she's pulling strength and life from you, i couldn't leave. i stayed for hour after hour. but the thought that somebody could take that little

three-pound child and rip her leg off or rip her arm off and not consider that inhumane, or the thought that if we take this little child's heart or liver or organs and use it for a productive purpose for somebody else's life then it's okay. and what really came home is a couple nights ago i was, i'm in the old testament right now. and was reading about a woman that came complaining to the prophet and she was in a city that was under siege, and she complained that another woman had talked her into a deal where the first time they would boil her little baby and eat the child, and then after that, they would boil the second woman's child and eat that child. well, let's face it, come on, this hearing, we've heard over and over if it's to save lives, it's okay. i could not believe how

reprehensible that was, how immoral. and that seems to be happening. but i can tell you, i want my girls to have mammograms. and whether they have money or not, i want them to have mammograms, so doesn't it make more sense to give that money for those of us who deeply care about women's health, give it to facilities that actually do the mammogram so that planned parenthood doesn't take their cut. and, when anyone says, oh, but it doesn't go to fund abortions, listen, i've been a judge, i've been a prosecutor, i've been a chief justice, and if somebody says, well, look, we paid all the rent and all the utilities for this facility, knowing that a crime was being committed in there, you have aided and abetted and you are as guilty as the principal for what happens in that facility, and i see my time's up, and i thank you mr. chairman for your indulgence. >> chair thanks the gentleman.

gentle woman from california >> i'd like consent to put into the record a letter from the california pliemary care that they do not have the act to pick up of the case work from planned parenthood. >> i want to thank all of our distinguished witnesses for attending. we will soon announce the date of the next hearing. and without objection all members will have five legislative days to submit written questions for the witnesses for additional materials for the record. this hearing is adjourned.

the house plans to debate legislation thursday that would ban all federal funding for planned parenthood unless the organization agrees to stop performing or funding abortions. you can see live house coverage on our companion network, c-span. there will be two days of hearing this week on the recent gold king mine spill near silverton, colorado. the smil released millions of

gallons of contaminated water into the animas river and has tainted other rivers in colorado, new mexico and utah. epa's gina mccarthy and her agency have taken full responsibility for the incident. her senate testimony is live tomorrow at 10:00 on c-span 3. sally jewel will talk about the federal response. that's live at 10:00 eastern as well. also on c-span 3. joining us from new york is former governor george pataki, a 2016 republican presidential candidate. governor, thanks very much for being with us. >> good being on with you. >> when you first entered this race you said that you could win if voters pay attention to you. are they? >> i think right now there is one major distraction that is

really focussing much of the media attention. but it's still early in the process. i think the honest answer is not yet, but i think there's still a very good chance that they will. >> how do you get there? what's your path to the nomination? >> i think people are going to want government that works. they're going to want a leader who has a proven record of being able to bring people together and actually solve problems and make changes. and who has a vision as to how you need to do that and can do it in washington. and that's me. you know, i'm very proud of my record as a conservative republican in a deep blue state. i grew up on a little farm in upstate new york. and you learn on a farm that it's not about the words. anybody can say anything. it's about what you actually do. and when we look beyond the words of the candidates in this race and what they've done and what they can do, i think people are going to say, we've got a lot of problems facing our country. we need a mature leader who's actually shown they can govern, and that would be me.

>> you are a fiscal conservative, but you are pro choice, so how is that going to play out in a primary, especially among pro-life republicans? >> that gets to where i was just saying it's all words but nothing happens. it's been 42 years since rowe v. wade. and we continually elect republicans and nothing changes. what would change if i was president of this country, kweed' have a permanent ban using taxpayer dollars for abortion. we would defund planned parent hood. i think it's outrageous that they showed a despicable disregard for life in the marketing and selling of yoorga of a baby. and i don't believe that i should impose my belief on others. we have separation of church and state in this country, but it

comes a point where it's not my religious belief but science, science says yes, this is a viable life, they can be sustained outside the womb. in that case you have a baby whose life should be protected. what the politics of this are i can't tell you. the philosophy is very simple. politicians shouldn't be given the power to dictate our lives, but when science says it is a life we have the obligation to protect it. >> if a president pataki were to appoint a supreme court justice, would this be a litmus test issue? >> no litmus test. but i believe the constitution clearly lays out the fact that laws are supposed to be enacted by the elected representatives of the people and not imposed by unelected judges, justices of the supreme court, based on what they think would be a good policy. so i would have a supreme court justices who believe in the constitution, understand their role is to interpret the law and not make the law. >> you passed on this race four

years ago but entered earlier this year. what's different today? >> i think the need for change is that much greater. america's stature in the world has declined dramatically over the last four years. our national security is at risk in a way that i haven't seen since september 11th, whether it's radical islam or emergent china or russia that is very aggressive to say the least in europe and central europe. so, i think our natural security situation is worse. and our economic condition is very fragile. we just saw the gyrations in the stock market and the concern that people have. and we're not having the job growth. we're not having the economic recovery. we don't have that sense of optimism in america's economy going forward that we should have. and i think it all comes down to one thing, and that is a failure of leadership in washington, whether it's the economy or national security or america's standing in the word. with the right leadership, we

can turn it around and give americans confidence in our future. >> let's talk about your own political career. how did a lawyer from peekskill, new york become the mayor of new york city? >> i went out, got a great education, started on wall street with a big law firm, and it just wasn't for me. i wanted to go home. i actually moved back to peekskill to our little farm. i ran the farm with my family. and then decided that if you like a community, and if you don't believe in the leadership, you have two options ms you can either sit on the outside and complain, which isn't very effective or get involved and try to change it. so i ran. and it was a very democratic city against a democratic incumbent that's been largely the story of my political life. but the people believed in me and gave me the chance to lead that city. and i believe i left it in a better condition than when i took office. >> how did you win that race?

>> you know, hard work. door to door, not being a partisan, you know, in that city, democrats were first, independents were second, republicans were third in enrollment. so i knew i had to just forget about partisan politics and have ideas that appealed to people based on the strength of those ideas. and that was a great lesson for me that i've kept my entire life. it's not simply partisan politics. it's ideas and a vision that appeal across party lines, and that was a great lesson for me in my first race running for mayor in my hometown, and it's a message that america could use more of in washington where people shouldn't have this blind partisan loyalty, we shouldn't have this partisan divide. once the elections are over, we're all americans. and if we're going to solve our problems, we have to roaeach ou across party lines and governor on solutions and not partisanship. >> let me ask you about the farm

that you still operate, your appearance regularly on saturday mornings in the farmer's market. safe to say you're the only republican or democratic presidential candidate that operates a farmer's market or at least sells at a farmer's market. >> it's something that's been in my blood since i was a little kid. my grandfather made his living going through town with a horse and wagon selling the vegetables from the farm. now we raise grass-fed beef cattle and market it, including in new york city. and it's just something that i've always loved. you're connected to the land. it's something where it's tangible. it's not pushing papers or making money with a stock deal on wall street. you actually grow something, pick it, harvest it, sell it to a consumer who enjoys it. so i hope to be doing that the whole way through my life. >> what makes your beef

different? >> now you want me to be a marketer. it is grass-fed, hormone free, it's really good and healthy for you. so that is something that's different. and in fact, we have a young guy who moves the cattle every day or two on a horse from one paddock to another, and it's really kind of neat. and farming teaches you the value of hard work. you can't skip a day. it doesn't matter if you don't feel good or it's cold out. you still have to get the job done. it teaches you never to cut corners because it's going to come back to bite you down the road. you can't cover it up by blaming somebody else. it teaches you that words don't matter, that you have to get the job done. and it doesn't matter if you claim you've done something, either you did it or not. and it teaches you to persevere. because, you know, mother nature can be pretty, pretty wild out there. and sometimes you'll think you have things all ready to go, and a storm will come along, and you just have to pick yourself up

and do it again. so i think it's a great lifestyle, a great life lesson about the value of hard work and just sticking to it, regardless of the ups and downs that you're going to see. >> you're mayor in the late '80s and later you ran for the state senate, why? >> i always ran against democratic incumbents for mayor, the assembly, governor. when i was mayor, i thought i did a very good job in getting the city headed in the right direction. but it was always so frustrating that so much of the control of what you could do was from government at a higher level. in this case, the state level. so i wanted to change that, and i ran and got involved. and you know, it was interesting. in the assembly, it was overwhelmingly democratic. so it was hard to get my ideas through, although i worked well with the majority and did get some things done. and the republicans controlled the senate, so every republican who wanted to be in the state legislature, wanted to be in the senate, because that's where could you be in the majority.

and i got there, and within a month i hated it. because they were more concerned about getting reelected, about taking care of the constituents that helped them get reelected than about changing the state. and we had a very liberal, failed state government at the time. and instead of standing up and trying to change it, they accommodated it so they could get reelected. so within literally a month or two of getting elected i said this isn't for me. i'm either going to be in a position where i can really change the state, or i'm going to get out of politics and do something else. >> let me ask you about the issue of corruption. because there have been a number of state lawmakers in new york who have been convicted of influence peddling and taking bribes. why has it been so prevalent in albany over the years? >> i'll tell you. it's just awful what has happened. we just see legislator after legislator indicted. and too many of them convicted. i think part of it is that separation of powers prevents the executive, except under rare

circumstances from going after the legislature. when i was governor, we put in place a number of ethics reforms. we created the mill stein commission that went through and created a series of reforms that changed how authorities functioned. and we i am membered them all. but the legislature would always exempt itself, and it was ultimately the legislature where the vast majority of this corruption has come from. finally, we have prosecutors and press going after it. i think it's a good thing they're going after it. i think it's tragic that it's occurred. but i'll tell you, one of the problems that i see is that legislators stay there 10, 20, 30, 40 years and they begin to think the laws don't apply to them. and it's not just in alban eye, it's in washington too. in washington, congress imposes obamacare, imposes it on everyone but exempts themselves and their staff. they think the rules don't apply

to them. well, they do apply to them. and one of the things i want to change in washington is every single law that applies to the american people is going to apply to congress too. and that's the way it should be in the state legislatures. >> in late 1993, early '94, george pataki challenges governor mario cuomo. what did you see in that race that ultimately led to your election? >> nobody thought i had a chance. i was an outcast in the senate because i had opposed my own party's accommodation of mario cuomo and his liberal policies, but i knew the people wanted to change the direction of the state. i understood new york's government was failing its people. we were dead last in jobs. we were, had the highest taxes, the worst credit rating. we had one of 11 of every man, woman and child in the state on welfare. this was failing. and we were the most dangerous

state in america. so, i knew that if i could get my message out there that it was the government that was failing the people, not the people that were failing. that i could have a chance to beat mario cuomo. and that's, by the way, why i'm running for president. because i have that seam sense that the people understand that our government is failing us in washington. and they don't like the partisan imposition of an ideology by either side. but they want solutions that are going to work to make this country better. i did it in new york and overwhelmingly democratic state. i know i can do it in washington as well. >> in that race, new york's mayor rudy giuliani endorsed governor cuomo, not you. what was the reaction? >> it was a shock and a hurt to me because he was well-known. he had just gotten elected mayor of new york. and i was unknown. here's a republican who doesn't like pataki. he's going to be an extremist, he's too conservative for the state. so it hurt. but on the other hand, i was

talking earlier, when you grow up on the farm, you think you have the best crop and a hurricane comes along and you pick yourself up and go along anyway. and that's what we did. we picked ourselves up and said look, that's what he thinks, but here's why i can lead the state and change things. ultimately, made the case, fought the fight and won. that's exactly what i hope to do here. i was way behind in the polls. i understand i'm way behind in the polls on the republican side now. but there are a lot of serious issues facing the country. i know i have the ability to resolve those issues working as a conservative republican but with democrats as well. and i hope the people, as the election gets cloeter say yeah, pataki is the right guy to bring us together and solve these problems. >> just two questions about governor cuomo. in the last two weeks it began to turn in your favor. what happened? >> just hard work. and making the case that yeah,

rudy giuliani had endorsed mario cuomo, but that didn't change the fact that the state, the government was failing the people. that you didn't have the job you want, we were the most dangerous state, dead last in jobs, and i had an agenda, i had a positive agenda to change the tax laws, to change the criminal justice laws, to replace welfare with opportunity. and people said yes. you know. we don't know this guy. but his ideas make sense. let's give him a chance. and i'm grateful they did. and i think the state should be grateful it did because we did manage to change the state completely. >> what was the situation like between you and mayor giuliani after that? >> it was fine. i've always looked forward, and i've always thought if you look back and say that person did that, that person did the other thing, you're never going to be able to get things done. it's about tomorrow, it's about the future and governing successfully. he was a very successful mayor in new york. and we worked as well together.

i think ago governor and mayor have worked together in a long time. you look today in new york you have the mayor and the governor that barely speak to each other. and generally not in civil terms. and we were able, because we had a common agenda, and looked forward to put it beyond us. and that's what you have to do in washington as well. you can't say this person was for that or this person didn't support me. it's not about your ego. it's about the people and about solutions to the challenges facing our country. and i've always been able to look at the future and about those solutions instead of what people may have said or done in the past. >> and finally, with regard to governor cuomo, he passed away earlier this year. as a political observer, did it surprise you that he never ran for president? that was one of the questions asked during his eulogies and the obituary of governor cuomo. >> it didn't surprise me. he was obviously the great liberal icon of the democratic party. and i think had he run he would have had a great deal of

support. it's a very personal decision, and i respect the fact that governor cuomo ultimately made that personal decision not to run. and i also respect the fact that after i had beaten him, he was extremely gracious in his treatment of me. and never saying well, i told you say or look what he's doing or anything. so you can have those philosophical disagreements, you can run against each other politically, but ultimately, weer an all americans, and i think two often in politics people forget that. and you have to understand that we may have different visions, different ideas as to what the solutions are. but so long as we work together to get to a common future, we can put aside those differences and find the common ground you need as americans to go forward successfully. >> in 1994 you vowed to serve two terms. you ultimately served three. why? >> i'll tell you. we had made enormous progress. we took new york from being the most dangerous state in america to the fourth safest state in

america. we got over 1 million people, replaced them, got them off the welfare roles and got them on the employment rolls. then we had the terrible attacks of september 11th, 2001, and that pretty much instantaneously threw off everything we were trying to do. it was an incredible human loss but an economic catastrophe. we lost 60 million square feet of office space, think about that, in one morning. we lost 100,000 jobs in an hour. we ultimately ended up losing over 300,000 jobs. people didn't want to come to new york. the word was you have to decentralize and you can't have all these businesses concentrated in one small geographic area. so new york is facing another crisis, and you don't walk away from a crisis, you lead through a crisis, and i'm proud that you go to lower manhattan today, it's one of the most exciting

places in america to be. the memorial is one of the most moving places anyone can visit in north america. and millions of people are doing that. and we now have commerce rising, the freedom tower, 1776 feet tall. so when you have a crisis, you don't walk away, you lied through it and make sure you leave the state or the country or the people you care about better off than when you started. >> on that tuesday morning, september 11, 2001, where were you? and at what point did you real eye the magnitude of what was happening? >> i was in the city that morning, and my daughter called me and said dad, a plane just hit the tower, turn on the tv. and she was rattled. she was in the city. and i was talking to her and said well, it was probably a mistake. and then i saw the second plane hit, and i immediately knew that it was a terrorist attack, and i told her i had to get to work, and we activated the space emergency response system. i talked to mayor giuliani, i called president bush and asked him to shut down the airspace,

and he'd already done it. he'd already shut down the airspace over america, and then we just went to work that day. and it was, you could never anticipate it. no one knew what might happen next. it was obviously a horrible time, but it was a time when you just had to put aside all the other concerns and do whatever you could to lead through that crisis. and i'll tell you. that afternoon i spoke to mayor giuliani, and he had been out of pocket for like four or five hours, because he had been trapped under a building when his command center was destroyed. and he called and said i'm back, i'm okay. we have a temporary command center. in about a minute i thought, and i said, i'm bringing my entire team down to meet with yours, and i think that's the most important decision i ever made. from that afternoon on, every day, 24 hours a day, in one room, you had every state official working to get us through september 11th. you had every city official working to get us through september 11th. when the feds came in a day or two later, they were in that

room, and there was never any doubt as to who was going to carry out what mission, and it was that organized, total, synchronized response by all levels of government. plus the strength of the american people that really helped us get through that time. >> let me just take it one step further because so much happened during that first four or five days after the attack. for you personally, what was your schedule like? what was your routine like if you had a routine? >> you didn't really have a schedule, and you didn't really have a routine. we'd be meeting with the city officials and federal officials, and then it would vary, depending on the need of the moment. one moment you'd be meeting with family members to try to console them. one minute you'd be meeting with firefighters and construction workers to urge them, which they didn't need much urging. they were so patriotic and strong in their understanding of the crisis we were facing. and at the same time, you had to

govern in an emergency. we had to do everything to ramp up security. we didn't know what would happen next. it was just constant, constant effort to get us through this. by the way, as i mentioned earlier, the economic crisis was enormous, and the morning of the next day, september 12th, we had a 24-hour economic assistance program going in the lobby of the office building where my office was, where everyone from the corner dry cleaner to american express could come in and get assistance to prevent them from suffering more economic disaster, but it was just, it was a night and day job. by rudy giuliani and his team in the city, by myself and my tim at the state and by the federal officials who were here. but i will tell you one thing i will never forget is the american people, the outpouring of support we had from every corner of america.

we had volunteers. we had experts. we had support. we actually had to set up a command center, a major center to coordinate all the support we were getting from around the country to make sure we controlled who was going down to ground zero to help with the recovery and with the relief efforts, and i'll never forget the spirit of the american people. i'll never forget the strength of new yorkers that day. and one of the most important things i will never forget is the sense of unity that we felt. everything that seems to superficially divide us, republicans, democrats, young, old, black, white, it didn't matter. we were all americans, we had been attacked. we were going to stand together shoulder to shoulder. and the strength in america showed in those days and weeks and i hope we can show that strength again. >> are you worried, are you concerned that we could face another 9/11 type attack here on the homeland? >> yes, no question. i think we are at as great a danger today as we've been at

any time since september 11th. and it's two different types of attack. first we saw what almost happened in garland, texas where american citizens would have been massacred but for a texas cop. and we did see what happened in chattanooga where marine recruiters were murdered by islamic extremists. there are hundreds of thousands of american whose have been radicalized in the name of jihad to attack their fellow americans. we have got to stop this. it is not free speech to try to convince an american to kill other americans in the name o e jihad. we've got to shut down that ability to try to radicalize americans who engage in violence. but that's not enough. isis has, they've just used chemical weapons against kurds. they have weapons of mass destruction. they have sophisticated weaponry, hundreds of millions of dollars. they have thousands of people

with western passports. and if we think isis doesn't pose a threat to us here in america today we are dead wrong. and i'm not for a ten-year war or nation building or $1 trillion democracy to create one where it doesn't exist. but i think we have to do everything possible to destroy their planning centers before they attack us here. >> what is george pataki's approach. >> we have to rebuild our military. when we make a commitment like there's a line in the sand where assad can't use chemical weapons and then we ignore that line in the sand and we don't keep our word then our stature in the globe is diminished. i would be far more aggressive in confronting radical islam. it's not going to go away because we pretend that it doesn't exist. and it's not just isis and al qaeda. it's also iran where with $150

billion in economic relief they're immediately going to begin supporting terrorist activities against america, against our allies, not just in the middle east but around the world, that is wrong. you know, i'm not in favor of nation building wars. i have two sons. my older son, when he got through college became a marine lieutenant and served for a year in iraq. my younger son, when he got through college became a lieutenant in the tenth mountain division and got back from afghanistan last september. i know what it's like for a parent to lie awake in the middle of the night worried about a phone call you pray never comes. and i do not want one american parent or loved one to worry about getting that call because their loved one is in harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary. but if we pretend that radical islam is not a threat to us here in america because it's an ocean away, we are making the same mistake we made before september 11th only this time i believe the risk is greater. >> in addition to your two sons, how many children do you have,

and any grandchildren? >> i have four kids. i have two daughters, two sons. we're proud of all of them. i have four grandchildren so far and another one we're going to have in october. you know, and one of the one of the things i've always believed is that it's one generation's obligation to leave a better life for the next generation and it's not just for your family. it's for country and for society. america has always been about building that better future. now i see a government that's stealing from future generations to buy votes to live beyond our means today. we've got to regain that confidence in our future. it's not a failing of the american people. we should be looking at the 21st century as the most exciting, optimistic time ever in the history of our country. we're going to cure cancer. we're going to end alzheimer's.

we're going to have trains that go faster than planes. we should believe in the future. and if we get our government right, the american people will. >> how did you meet your wife and what was her reaction when you told her you were running for president? >> you know, i met her on the beach of long island. i was always kind of a crazy athlete playing basketball and running, and i loved riding waves on the surf and the ocean off long island. there was one day there was this massive surf because there was a hurricane off north carolina. you weren't supposed to go in the water, but i did. this other crazy woman was there riding waves. we crashed into one another. it turned out great. that's how we met. she knew from when we met that i had this desire to change the world, whether it was my hometown or the united states. i don't think she was surprised by the decision.

she does support it. >> you took some time off the campaign trail earlier this year because your son-in-law had suffered a stroke. what happened and how is he doing tonight? >> it's just heartbreaking. a doctor, 30 years old, athlete, worked out every day, tremendous shape. just finished his third year of orthopedic residency and out of the blue has a stroke, a life-threatening stroke. thank you for the question. he has made enormous strides physically and mentally. the doctors are hopeful that he can have 100% recovery and actually become the orthopedic surgeon that he was so close to being before the stroke hit. you never know. with a stroke, it's day-to-day. we have people praying from the vatican to the western wall in

jerusalem. the prayers have helped, and we're very hopeful he's going to have a full recovery. >> are you a religious person? >> i'm a quiet man of faith. yes, the answer is -- i don't like to talk about my religion. my favorite quote is from st. augusti augustine. he was preaching and he goes, pray constantly and always spread the faith. if necessary, use words. i just love that quote because you don't have to wear it on your sleeve. you don't have to impose your religion on others. i am a christian of quiet faith and tries to live a life consistent with that faith and by doing that, inspire others to live a good life. i guess that explains it. >> we are a nation of immigrants, and your family has an immigration story as well. >> yes. >> when did your parents and grandparents come here and from where? >> all four of my grandparents

were immigrants. they all came through ellis island. three of the four couldn't speak a world of english. my grandmother from ireland spoke english, but it was tough to understand her unless you were from ireland as well. they came here because they loved the idea of freedom. they didn't have anything when they came here. my father was born in an ethnic community in new york where everybody spoke hungarian. when he went off to the first grade, he didn't speak english. he only spoke hungarian. my four grandparents were immigrants. they worked in factories. one of the key changes i would make is to lower the tax on manufacturing in america to the lowest in the developed world. right now, it is the highest in the developed world. it's great for our country. it's great for our economy.

and it's great for people who maybe don't have a college degree, but it's a middle-class job that pays well. when i was in college, i worked in the same factory my grandparents worked in over christmas and summer vacation. i was always happy to get the paycheck. there were tough jobs, but they were good jobs were you made some. >> where did you go to college? >> i got a scholarship and went to yale. i had no idea where i was going to go to college. my participanents didn't go to . my mom got a scholarship for college. she was the only one working as a waitress during the depression. my parents didn't go to college. i had the chance. my older brother went to yale. he got an academic scholarship. i was going to go to notre dame.

you go to notre dame. but he liked yale. i said i'll go there too. it was a great experience. >> let me conclude with a couple of political questions. as the governor of new york, what do you think of donald trump? >> i've never had a problem with him personally, and i don't have a problem with him running for president, but i do have a problem when you demonize an entire class of immigrants. in in case mexicans who he called rapists or thugs. the vast majority come here because they want to work and have the opportunity to build a better life for their family. and when you do that, to me, it is just outrageous. the idea we're going to take a 10-year-old girl born in america fluent in english doing well in school and have the police or the army come in and drag her

out of the classroom and send her to a country she's never been in her life is just incomprehensible. i've never had a problem with him as a person, but his ideas he's expressed through this campaign, whether it is on immigrants or p.o.w.s, are just, to me, outrageous and not up to someone who should be considered seriously to be president of the united states. >> has his entry into the race helped or hurt the republican party? >> i don't know. i think at this point it's very early in the process. i think some of the candidates who haven't stood up when he made these horrible comments about immigrants, particularly mexicans, are going to regret they didn't reject them flat out at the time, but ultimately i think candidates rise or fall based on the people's view of them. so hopefully as the race gets

closer to actual decision time, people are going to take a look and say, pataki is a guy who can lead this country. he's got the right vision for america, he can bring us together, and that's who i'm going to vote for. >> you are one of three republican governors who served three times. the other nelson rockefeller and thomas e. dewy and they also ran for president. what can you take from their past campaigns, if anything? >> they were both perceived as liberal republicans. i'm the only person elected as the governor of new york by both parties. every race is different. people too often try to fight the last war or rerun the last race. to me, this is about the 21st

century. believing the problems we're facing in this country are not insurmountab insurmountable. we can grow our economy much stronger. we can reclaim our role of respect in the globe, and we can protect our security. i'm running because i know and i deeply believe if i have the chance to lead this country, i can do that. >> you remain in the single digits. you still think you can win? >> sure. i'm not running for any reason than that i do. it's very early in the process. you look back in other races and the frontrunner almost never made it through the end, let alone being close to nominee. it's relaxing time. the challenges facing this country are real. i believe people are going to want someone who can bring us together, bring people together across party lines. i know i can do that because

i've done it as a republican in new york state. >> republican presidential candidate george pataki joining us from our studios in new york city. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. good talking to you. coming up tonight on c-span 3, outgoing army secretary john mchugh on the future of the u.s. army. after that, part of a forum on taiwan. first a look at upcoming taiwan elections. later, panelists discuss the impact of u.s.-taiwan relations on the country's relationship with china. john mchugh spoke tuesday about the future of the u.s. army. his remarks focused on military readiness, budget cuts, veteran's mental health, and the

accidental shipment of live anthrax to labs around the country. from the american enterprise institute, this is an hour. >> good morning. welcome to the american enterprise institute. good afternoon now. it is a pleasure to have all of you and our guest of honor. we're rounding our series with the service secretaries after coming off our series with the joint chiefs last year. i can't think of a better way to end it. it is like a cherry on the sundae with john mchugh. on the eve of his retirement from not just the defense department, but government service he's a true civil servant in every respect. he's been an unsung hero for the

army and the soldiers that are in it for forever. not just in his capacity in the executive branch, but during his long tenure in the house of representativ representatives. many other roles and commissions and responsibilities he's hoeld in the last 40 years. i'm pleased to have him here and to welcome all of you. we'll be live tweeting parts of this with hash tag mchugh at aei. i know you know him well enough to have shown up to be here today, so mr. secretary, thank you. thank you for coming. >> thank you. good to be here. >> it's a pleasure to sit and talk and learn about not just what's next for you, which i hope we'll get to eventually, but talk a little more about looking back a little bit for a moment and then we will open it up for questions and answers and get you all out of here on time.

there's been a lot of things -- when we think back what the army was dealing with six years ago, what you're talking and thinking about today it's been a wild ride. you've dealt with some significant challenges. >> i arrived when things were very, very painful. two theaters of war. but they were more settled in that we knew pretty much where the challenges lied, we knew pretty much what our missions were going to be, we thought we knew who our friends and our less friendly opponents were, but as you noted, things have a habit of turning around on you. i think if you look at the last 20 months particularly, certainly from the army perspective, we're dealing with a menu of missions and challenges that were largely unforeseen, even ebola in west africa. we hadn't really thought about the united states army going and being the foundational force there to deal with that

challenge and to contain it, but we were called upon. we did it. isil, obviously, was not the kind of force and challenge that it is today. the activities in eastern eur e europe. it was not on our plate directly, et cetera, et cetera. the good news is the men and women wear that uniform and virtually all ranks have been able to adopt and have responded. it's been pretty breathtaking to watch from the perspective of the secretary. >> exactly. in some ways, it's a very high-profile and public job. and in other ways, there's a lot of work that you do behind the scenes and the chief will take the lead and you have a good relationship, the two of you in who does what. >> usually. >> right. usually. nine years ago, you still had over 100,000 soldiers deployed

active duty roughly. while they are in different places now, the tempo is different. you remember the difficulties with long deployments. deploy ratio time and how challenging that was on people and their families. and now we have a force more rotational based instead of permanently based forward. it is stabilized, take care of your people. then we switch to this current sort of model. nobody wants to be in a garrison force anymore. how do you manage the expectations of a changing world and what the army is going to do? >> that's a critical question. i've been asked repeatedly what keeps you up at night. there's any number of things, but one of the things i really

worry most about as we transitioned out of the conditions that you described were virtually every soldier knew the likelihood was they were going into a combat theater. some went into iraq and afghanistan repeatedly. they met incredible challenges, and as i went forward, there are 26 trips to iraq and afghanistan, including my time in congress. i was always amazed to see these young lieutenants, captains, out doing things and having the authorities they probably had to be two or three grades higher, if not more, in conflict's past. they performed magnificently,and they enjoyed that kind of authority and learned from it. one of the worst things we can do is bring leaders like that, soldiers like that, who enjoy

being a soldier, all kinds of opportunities going forward provides and boring them to death in garrison as you noted. on the one hand, the realities of the world are taking care of that for us, whether we like it or not. you mentioned a rotational approach to much of it. we have 136,000 soldiers right now who are deployed or are preparing to deploy to some 140 locations. while the world is unsettling to people like me, to our soldiers it still provides that opportunity to go out and engage and train with other nations, et cetera, et cetera, but we have to begin to do better at home station training. we have to be sure as challenging as our funding may be we're maintaining our combat center rotations. soldiers love to get out into the field and train, and we need to, as well, focus on other things, broadening opportunities

like education, partnership to partnership opportunities, just trying to do everything we can to make life in uniform of interest and challenge to our soldiers. nobody likes a war. nobody more so than a soldier, but we do have to be creative in how we keep them excited about being a member of the army team. >> it's completely challenging. they're going to complain if you're sending them out. they're going to complain if they're not, but not in a bad way. in a good way they want a fulfilling career in the service to their country, which i respect deeply. that segues perfectly into another shift in priorities. throughout the obama administration and the team that's been -- the civilian and uniform teams at dod, there's been a focus on people.

civilian dod and uniformed. more of a longer conversation about diversity. not just diversity in terms of gender or race or race or religion, but in terms of life experience. i think that's linked partly to secretary of defense ash carter and deputy secretary's work outreach to silicon valley in particular and the need to be able to bring people in briefly and kick them out into the real world. changes to the upper out promotion, longer time in station, fewer pcss throughout one's career, preferential treatments for duty stations. it's a conversation that's been underway since the last administration since we had the national guard and reserve commission. there was a discussion of continuum of service.

while the conversations have been underway for arguably a decade and there have been some changes like a member of the guard on the joint chiefs and compensation changes, this force of the future stuff is hard, this continuum of service model. it's difficult to do. do you see progress being made in the last 18 months of this administration, or some of it is internal to dod, but a lot of it is going to be congressionally approved? can we make progress? can there be a big bang approach, or is this something that is going to take years and it should? >> well, i think there's an opportunity here, as you know. mackenzie, the first thing you have to have is an agreement at the pentagon that something has to be done.

there's nuanced differences as to both what and how to do those things on one side of the potompo potomac and the pentagon and capitol hill, there broader issues that i can provide the foundation to do some very positive things from now until the close out of this administration. if nothing more, build a solid foundation by which the next administration can continue to work with the next batch of leaders in the pentagon. the other thing that i think is encouraging and you mentioned it, secretary carter and secretary work, take this very, very seriously. i think there's a fairly described pretty aggressive outreach to silicon valley, but the challenges, i think, are more broadly based than what silicon valley is likely to provide whether it's cyber or the emerging technologies that the military knows we're going

to have requirements for personnel. we just have to be more creative. it's generally couched as us competing against the private sector. as you look at the military of the past, you can understand that, so the approach all of us are trying to take is, okay, how can we break that paradigm. can we preserve that core force? for all of the military, the primary responsibility is to be able to go out and defend this nation. but on the margins in terms of these highly technological skill sets, we've got to work more cooperatively with the private sector. and i think we're making good progress there. it's hard to point out an example. i'll use cyber as an example. we're faced with very highly

publicized challenges. private sector is as well, but we conduct operations the private sector does not. those provide the opportunity for skill set development that i think in important ways can be of considerable value to the private sector, and we can work better together to make sure that both our interests are better served. so i think there's some real chances there for doing a lot better. >> i'm encouraged. your colleague secretary of the navy was here and made some headlines. >> ray can do that. >> yes, he can. he talked at length about the3 budget challenges that you and the chief face, the growing money that is spent on core business functions and processes of the department like logistics, like health care management, contracting, et

cetera in many cases for good reason. when you grow the army after 9/11 like you did, it is understandable that civilian forces and dod forces would go considerable. the active duty force has droppdrop dropped off pretty quickly. there are no commiserate reductions in the workload. but in the 90s when you were on the hill, that is the normal flow of things. we would probably agree it's best not to take peace dividends. it is often elusive, but in the 90s when we thought there would be one, the active duty force came down 20%. this time around it's actually inverted. the army is dropping like a rock and in strength and active duty

terms. in some years they've gone up. that's a tough challenge. it doesn't mean they're not doing valuable work. it doesn't mean they're not amazing civil servants. it doesn't mean they're not necessary. let's put all the caveats aside. but the army institutionally is looking at challenges between readiness, of course, the three-legged stool, and strength and modernization, and all three are effected by what's happening in the civilian work force, so what advice would you give your successor how to think about those priorities? if there's only enough dollars to fund one or two of them, how do you assess risk management? >> i didn't take notes on my friend ray's comments, but i think they're finally recognizing the challenge to reduce their faces as we say. because, as you noted, without

that reduction, workloads don't reduce. the army -- and i'll speak for the army -- has taken on the civilian work force reduction very aggressively. the secretary of defense ordered us to reduce headquarters by 20%. i upped that to 25. that was not without some concern, as you might understand in the army halls, but we're overachieving there. we took that definition of headquarters down to two star commands and above, which was more broadly based than dod or the congress. at the height of the civilian work force in this era of two conflicts of war was about 285,000. and that growth occurred not because civilians were standing around saying we want more. it was done so that we could take operational -- or generating force soldiers, those

who were training, those who were in our schoolhouses, et cetera, and put them into operational positions, and we substituted civilians as they went forward. congress and senator mccain particularly have been very clear about that. by the end of '18, we'll in the army be down to about 233,000 of civilian employees. i haven't done the exact math, but it's roughly equivalent to the percentage reduction we have in our in-strength as well. we can't do what we need to do as an army without these civilians doing it. you were very gracious in noting that, but do have to be in balance. when it comes to the operational force, you've stated it very correctly.

we're challenged on all three of those legs right now, frankly. but particularly given the environment that we're seeing across the globe and the likelihood of that next unforeseen thing, which is another thing that keeps me up at night, readiness has to be our number one concern at the moment. we've managed our developmental programs. we have set aside our major acquisition programs for major developmental programs for the 2020s and beyond not because we think that's the best thing for our soldiers, but because it's required by this fiscal reality. rather what we'd like to have from 20 years from now because we think it may be necessary in looking at developmental issues where we know we're going to need certain things, particularly for the soldier in

the squad. better armored systems. better systems for operating in degraded visual environments. robotics. unmanned aerial vehicles. better energy programs to both save money, but to lighten the load on our soldiers. diminish the number of convoys that provide an inherent danger of getting water and fuel from point a to point b. these are absolute critical things for what the enemy may look like from wherever the enemy may come from. our readiness continues to be a concern for me. our metric is somewhere -- it depends. you can get an argument in the g3 is it 60% or 70%. but right now, we're at 32%, 33%

ready amongst our combat formations. while that's sustainable for a while, as i said and the former chief, if sequestration returns any meaningful budget reduction in addition to that what we're trying to manage now or that next unforeseen of any dimension comes forward, we're in very, very bad place. i've testified should either of those occur, let alone both, somebody is going to have ask us to tell us to stop doing something. frankly, as i look at the world right now, i'm not sure what that would be, so this is a critical turning point for the army and for the department of defense. logically for the nation. while we are following very carefully what's going up on

capitol hill. >> i agree. that was remarkably eloquent. i think the general made sure to make forceful and respectful comments, but come out swinging to policymakers as they prepare to think through how to fund the government beyond a series of short-term continuing resolutions. i think he was right to do that, to lay down a bright red line in terms of how low-end strength can go and readiness and et cetera. the key to that was i think the link you made between readiness and modernization, to get soldiers better energy, technology, whether that's at the squad level. it's also about what you're providing to them. what they're droiving in, remotely piloting, what their

weapons and munitions are. i don't think there's that nuanced -- i don't want to pick on the hill as a block. i think on the policy committees there is a great understanding of the challenges you're facing. >> i agree. >> but it's a segment of congress as you well know. a key statistic that surprises me every time i hear it is the majority of congress -- and it's somewhere in the 60% range -- is new to congress since this administration. so if you were to go back, you wouldn't know the majority of the faces. you would know them because of your job but not from working there, which means the learning curve and the restarts and the educations it's more frequent. we miss the carl evans and the gene taylors. we know the old bulls who were

around many years with you as well, so it is a shorter cycle in turnover and policy space, which i think it makes it more difficult for a service secretary coming on board. i think the intention is usually in the right place, but they're limited by politics and by the bca first and foremost in a lot of these situations. so putting on your politician hat, just meaning -- if you were on the hill right now and you were still ranking member, chairman of the armed services committee, what would you hope leadership who doesn't sit on these committees, what would you hope beyond reversing sequestration, would you want them to repeal bca? what outcomes would you look for? >> look, i'm a recovering politician. i'm not sure where i left my politician's hat, but you mentioned this.

we are very, very confident and comfortable with the posture of our oversight committees. the members understand the plight, understand the nuances. that's why they're on those committees, because the other members want them to be the experts. if you're talking about the leadership particularly senator reid, senator mccain, thornberry, smith, i think they're trying to do everything they can to help other members, be that of some duration, some tenure or otherwise, to understand this. that's our challenge. if all we had to do was get our committees to act, whether it's repealing bca or some other measure, we'd be in far better shape, but that's not how this democracy works. that's been the challenge. you mentioned if you talk to any member, most members, they will

give due deference to the problems we're facing. but in fairness to members -- and in part, this is a compliment to the united states military. they're not having to deal, thankfully, with a 9/11 or this is not a world war ii environment where everybody knew some person who served. they're constituents are worried about their next paycheck, the survivability of social security. the challenge is not just for congress and the leadership, but for us. it's to try to help other members and their staffs beca e because, as you know, the staff is crucial to bringing issues to

leadership. given the state we find ourselves in, we have not been as successful as we'd like to be, and we're continuing those efforts, whether it's a structured one in posture hearings or kind of an opportunity to show our stuff in ausa, which is coming up in october, or just going to the hill every single day and trying to meet with psns, trying to meet with mlas and tell them to relates what we're facing, we're doing that. but if this were easy, we would have been past this already. >> one of my questions is on the aviation restructuring initiative. we were briefed on it by the brain children of it in the army active duty service members, the officers. it's remarkably well thought

through, just terrific. i know it's been difficult to move through the system, but it's the right thing to do. it's the right thing to do whether you had money going up or down, i think, for the army. so how's it going? how is the hill reacting? what's the receptivity? do you see this moving forward? you've had much more success with proposing this to the air force. i commend you for that. i think you learned from their mistakes smartly. how is it going and what do you see for the next 18 months in that regard? >> i appreciate you're saying it's the right thing. right or wrong -- and i think you could get a debate on the right aspect of it, is the necessary thing. i'm not sure we would have gotten to it that the point in our developmental efforts were it not for the budget constra t constrain constraints. the reality is the analysis

showed us i could save us $12 billion in the life of the drawdown and operationally a billion dollars a year. we could just not continue to afford propping up the kaiawa. our combat aviation brigades are some of our most hard pressed, and they're first out the door. we very reluctantly, but inescapably, made the decision we made. just to be sure, we've had a whole lot of outside analysis. we had formal reviews from rand and from cape at osd. not always our highest praisers, but all of them said, as you did, the hardness of this aside, it's done well.

we are going forward, and the guard is meeting the requirements. we're somewhat constrained by legislative limits, but we're living with those and we think we can continue to do that. but we do need to execute this. it's simply, as i said, the right thing to do. i understand the guards' concerns, but we've not just tried to take from them. by the way, the vast preponderance of aircraft that will be taken out of the active component versus the guard, but we recognize they have a vital role over the last 14 years operationally. and the concern that i've heard perhaps the most often is they no longer have a combat role in the air. that's just not the case. if you look at the combat

support and combat missions flown in afghanistan, the vast majority weren't flown by apa e apach apaches. they were flown by blackhawks. we're prepared to give them some of our most modern blackhawks. not only does that maintain their role in combat and forward, but it fulfills a critical need in their title 32 missions, which we believe is essential as well. we've tried to do some puts and takes to smooth this over. the guard continues to be concerned about it. i fully understand that. from the congressional perspective, we have the commission on the future of the army that's continuing its deliberations. i think it's likely -- in fact i'm sure until the commission reports back and makes some

recommendations or lays out courses of action for the congress that we'll kind of stay steady state here and we'll see where that goes. >> that's a great point. i'm glad you brought up the commission. i was out in death valley recently thanks to the u.s. army. >> i've been there for six years. >> this was actually at port e t port erwin. it was a joint forcible entry exercise. the army has not done one of those in 10, maybe 14 years. i joked we were seeing the marine corps of the army. it was all capabilities and equipment and soldiers that are the first to go in the first 72 hours. it was inner service as well with a heavy air force presence.

it was truly impressive. i hope you're successful. make sure you have more washington people out there, observing. >> our new army operating concept does a couple, i think, very positive things. focuses on leader development. not trying to predict 20 years from the future, but making sure we have tomorrow's leaders who are comfortable in the unknown who can react rationally, but it also emphasizes the joint force. you in today's era have to present multiple dilemmas to an enemy. if you're a run trione trick po that's great. if the enemy knows you have 100 mile an hour fastball, they're going to figure it out and react to it. the joint task force is essential. we're trying to continue to

return to focusing on that. we want every branch of our service to be the best. if and when the need comes, to be able to operate effectively together. we haven't had the chance because of other circumstances to focus on that, so we're trying to return to that kind of basic skill set. >> i commend you on your outreach in education. i think that's so critical for the army to expose policymakers and decision makers to seeing the army in action and getting them out of their comfort zone here inside the beltway. we're going to conclude our remarks. we're going to open up to questions. please wait for a microphone because we do have cameras here and they'll not be able to hear you. we'll call on rick first, an old friend. >> you properly said you were a

public servant. i think of you as one. when you came to washington as a good government guy, that's what you were here to do. i have to tell you quite frankly after watching you in congress you didn't fix congress. it was pretty dysfunctional when you left. >> the president blames me for leigh i leaving. >> i think you have tried to do the same thing at the pentagon, but i would say you did not tame the beast of bureaucracy in the pentagon as much as you might have wanted to do, so i'm wondering if you could tell me what you think of your performance. as you came here to washington, you tried hard to make things run. i think you were a pro worker, pro-government person at a time when i don't think most of the government, most of your party, is pro-government and pro-worker. and i wonder how you feel about that. >> softballs are over.

>> good to see you again, rick. i remember when i worked in albany as a staffer the senator i worked for had a cartoon on his refrigerator in his conference room. the caption read simply, when you're up to your ass in alligators, it's sometimes hard to forget your original intent was to drain the swamp. i went to the pentagon, i think, like most senior leaders with an agenda. we wanted to do some dramatic things in acquisition. we wanted to take some steps to professionalize and provide professional development opportunities to the civilian work force. and we've made progress there, but i've admitted previously it's nowhere near where i hoped we might be, but reality kind of slaps you in the face in these jobs. certainly from my time as

secretary, when you walk in and all of a sudden you're in two theaters of war, that pretty much takes up the large share of your energy tank. and we have been working hard to meet the realities of both training, manning, equipping those soldiers to get them forward to hopefully keep them as safe as possible while they're in that theater and get them back safely, but equally to begin to care for their families. one of the first things i found myself doing was taking our family care programs, which were $600 million, and doubling that share of the budget to 1.2 billion. i felt that was a moral obligation, frankly. there's a more basic reality here that today's soldier when they're forward doesn't need to be -- they're always going to worry about their families, but you don't want them worrying about things they shouldn't have to worry about, so we focused upon taking care of those families. and now we're seeing such things

as ptsd, the aftercare for some pretty significantly wounded soldiers and how they go forward, suicides, all of those things kind of say man plans, god laughs. it would have been nice to focus 100% of the efforts on the agenda that we laid out. i'd be happy to discuss, i think, the progress we made in those areas that i outlined, but you have to deal with the wolf closest to the sled, and for us, that's been in a different direction. i guess that's more an excuse than anything else, but it's the reality that i think i've had to deal with. again, it has far less to do with me as secretary or any number of stars on anybody's shoulder, but this army today is the greatest land force the

world has ever seen. for all of the very, very bright people in the pentagon in my mind that's for one simple reason. the young men and the young women of this nation continue to step forward and they're incredibly competent, skilled, dedicated, and amazing patriots. but if i had one wish, i wish every american could see the true heart and nature of what these amazing soldiers did. i have to extend that to all the services. we're a fortunate country to have volunteers who will come forward and do this amazingly difficult stuff. >> i agree. why don't we work -- we'll work right to left. >> hello, tom. how are you? >> i'm very well. how are you? >> ask me in a minute. >> as one of the nation's or pentagon's top officials for its

bio terror labs, can you explain why they have had difficulty with tracking agents like anthrax and why you ordered the moratorium days ago? >> i ordered the moratorium out of a sense of extreme caution. while the cdc and others have stated we don't see to this point any threat to human health and safety, when you're dealing with these kinds of pathogens, i think the better policy is to err on the side of caution. we continue to examine these. you asked me a question about how this happened. i'm not prepared to say that. we've got some partial answers. all of them correctable, but i think we want to be very, very sure that we understand as completely as we can the full

picture before we come out and lay out a way forward. as you know, part of the moratorium i ordered included all the labs under my executive authority to retrain, to check protocols, to check standards to make sure that the people in various positions had the right skill sets and were doing things in the right way. this all started with a question of protocols, of the scientific basic protocols that you apply against these pathogens to make them inactive. are they actually valid. i don't know if we know the answer to that right now. these are things that are very, very complex and challenging. i don't pretend to be an expert on the science behind it, but i'm going to make darn sure that at least in so far as my responsibility goes we're taking

every step possible to make sure that the public is protected and that we develop a way forward that allows us to conduct these tests, which are absolutely essential for the security of this nation and its people in a way that's as safe as humanly possible. >> right here. >> thank you. sebastian springer with inside defense. i wonder if you could talk about acquisition broadly and two specific portfolios that have unanswered questions in them. the one being the next generation ground combat vehicle and the other being air and missile defense. where are you leaving things and what's next in those areas?

>> this is kind of like writing my own obituary. when i first arrived at the pentagon, it was no secret, certainly from my time on capitol hill, that army acquisition was not performing where it needed to be. so one of the first things i did was order a report that famously became known as decker wagner. i think it's important to note that wasn't a gao study. it wasn't sbo. it was us looking at us. and while it came in and told us things separately that we knew, it was shocking to see it all in one report. and just a piece of the findings from 1990 to 2010 22 failed army major developmental programs which cost the taxpayers about $30 billion. you didn't have to be an analyst to know, boy, we have to do

better. and so we kind of looked at how did we get to that place. there as there are these complex matters -- the army had a habit of investing in developmental programs requirements on things that are unlikely and never did field. so those programs just weren't able to come forward, so we tried to rein in our requirements programs. after i arrived, the rfp came out with over 1,000 must-haves telling the potential bidder, you've got to give us all of these things. to everybody's credit, we kind of looked at that and said, that doesn't look like a lesson learned to us. it looks like a repeated lesson,

so we went back and scrubbed that down to under 200 of absolutely essential things. we allowed contractors to trade off requirements against other capabilities, et cetera, et cetera. we understand that sometimes good enough is good enough, and we also recognize the affordable way in the future was to build something that you could add on to and adopt to new realities of the day may be. i won't tell you we've turned that 180 degrees, but in the last five years most of our developmental programs were on time and on budget. the reality we've had to do with, sebastian as you mentioned, is available monies to continue them whether it was through budget cut or whether it was because we go into a continuing resolution that doesn't allow you enough oftentimes to reconfigure your

needs within a program. we decided ground combat vehicle, for example, to put that aside. gsb and despite urban legends to the contrary, it was on time and it was on budget. it became unaffordable in the near term. we kind of put that aside. we are examining technologies and advancements that were developed to that point to see what we can do to maintain those and pick that up in 2023 or so because we absolutely need a new generation of infantry fighting vehicle. and then reinvest those savings from what we were going to spend there on our other ground combat fleet on our bradleys and our abrams and such. that's, again, a political -- excuse me a monetary necessity, not a failing program.

the way forward depends on the money that lies ahead of us. we're challenged as well in missile defense. when you go and talk to partner nations, one of the first things i ask about are patriots. they're the most deployed or amongst the most deployed units in the united states army. while we're trying to go with missile segment enhance that, too, becomes a money issue. so what you were able to do in large measure in every aspect of the military is what you're funded to do, so we'll see. >> quickly, we'll go over here and work our way back this way. >> george nicholson. you talked about the acquisition requirements process. lessons learned. the replacement for a helicopter coming out of vietnam was the

lockheed. built, flown, cancelled. >> that was in that period. >> over the last two years, the next replacement was the arh but bell. built, flown, cancelled. have the lessons learned from those three been put in to the new process the army is using? >> thank you for digging those up. sadly, i can name others not just in the aerial fleet, but in some of our developmental programs as well. look, we didn't sit down and analyze virtually every one of those programs. i'm sure somebody has that sitting on the shelf somewhere. but by and large what we have found in terms of our procedures is an overreliance on

undeveloped immature technologies of unreasonable requirements and always trying to get the very next best thing. kelsey grammer did a movie called "pentagon wars." probably not totally unreal in terms of how developmental programs have been approached in the past. i think in one instance they were putting a porthole into the bradley. we're doing better there. i can't tell you had we done the things now that we failed to do back in the comanche period that would have been fielded. but we're not doing any major developmental programs until the 2020s are behind us. one of those proverbial

outyears. everything is going to be great in the outyear. woel see we'll see if that comes to fruition. that's a budgetary issue, not a failure of our developmental people. stay tuned. >> hi, sir. i'm jim from the atlantic council. i'm going to ask you not about equipment, but organization, if i could. back in the 1940s, the united states developed nuclear weapons. tactical nuclear weapons anticipate then soviets developed nuclear weapons and the army thought we need to reorganize because we're afraid nuclear weapons are going to be coming our way on the battlefield so the plan was something we called the pentomic division. it was an attempt, i think, by the army to deal with -- deal

with the offset strategy coming back at you. then in the 70s and 80s precision weapons. i think the u.s. military got really good at military got goot sending towards enemies. i think this is why the deputy secretary talking about a third off sets and worried about it coming back the other way. coming at american forces, potentially. this is why you think a lot about missile defense. if the army tried -- if a lot of ground forces thought and tactical weapons, as an organizational challenge, is there an organizational challenge for land forces in the future? do we need to rethink organization? or do we need to double down so that we don't need to. what do you think? >> well, look. we've got a lot of very, very bright people who think about a lot of different things.

the third off set is one of those things that's under discussion now. i'm a fundamentalist when it comes to the warfare. what i worry about the third offset is that it somehow d so n denigrades. so, baseline, we're always going to need an army, in spite of discussions about sanitizing war and fighting it from robots at 30,000 feet. and, to your point, sure, we future cast all of this stuff. for us, that work is done in a variety of sources. they look at that and you combine that with the commander oakland.

the way walters nichols is going to combat now is that there's responsibility areas. they look at the challenges, they're supposed to both today and tomorrow and how to best address those. there's that coordination. i can't tell you how that's going to come out right now, again. we're meeting more -- me, day-to-day, we're meeting with the board administrator. but i don't stay up at night wo riing about we're not thinking about something. we're always thinking about those kind of things and the fact that you're tracking the third offset strategy would show that this is an active process. i can't tell you how that's going to come out.

>> wow you please share with us one of the trips that impressed you the most about the men and women who voluntarily choose to put their lives in harm's way and we're at the cloth of this nation so that we might be free? >> yeah.

we had a combat half a mile away from the village. and we went into the outpost. and i met with the command leadership for this whole area. they were it. they had spent recent weeks. and they're like cement walls. thereafter doing that, they worked with the supposed elders

and got them to agree to work with our side, not accept the taliban out of coercive concern or any other reasons, had developed the local militia and taught them how to be effective militia. all at that level of command. and, as i said, normally, you'd have a couple of stars running around in generations passed doing this kind of stuff. and to see those kind of young people, it's just breath tarking. the other thing, we were transiting through launch. we were visiting troops while our crew was getting rest. and the soldier had just been

brought in. he had lost one arm. he was intubated. they said you can go ahead and talk to him, even though he's conscious, we don't think he'll understand you. so i had been in there and whispered how proud we were of him and what a great american he was and pressed coin into the the one hand that he had left. and that soldier, intubated, saluted. i was amazed. >> i can't think of a better way to end than honoring the requisite soldiers that you represent and their families. there couldn't be any better

response on which we could conclude our day's discussion. so we wish you well, sir. we know you're not off the job yet. as the second longest serving secretary in the army, you're in it until your successor is confirmed. i want you to know how grateful we are in this room for the hours toiling away. >> thank you. it's been an honor. thank you. [ applause ] the second republican presidential debate of the 2016 campaign is tomorrow night. former oklahoma senator tom colburn. he'll also talk about his call

for a convention of states to, as he sees it, reign in the local power of federal government. and then, general connolly. and, later, adam keiper joins us to talk about human cloning. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> epa administrator testifies wednesday at a senate environment and public works committee hearing. they're examining the august hazardous waste spill caused by an epa clean-up team. live,10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span3. >> this sunday night on q&a,

washington post national political reporter robert kanstadt on the 2016 presidential campaign. and the similarities between donald trump and ross perot. >> the themes are really overlapping. perot has a distinct personality. the celebrity factor was not there with the same way it drives people and attracts people to trump. they throw themselves at trump for autograph and picture. there's a power that perot didn't have. but, being outside of the republican party, the republican party's relationship has been rocky this year. i broke the story that preibus called trump a month ago and said can you ton it down on immigration. he did not tone it down. now trump has signed this pledge. but who know what is the pledge is worth? it's a political document. we can see what happens this year with perot happened with trump. trump is, if anything, unpredictable. he could easily run as an

independent regardless of this pledge. >> sunday night on c-span3 q&a. >> next, officials from the justice department outline some of their cybersecurity concerns including the impact of encrimination. this event is two hours. >> you're here with pasco, the modern field guide to digital privacy. we're so happy that you could be here