amazing souls. after each funeral i would head home and sit down with my two kids. i would show them the faces on the programs. i would introduce them to the person i met that day. i introduced them to ethel who despite losing her daughter to cancers two years prior was loving jay who sang her favorite song, one day at a time sweet jesus. that's all i ask of you. give me the strength to do every day what i have to do. i introduced them to our youngest victim, a 26-year-old budding entrepreneur anxious to hep his own barbershop who on that night stood in front of his 87-year-old aunt and said you don't have to do this. we mean no harm to you. i introduced them to cynthia

herd whose life motto was to be kinder than necessary. that's now my life motto. every opportunity i have i mention the nine we lost and the three survivors, the emmanuel 12. those 12 who took in someone that night who didn't look like them, didn't act like them, and didn't sound like them. they didn't call the police. they didn't throw them out. instead they pulled up a chair and they prayed with him for an hour. i mention them because i don't want to be just the families that know their love, the compassion and the greatness of these amazing people. i want the whole world to know them as my children and i do. the second thing that needed to happen was removing the confederate flag from our statehouse grounds. there are many decent people

that reveer that plag. they are not racist. they twice elected an african-american u.s. senator and twice elected an indian american governor. when i announced my intention to bring down the flag, this was a debate that did not need to have winners and losers. what happened in charleston shed a dchifferent light on an issue our state had long struggled with. what we saw in the extraordinary reaction to charleston was people of all races coming together. we didn't have riots. we have vig vig ils. we had hugs. the statehouse belongs to all people and it needed to be welcoming to all people. that was not possible with that flag flying. when it came to the removal

debate, we had legislators who truly listened to each other. who listened with love and grace and compassion. it's a love we learned from the emmanuel 12. the flag came down and south carolina moved forward. i'd like to think that jack kemp would have been proud of that. i guess you all have heard that i'm up for a different job now. it's an initially challenging time for our country. those here at home and internationally. but it's also an exciting time. we will have a new president. we will have opportunity to put our conservative principals into action. so when president-elect trump asked me to be his nominee as ambassador to the united nations, i was honored to accept. i'm not going to get into the details of our international challenges here tonight, but i will say two things. first, jack kemp was a guiding light for us.

not just in the areas of economic growth empowerment and civil rights. he was a guiding light in foreign affairs as well. with the passage of time, it's easy to forget some of the battles that raged three decades ago. but we should all remember that secretary kemp was an outspoken critic of the racist government in south africa. that was often a lonely position inside the republican party, but he didn't shy away from it. history has proven him right. second, i will conclude my remarks tonight with the same sentence i started every speech with when i first ran for governor. as an unknown 38-year-old candidate more than seven years ago. i am the proud daughter of indian immigrants who reminded my brothers, my sister and me every day how blessed we were to live in this country.

that deck claration is just as important today as it was back then. i never tried to hide my background from my fellow south carolinians most of whom don't look like me. i used my parents immigrant experience to who mopromote wha unique about america. on this day, the anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor, it is important to remember what unites americans, not what decides us. it also says something about our future. no matter where i go, no matter what i do, those are the values i will proudly promote. i will never run from them. with god's grace and the senate confirmation, i hope -- [ laughter ] >> i'm really nervous about that just so you know. i hope to represent our country well and do my part to keep america safe and to keep our country the greatest beacon of

freedom the world has ever known. thank you very much for honoring me today and may god bless you. how you all feel? what an opportunity, what a wonderful message. thank you, governor haley, for your work in south carolina. thank you, god, for providing leaders who care about the truth and the goodness that this country and this world can be a part of. we're grateful that you are

here, governor haley. every year for the kemp leadership award we try to do something a little bit personal. when my father passed away in 2009, my siblings and i went through many of the wonderful awards that he'd been given at dinners, not unlike this. and there were some really nice things. but they weren't personal. so we tried to come up with something every year. this year i don't know if you can see this, governor haley has already seen it, so i'm not holding it back from her. but this is a picture of my father, is the iron lady margaret thatcher, prime minister of great britain and the u.s. ambassador to united nations. it's an inskripgz on it that says two jack kemp. the the 2016 leadership award for advancing the meamerican id.

from the kemp's family private collection. mom, i'd like you to come up with thank everybody. >> governor haley, thank you so much. i hope you are passing the baton to a lieutenant governor who will -- >> henry mcmaster. >> oh my goodness. well, i was going to say i hope south carolina will continue to be with good leadership and obviously. >> henry mcmaster was my dad's 88th campaign chairman in south carolina so there's a weird cycle, but it's wonderful. so yes, mom, i think it's in good hands. >> and to look at this photo of jean kirkpatrick and margaret thatcher and jack just is a signal that people of substance

and common sense really do make a huge difference in this world. and you are one. and we are so grateful that you are going to be -- [ applause ] you all can sit. we're almost done. we have dave hoppe, paul ryan's chief of staff, to give some closing remarks. dave, thanks for being here. >> i thought i'd start with the

scariest statement you can make at a kemp function. i'm about to make my last point. for those of us who worked with jack, you know that meant you were in for 45 minutes of uninterrupted listening pleasure because jack's point at least took 45 minutes. i'd like to go back to a dinner honoring jack in 1988. the speaker was president ronald reagan. he said what motivates jack is the cause. and indeed that is what jack fought for. and that is what the foundation stands for is the cause. in fact, the foundation really is the keeper of the cause. i'm very honored and privileged to work for speaker ryan. i have to tell you i have a little fun because having worked for jack and having worked for paul and i think there's nobody else in the country who can say that, i can watch the imprint of

jack on paul as he does certain things and takes certain actions. i'm not sure he knows it, but i do. and the thing that was most important to paul when he became speaker is that he would lead the republican conference in developing an agenda. an agenda of ideas. an agenda for the country that the republicans could run on. because he believes that ideas are the most important thing in politics. does that remind you of anybody? i can't tell you the number of times jack said that to me. but what he was able to do is with his republican colleagues develop an agenda. and the cornerstones of that agenda are growth, peace through strength, hope, and opportunity. that's the vision that underlies the agenda that we put together.

that agenda is one that's going to be taken by our republican members in our unified, and we're going to work on that to provide opportunity, to provide growth, to provide jobs, to make us strong again. it is the job of this foundation to really hold us to that promise. we have a duty and a responsibility to do these things for the country. but the conscience behind us, the conscience we need, is the jack kemp foundation, what they stand for, what you support, what jack stood for. that vision, that conscience is something we need on capitol hill. we're going to need it in the administration. it is the purpose of this foundation to be one of the leaders in providing that conscience for the people.

so please, i want to thank you for all your help, thank you for coming tonight and i would like to introduce bishop holloway for the benediction. >> we are at a close of another home run hitter out of the park by the jack kemp foundation. an elegant evening, informative, good food and great music. with thought provoking messages, thank you, jimmy, joanne, stacey, scott, andrew, and all of the kemp family. and the jack kemp foundation team. to the honor re nikki haley, how

could you not love her? she's so down-to-earth. and to all of you that are in attendance, we want to do a benediction as this. first john says there is no fear in love but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment. the one who fears is not made perfect with love. second timothy 1 and 7 says, for god has not given us the spirit of fear but of love, power, and sound mind. so as we do the benediction, would you please stand to your feet, please. love is greater than hate. love will feed the hungry. love will house the poor. love will teach the uneducated.

love builds. love unites. love is not hate. love is not pride fuful. love is not arrogant. love is peace, not war. love is not rich nor is it poor. love is not black. neither is it white. so i say let love be the policy. let love be the programs. let love be the representative. let love be congress. let love be the supreme court. let love be justice. let love be the president. as i speak the benediction over we the people as it is bishop of the lord's church, as an a pos sell of the kingdom of god, may we love god, may we love ourselves, our families, our

neighbo neighbors abroad and at home. love is perfect when it has no fear. may god love rain in your hearts as we leave this place. love will cause the blind to see. love will cause the lame to walk. love will cause the deaf to hear. and love will cause the deaf to know. i declare and decree as an apostle of the world jesus christ that the messages that we heard will carry us into the new year. it will be the lead and the guide to a greater america. the enemy cannot stop and block what god intends to do with us, through us, and for us. so as an apostle of the lord jesus christ, i rerelease you to be a servant of love. god bless you and have a wonderful and safe arrival back at home. put your hands together as we celebrate in the house and give

god all the praise and all the glory for what he is about to do in 2017. [ applause ] >> somebody holler america is great. while congress is make we're showing programs normally seen on the weekend here auon cspan three. we start at 8:00 eastern with race in the 1980s. u.s. refugee policy since world war tii. that's tonight on american history prime-time at 8:00

eastern. >> this week washington journal will devote the prior program to the key issues facing the new trump administration. on wednesday morning our issue top sick ener topic is energy and environmental policy. >> the incoming trump administration. thursday we'll talk about immigration and how president-elect trump and the new congress might change immigration policy. and on friday morning we'll take a look at the future of the affordable care act and how the republican congress and the trump administration will repeal and replace the aca and the key players to watch in the months ahead. be sure to watch washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern. sunday in depth will feature a live discussion on the presidency of barack obama. we're taking your phone calls, tweets, e-mails and facebook questions. our panel includes april ryan,

white house correspondent and author of the presidency, black and white. princeton university professor eddie glaude, and price winning journalist and society editor of the "washington post" david maranis. watch in depth live from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern on sunday on book tv on cspan 2. >> tin this panel experts debatd whether a third party can succeed in a two-party system. this is about an hour. good morning. on behalf of bob bower, my

talented and co director of the nyu law scholeg laf and regulat i want to welcome you to the sidley austin forum. the program today, a new american political system, promises to be very interesting and perhaps a bit provocative. this forum would not be possible without the generous support of sidley austin, a renowned international law firm. it gives me great pleasure to introduce john kuster who is a partner in sidley's new york office. john is co-head of sidley's complex commercial litigation practice and one of the firm's national co-chairs of its recruiting committee. of particular significant to us,

john an s an active a llumni of the ncu law school. >> thank you, sally. sidley is thrilled to support the inaugural sid knee austin forum which will be a discussion evolving the political role of parties, the state and direction of campaign finance law, changes in new and social media and other interesting topics. we are very honored to welcome vice president biden today. thank him for agreeing to provide his insights as our keynote speaker. we are positive that today's forum should prove to be interesting, informative and n lightening on these and other subjects exploring whether we are on the vanguard of a new system. sidley is a deep tradition of public service and has been a deft nae destination of lawyers.

two of our partners will be moderating two of today's panels. both have served in the u.s. government. in addition to rick and cam, sever other partners were very important to insuring that the forum moved forward today and those are virginia sights, pete keyser and jim cole valso have served in the highest branch. >> sidley has other alumni who have served in the federal government under public administrations, one of whom is president obama who was in our office several years ago as was the 50 lafirst lady who was an associate there as well. we are grateful are the hard work in putting today's forum together. in addition, we are grateful to dean morrison, for his support and vision for sidley and nyu

l process come together and make this forum a reality. we also wish to thank in advance the terrific panelists without whom the forum could not be without success. as sally mentioned i am an alumni. so are nearly 100 partners in our firm. we know that our two institutions can make a valuable contribution to the dialogue involving democracy, citizen engae engagement and public service. a fundamental tenant of our firm has been to honor and support the rule of law in this great democracy. the forum is an example of our continuing commitment to do so and we are very proud to be part of it. thank you. >> so let the program begin. and as our first panel assembles

on the stage, i want to briefly introduce the moderator rick boucher. my introduction and the introduction throughout the day will be very brief because the full biographies are listed in our program which you should have received at the registration table and which remain out there. we're going to hold our panels to roughly 50 minutes. and allow ten minutes for time for questions from audience members. we have students assembled on the rails on both sides with cards and pens. you have a thought, you raise a hand. and one will come and send it to you and we will be able to ask those questions chlts . it's wonderful to have rick boucher here. he was a member of the u.s. house of representatives for 28 years where he chaired the sub committee on communications and the internet.

all oh. without party enter tension. are the parties stronger or weaker than they have been historically. is the situation ripe at this point for the emergence of a

third political party? how have past reforms worked? would future reforms strengthen the role of the parties and do strong are parts contribute to a stronger democracy? are the parties now at risk of

losing. and he staged a take over of one of the political parties. is that an accurate description of what happened? and i'll expand the question by asking did the democratic party also come close to a hostile takeover by bernie sanders and his supporters? and what are the complications of these very unusual events for the future of political parties? [ inaudible ] that's fine, if that's where you would like to start.

>> if you said that people didn't anticipate it happening, i do think donald trump has succeeded in triangulating all the party alinements. it's very tough to know what the base of the party is, what the core constituencies are. i take a little bit of exception to the assumption in the question. if you look at the way donald trump has named his first 15 cabinet people, which is actually a fairly traditional lot, you have three generals in national security positions, you have four billionaires, we're generally perceived to be the party of the billionaires although we can argue with that, then you have seven or eight people who are sort of people who are loyalists to adopt but also have movement conservative credentials. so that actually looks like a pretty traditional republican government at least in the first

15 of the 660 people who need to be nominated by the senate. but just to make one other point, is that i do think in this political cycle, the party structure splintered a lot more than it has in the past. and you are seeing an evolutionary period that really started in the 2004 election, where the party structures are much more diffuse, i think that means it's much tougher to have principled governing coalitions in the congress. i think you have senate and house campaign committees that take care of u.s. senate and u.s. house people. you have a governors association, an attorneys general association. it is not the democratic and republican national committees who are the core political boots on the ground, money to the candidate, tv ads on the air,

that they were prior to the passage of mccain/feingold. so you do have an evolving and changing party structure. >> rick, your view on whether there was a hostile takeover of a major political party. >> the larger framework in which i would sort of situate what's going on here, what ben has been describing, we're seeing what in my view is the political fragmentation of american democracy. but not just of american democracy. of democracies around the world. what i mean by political fragmentation is that the traditional sources that organized governance and organized the political process and elections have had their power and their authority diffused in various ways. partly it's been diffused externally in the form of all the super pacs and all the outside groups that were spawned

by the mccain/feingold law, not citizens united. we've seen a diffusion of power to these outside groups. there has also been an internal diffusion of power within the parties in the sense that the party leadership no longer has the kind of control over the members that the leadership once had. so individual members of congress are much more independent entrepreneurs than they used to be. and that's how i view both donald trump and bernie sanders. i view them as independent free agents. sanders of course is an independent, never was a member of the democratic party, isn't a member of the democratic party. trump was a republican -- a democrat until about ten minutes ago and then decided it was advantageous to run as a republican. and the parties have become so hollowed out that it's now possible for independent free actors, free agents, to capture the party label for their own

purposes and their own agendas. and i think that's happened for two general kinds of reasons. one is institutional changes we've made. so particularly with respect to the nomination process for choosing the candidates, we have completely taken that process since the 1970s out of the hands of the parties. we've stripped the parties of any meaningful role whatsoever in that process, when we went to a system of pure primary dominated or populist selection processes for choosing the nominees. surprise surprise, when you shift the nomination process to one that is a completely populist-controlled process through the primaries, you're going to get much more populist kinds of candidates, finding it easier to emerge from that process. and there are other changes in the institution we've made. the second set of changes are cultural and technological

changes which we're also all aware of. so the communications revolution and the technology revolution has undermined the authority of all sorts of organizations, whether it's the parties, churches, academic institutions, corporations. it's now possible to bypass the traditional organizational structures. that's why people like ted cruz and liz warren, one year into the senate, become two of the most powerful figures in their parties in a way that was inconceivable for someone like lyndon johnson, as powerful as he was, you know, in our politics in the past. it's now possible for people to constituencies through social media, to raise money through the technology that's available, and free themselves from the traditional sources of control that the party has exerted and the traditional support the

party has provided. i think hadwhat we're seeing is this political fragmentation that empowers lots of individual actors, strips the mediating institutions like the parties of a significant role. and i think somewhat inevitably is going to be fueling more extremism and more polarization. >> let's take off from one of the points you mentioned, rick, and that is the fact that with super pacs now directly funding candidates and candidates looking to other sources external to the party in order to raise lots of their funds, david keating, do you believe that the parties are still relevant as funders? that's been a traditional role of parties. how damaging is it to the political parties that perhaps that role is eclipsed to a significant extent by external funding sources, and do you think parties perhaps have been weakened by virtue of the fact that candidates can now so

directly communicate with voters on their own? i'm reminded of mr. trump's twitter following of something like 48 million people that gives him instant access to a very large part of the electorate. what is the effect of those changes on political parties? >> i'll see if i can remember all the questions. first, so my audience here and elsewhere isn't confused, i'm president for the center for competitive politics, i used to work at the club for growth. super pacs cannot directly fund candidates. super pacs are independent groups only. they can't coordinate with the candidates. they can't coordinate with the parties. there's a long list of rules that i'm sure, you know, ben and i could give a whole seminar on those someday if people were interested. these are independent groups, they're basically people getting

together with other groups in the united states and talking to voters and urging them to vote for or against particular candidates. i think on the previous question, i agree with virtually everything that rick and ben have said. i think in terms of the individual members, congress, and candidates, they've always been to some degree entrepreneurs. otherwise they wouldn't have gotten elected in the first place. but i agree that changes in campaign finance laws and the advent of media and the atomization of media has made it even more likely that these candidates can emerge and spring out of nowhere. in terms of the parties, i don't think the right approach is to somehow blame independent groups. i mean, these are groups of citizens, after all. i think the real problem is that the campaign finance laws have undercut the ability of parties to organize americans and speak

out together. and if you look at especially -- i mean, the democrat party is hurting right now in a big way. you look at their bench at the state level, the state legislative level, the gubernatorial positions they hold, and it's been a wipeout in over the last eight years. and one of the big factors i think that's really hurting parties that people don't talk about very often is the incredible complexity of the campaign finance laws, especially on state parties. much of the political activity of state parties now has to struggle not only under state laws and regulations which are obviously bad in many places, but the federal laws. a lot of these state parties are just crushed by regulation. i think we've got to simplify campaign finance regulation in a

big way. and i think to the extent we can lift contribution limits, raise them, lift them, maybe take them off altogether on political parties, that would be much more important, that's a much better way to go rather than trying to figure out how to, you know, push down independent groups. >> ben ginsberg, let's continue that discussion. what do you see being very constructive in terms of the change in law or practice by the parties that would make the funding of campaigns by the parties more effective? for example, each of the national parties has an independent expenditure committee. if you count all the various ones that are in existence, it's about six in total. does having these parties spend significant numbers in

isolation, without coordinating with the central party unit, a sensible way to do things? would it strengthen the roles of the parties as funders if they were able to coordinate more directly at least internally? your views on what could happen in terms of making the parties more significant in terms of funding campaigns. >> to answer that, i think you need to take a stark look at the system as it exists today, which is in limiting candidates and political parties in what they're allowed to raise, but with none of those limits, stretching back from buckley versus vallejo on individuals, and a series of decisions on corporations, and then citizens united. you're limited in influencing what candidates can do and not limiting basically special interest groups across the

spectrum who can raise unlimited amounts of money from sources the candidates and parties can't. so you really have the system where the candidates have the agendas set by outside group as opposed to being the loudest voice in the debate. so if you were going to help strengthen the parties, you would look at the three core functions that parties historically have performed. they've raised money for candidates. it's no longer done primarily by the parties. it's not done by super pacs and independent expenditure groups, but it is done by groups on the left and right who will mobilize their members to give contribution to the candidates they likely. so the candidates will go to special interest groups rather than the political parties. they'll owe their allegiance not to the broad governing coalitions of the political parties but to the particular groups that help fund them. the mobilization efforts these days, as david correctly pointed

out, really are not done by state parties, because that's now a federalized process with limited contributions. so if i want to put out a message as a state party that says, vote democratic, i now have to use all federal dollars. i can't use state dollars, even though that message indisputably helps state candidates as well. federal dollars are limited, each state has its own set of laws. so that has in turn been outsourced either to campaigns or to special interest groups to do the mobilization and ground game. and the third core function of parties was always doing the messaging to help their candidates. then too, oud groups have a lot more money to put into that process than the parties do. the parties are limited in the amount that they can spend directly on their candidates. it's the coordinated expenditure limits. it's not been increased except

for inflation in many years. certainly not kept up proportionately with the cost of campaigns. so the parties do have these independent expenditure units, still much smaller than what outside groups can do. the independent expenditure units are not allowed to talk to the core group, so there's bizarre messaging that takes place. sometimes you get party committee independent expenditure messages that are not what the campaign and the candidate would like. so it's a very sort of messy and nonsensical system if in fact your goal at the end of the day is to have members who get elected, pay some degree of adherence to core party principles in a big tent, as opposed to individual narrow special interest groups that are now the core of funding candidates. >> rick, your comments on

whether there are constructive changes in campaign finance that would strengthen parties? >> i do have some suggestions. but i actually want to kind of push this to a more cultural or conceptual level for a second. because i think so many americans, particularly younger americans, hate political parties, have contempt for the political parties, you know, you see the figures about the plurality of voters under the age of 35 register as independents, not as one of the party members. i think in this discussion it's important to step back a little bit and say more about why the parties are actually so important despite all the awful things that are true about them. and one standard -- one standard point is that unless you have strong political parties, the private interests are going to carve up the government, because individual politicians who have to stand there on their own, without a strong party

apparatus, are extremely vulnerable, particularly in the united states. they are more vulnerable than politicians in any other country, especially in the u.s. house, as you know. they have to run two elections every two years, a primary and a general election. they mostly raise their money independently. so they have to do that. so they are constantly vulnerable. and what strong political parties that can take concerted positions and then defend their members who are following that party position can do is protect these vulnerable members when they take difficult votes. the second thing is, in our separated power system, the system simply can't function unless we have a certain degree of compromising typically across party lines, unless you have unified government large enough to overcome a filibuster in the senate. and that compromising is very

likely to come, in my view, from party leaders, who if they're strong enough can make these compromises, be as tough as they are, bring their members along and protect those members. so the fragmentation that i'm talking about makes our system also not just more extreme, but more dysfunctional and more paralyzed. so when we talk about strengthening parties, i think it's important for people to understand why it's so important to be doing that. and i think that along the same lines of the measures that ben has described, trying to channel the flow of money into the parties and away from these outside groups, although if people still want to give, they should be free to do it. but we've created all these incentives that force them to go to the outside groups, including people who would rather be giving the money to political parties. we can allow greater coordination between the parties and the candidates.

we can allow greater coordination across national and state parties. and here is, you know, an extreme suggestion, just to kind of get people to think that framework, when we talk about public financing in the few states that have it, and there's more interest in that in the various states, no interest at the national level, it's always public financing where the money goes to individual financing. we could think about public financing where a lot more of the money went to the political parties, which is actually the way public financing works in most democracies which have public financing. so empowering the parties through a public finance system that doesn't get to be so individual candidate centered but tries to empower these organizations that i think are absolutely essential in any healthy democracy but particularly ours with our separated power system. >> david, back to you, what do you think about allowing more

coordination internally within the parties in terms of how the funding flows? is there harm in that? or do you still prefer that the external role take prominence? >> i think it's amazing that we say to political parties they can't coordinate with their candidates. i mean, who came up with that idea? it makes no -- i mean, it really makes no sense. a party is going to corrupt its own candidates? it's silly. so i think they should take the coordination limits off completely, especially if we have the contribution limits that we have today. but even so, there's lots of things you could do, i think, if people are concerned about the ability to raise super large chunks of money, then say to the candidates and the elected officials, they can't jumake th ask for the big chunks of money, let the parties coordinate with

their candidates. there's a bigger problem, and i think rick's analysis is very much on point here, but there's also a tradition that's developed in the parties themselves. there's only so much the parties can do. they can protect their candidates in the general election, but when it comes to the primary election, there is a lot of internal pressures on the parties not to get involved in primary races. and it's interesting to watch that politically. i mean, in the presidential race, look what happened when all the wikileaks e-mails came out. it was clear that, yes, the dnc was on the side of clinton behind the scenes. and it caused a huge reaction. last year, i think it was last year, when senator mcconnell wanted to make it easier for parties to do things, there was a big blowup among the tea party type republicans in the house, because they were concerned the

parties would be able to intervene in primaries, and they were saying, no, we don't want to pass this. i've seen this recur at the state level as well in terms of liberating parties, a lot of the concern from the more right wing republicans is they don't trust the party establishment and they didn't want the parties to be able to intervene in primaries. there's a tradition that they not do so, but there's also been fights to, you know, oppose the legal means for parties to intervene in primaries. so that would also solve half of rick's problems, if we loosen rules -- we allow parties to coordinate with their candidates. but there's still going to be a lot of pressure to not protect these vulnerable people in a primary situation. >> we seem to have something of a consensus that more coordination within the parties would be sensible. we saw something pretty unusual in this presidential race on the republican side, many people who

would be defined as traditional business persons deciding not to support the republican presidential nominee, making public statements to that effect, many others who have nothing to say publicly or privately at least expressing a lot of discomfort in the way things were going on the republican side. on the democratic side, we saw people who classically have been democrats, blue collar workers, people living in rural areas who historically in many places have been the core of the democratic party, defecting en masse to support donald trump and his campaign. so what does this say about the future of coalitions within both parties? is there some risk that these core coalitions to defect, and are the conditions ripe for a third party to arise based on these factories? who wants to go first?

>> the third party angle, on the third party angle, as much as i would want to see a third party, i've one of these people who has been registered as an independent for a long time, i don't like a lot of what both parties have to say. i just don't think it's possible under the campaign finance regime we have today, to get a third party going. i'm not saying it's impossible. but it's difficult to start with politically. and when you look at the campaign finance rules, i think it's even more difficult. so no, i don't see that happening. to me, one of the interesting things about the last couple of -- to shift to the other party your question, what's really interesting to me is, there was a lot of discussion that the republican party was going to go so far off to the right, it would become irrelevant. and with the democratic shifts occurring, the republican party

might go, you know, disappear in some fashion. but i actually think this whole script has been flipped. there's a huge amount of upside for the republican party with trump. i'm not predicting it. don't get me -- i don't want to make people think i'm predicting it's going to happen. but i think the democrats are in serious trouble, one, from a lack of farm team, but two, trump has been able to break through into very important democrat democratic constituencies and flip states, we've already seen west virginia go over the last ten years from a totally solid democratic stronghold, now the republicans control both houses of the legislature, and it's voted for republicans solidly in several campaigns. so -- and then you look at the other core democratic -- and some of the core constituencies,

hispanics, the african-american community, i think it's quite possible, i know this is hard to imagine right now, but i think it's entirely possible trump could make inroads there as well. and we've already seen him make inroads into the working class. so the democratic party, especially if it continues to shift to the, you know, senator warren/bernie sanders left, could be in real trouble if trump is -- turns out to be a terrific politician. and we simply don't know what will happen with that. >> so you're talking about centrifugal force within the democratic party possibly throwing off a major coalition or big components of it. what about the republican party, will the business community, long the establishment within the republican party, remain entirely within the fold? >> i think they probably will, simply because of the democratic party, if you look at the

policies, a lot of things the party and elected officials have done over the last decade, as bad as republicans might get on many issues important to the business community, the democrats aren't giving them anything either. they really don't have anywhere else to go. >> rick, your thoughts? >> think about how much donald trump's coalition represents what had been the old kind of union democratic coalition, in terms of substantive policy issues, right? against free trade, restrictions on immigration, protections of entitlements. i think that we're in the midst of something we obviously don't understand yet, but absolutely, i think we could be in the midst of a significant reconfiguration of both political parties in a way that would unscramble the polarized structure that we've had over the last 30 to 40 years. i think that democrats make a big mistake in assuming, as some

of the analysts have post-trump, that well, the demographics still favor the democratic party over time because the hispanic population is growing, the minority population is growing. that assumes that these groups are going to continue to vote at the same rates for the democratic party that they have been recently. i think if the republican party manages to cement itself as the party of the working class, which is the pitch trump is trying to make, i think, adopting a lot of traditional working class issues, you know, once the incendiary rhetoric and the polarizing rhetoric is not there because some other candidate who is a republican carries on down that path, it would not surprise me to see other working class voters beyond white working class voters moving in that direction.

trump already got two points more of the latino vote than romney did to many people's amazement. and the protectionism, the various kinds of things trump is doing, the anti-trade agenda, that may very well push more and more of the business community towards the democratic party. it's been moving in that direction to some extent already. now, i don't know how to envision how these coalitions will or won't come together. but what's happening right now is the biggest disruption to the established set of coalitional structures that we've had since reagan's election, and it's going to have profound effects on both parties as they struggle to redefine their identity in response to whatever policy initiatives actually emerge from this administration. >> i think both parties'

coalitions are under an awful lot of stress and strain from the historical norms. certainly the triangulation that donald trump has achieved by surprising everyone and winning those states in the upper midwest with noncollege educated white blue collar workers is absolutely true. but the other thing that donald trump showed is that you don't need the old three legs of the reagan stool to win a nomination and then ultimately an election as a republican. so you do see a number of strains there. it seems to me the democratic coalition is equally strained in its own way. but largely between a donor class that has wanted candidates to stress things like climate change and social issues and the union blue collar base, the historical base you mentioned, that clearly was not terribly

interested in these issues. you've got a country that if you look at the red and blue maps is blue on the coasts and pretty solid red everywhere else with the exception of a couple of metropolitan areas in the midwest. every leader of the democratic party, chuck schumer in the senate, nancy pelosi and steny hoyer in the house, are from the coasts. and so i think that's a huge change and a huge strain. and it seems to me the best legislative strategy that the democrats have, and what i think should worry both the trump administration and the republican leadership, is the ability to triangulate on policies that donald trump favors that are not core republican conservative issues.

and you've already seen that a little bit in the back and forth on the trade deals. you've seen it in -- when you talk about infrastructure, something that democrats have historically supported and donald trump certainly supports, but the budget deficit hawks amongst republicans are going to take a pretty different view of massive infrastructure spending. what our footprint should be overseas is also another one of those issues that can be triangulated. and just wait until carried interest comes up as an issue, if you want to see some interesting strains. so i would agree with the point that you never know great change when you're in the middle of it, and we may be in the middle of it and not fully cognizant of how great that change is. >> one statistic that kind of drives ben's point home, i put together on the numbers for the votes for clinton and trump in brooklyn, manhattan, and

california. when you take brooklyn, manhattan, and california out of the election, donald trump won the rest of the country by nearly 3 million votes. so you say the coasts. just manhattan, brooklyn, and california gives you that picture. then you probably know some of this data, if you look across the rest of the country, because i think it's a mistake to focus just on the presidential election to understand the struggles that the parties are going through, and particularly the democratic party. 66 of 99 state legislatures now controlled by the republican party. 33 or 34 governorships controlled by the republican party. donald trump won virtually every county that obama one only once, which was about 207 counties. the 709 counties president obama won twice, donald trump won 30% of those. we can go on and on. donald trump won ohio by 450,000

votes. that is staggering. so the problems about the democratic party and its base in new york city and california and a couple of other places is a very serious problem that the party has to be confronting, as the republican party deals with the incredible internal struggle that it's going to be going through under president trump. >> one historical anomaly that you'll see this time usually in a midterm election, the party in power who holds the white house loses seats. by a chance, the senate map next time is tilted republican. ten of the democratic incumbents who are up are in states won by trump. 24 of the 34 seats, something like that, are currently held by democrats. this late in the election cycle, the congressional districts are pretty locked in. so that if you are looking at it

now, you would not see the sort of historical course correction that comes in mid-terms. >> and let's actually link this to the point about state parties that david was raising. because i think this is an unusual connection for people to see. one of the reasons the democratic party or the clinton campaign may have been blissfully unaware of what was going on in places like wisconsin, is because of what david was talking about, and bob powers taught me this point. because the state parties just don't exist in any robust form in a lot of places now, the campaigns, at least on the democratic side, are run out of a center in brooklyn with lots of data analytics, but not really connected to what's going on out there in wisconsin or in michigan. they're not getting the input that they used to get from state

political parties and key figures locally in the same way. and the decline of the state parties may be connected to the way these campaigns are run, what they miss about what's going on with big blocs of voters. i just think it's interesting to draw that connection as a thread through this discussion. >> in the election just passed, the democrats basically had no message directed toward rural areas. and mr. trump focused on the rural vote intensely and had a message tailored primarily for people who are blue collar in rural areas. and the results were pretty dramatic. he carried the rule countiral c all across america. the democrats, as part of their effort to regain prominence and to solidify their historic coalitions, need to develop a

rural message. what could it be? and can that be done consistently with the democrats continuing their strong appeal to people in the metropolitan areas across the country? who wants to try that? >> you're all looking at me. i have no idea. [ laughter ] i'm not sure anyone knows. but i think it goes back to the problem of the state parties. they're really -- they've been hollowed out. if you're going to develop a message for the rural areas, you've got to have people in the rural areas and you have to have some functioning party structure there. so, you know, i really think it's not only a matter of resources, but it's a matter of -- this idea of federalizing all the messaging at the state level is just a -- i mean, if you were sitting around in a laboratory saying, what can we do to destroy state and local parties, what can we do to make it difficult for volunteers to

get together for parties, someone says, i've got a great idea, let's come up with something, a set of rules that no one can understand unless they have people like ben ginsberg advising them at every step of the way. ben is a very talented fellow. they're not all -- you don't see ben ginsberg in some rural county somewhere that knows federal election campaign regulations and is willing to do it on a voluntary basis. and even if he did, they still wouldn't be able to follow the advice, most likely. it's hard to overemphasize how bad the situation is, generally. >> let's situate this in the broader context of what's going on globally. because this is a problem that's affecting democracy everywhere. it's a big part of the vote in brexit. it's the rural areas that are alienated. it's a big part of the vote that just took place in italy, rejecting the referendum. it's the rural areas. what has happened over the last

20 or 30 years, for whatever set of reasons, is there's been more and more concentration of power, financial power, cultural power, political power, in the dominant cities. and rural voters, whether they're in england, france, italy, the united states, feel increasingly alienated from power, ignored by those in power, condid ddescended to by in power, not responded to by those in power. and this is a global phenomenon that has to do with the transformation of how people live. so it isn't just a problem here for better or worse. it's a profound problem for democracy across the world these days. >> we only have a few minutes left. we would like to offer an opportunity for anyone in the audience who has a question.

so sally is behind me, she's going to moderate this portion. >> i've got a series of questions. this won't quite be one-second answer, but if you can keep your answers short, because there's a lot of interest in this. the campaign finance laws were primarily enacted to diminish corruption. no one on the panel has even mentioned corruption when discussing them. were we wrong or have we just given up? anyone? >> the reality is the standard was corruption or the appearance of corruption. so there have been precious few cases of actual corruption. but a lot of newspaper articles written about the appearance of corruption. and in effect, even if corruption is -- or the appearance of corruption is what you're trying to start, you now have a system where the candidates are limited in what they can say, and special interest groups can set the terms of the debate, dominate

the debate, make the candidates talk about their issues. so i'm not sure that even if that was a virtuous standard to begin with, it's been proven in fact, and certainly that as a rationale has led to what i think is a really distorted system now. >> other comments? >> i don't think -- there's no evidence that contribution limits have reduced corruption and there's no evidence that contribution limits have increased -- there have been no studies to track this at the state level where states change over time. there's just no evidence. think what people need to do is ask themselves, today, do we have a better, less corrupt class of politician than we had, you know, for the first 200 years of our nation's history? and i don't think there's any evidence that we do. >> this goes to a subject which

was discussed. given the presence of such different candidates during the primary, should party leadership continue playing a neutral role in primaries rather than unflinchingly rallying around certain nominees, or would they be better served throwing their resources more overtly behind the favorites, in other words come clean with what they want? >> i think that's to you. >> it's a good question, if they're fighting over it. >> i am the party hack. so i mean, my question is, what resources? i'm not quite sure how parties were capable of weighing in on the presidential level. and then when you get down to the senate and house levels, there actually were attempts by the leadership or the super pacs affiliated with leadership or groups like the chamber of

commerce to sort of go up against tea party people who won in 2010. so i think it depends what level you're talking on. and on the national committee level, real hard, not much resources, not much ability to impact it, more on the senate and house with incumbents. >> let me just add a quick point. i find it remarkable, because people know, you know, i have been involved in politics, and they keep asking me, what's wrong with the republicans or what's wrong with the democrats, why are they coming up with candidates like this? and i think there's this impression in the public that somehow the parties can control everything. that's about as far from the truth as the reality. so the impression is almost exactly the opposite of what the reality is. >> and this goes back to my opening comment about the change in the way the primaries work. just think about how bizarre this is.

the democratic party cannot keep an independent from running for the democratic party nomination. in fact if the democratic national committee tilts the deck against the independent, that's a scandal. and think about this on the republican side. you have republican -- longstanding republican office-holders, senators, people with national security experience, foreign policy experience. how was the selection process done for who showed up on the main stage for the debates? by popular opinion polls the media ran. the party had no control over any of that. so i think one of the things i'm suggesting, that won't happen, but that we think about legitimizing a greater role for the party in selecting or participating in the process of narrowing the field or selecting nominees who run under the party

label, as was the case for most of american history until the 1970s. >> let me ask a question, which is actually linked to a panel later this afternoon. but you've all talked a lot about raising money and the candidates getting money and the parties having money or not having money as the case may be. is money as important to campaigns when advertising seems to be eclipsed by communications through twitter, reddit, et cetera? >> i'm not sure i totally agree with this. we had a fascinating program on that at stanford on friday. among other things, the trump campaign said they spent an equal amount of money on digital communications as broadcast communications. so i'm not sure that the message is being driven so much by those

independent sites as much as campaigns slowly shifting to actually spending the money on digital, which of course the media hasn't really figured out how to track. so those spending numbers are not immediately visible tomor w anyone. but there is a change in the way campaigns are communicating. i believe it's still being driven by the exchanges. >> so money still matters? >> money still matters. >> yeah, it still matters, but it's definitely not the only thing. i mean, we look -- jeb bush had the most money initially. what did he get, four delegates? i think he set a new record on spending per delegatdelegate. so money can help deliver a message, but if people don't like the message or don't agree with it, you're not going to be able to spend tons of money and buy an election, basically. but you have to also give donald

trump, you know, credit. he knew how to get an enormous amount of earned media, obviously not all of it was good, but when you looked early on, there was a very interesting study that was done on the value of the media. and the amount that trump had from so-called earned media dwarfed all the other candidates. >> and he spent relatively little money during the nominating process. >> right. >> this election showed the candidates matter more than money, but the money still matters. you have to have enough to sort of reach a threshold. >> very good. does public financing of parties present first amendment issues, because the government is supporting these two specific viewpoints or whatever comes from the campaigns? >> i don't think it raises a first amendment issue. there are concerns i could imagine having about it.

but presumably the way the money would be allocated would be based on some formula that has to do with the percentage of votes that party got in the prior election. i mean, we had public financing for the presidential election for many years until our friend, president obama, not all of our friend. >> it was a useful exercise. >> you know, blew that system up by deciding to go outside of it. there was no first amendment issue about providing funds to the two major parties. you know, there are rules about access to the ballot for political parties based on their needing to get over 5% in the previous governor's election and the like. that's how the formulas for public financing would work. there are difficulties in making a system like that work. i don't want to understate them. first amendment issues i think are not --

>> all right. well, i think you're wrong about that. i think there really are serious first amendment problems. and obviously a lot will depend on how it's designed. but i mean, the whole idea that the two political parties can basically get u.s. government funds to subsidize their operations, what about the parties that are trying to emerge? how do you write a rule for that? to me that's very difficult to start with. but to me, even a more fundamental problem is, how do you handle the enforcement process? people that like all this campaign finance regulation, i don't think anyone has a good answer for how to fairly enforce these laws. the best -- the least bad system that has been developed is the federal election commission, where no political party can control the enforcement process. and a lot of people don't think that works particularly well.

but if you look at what happened in the irs, where there was clearly ideologically based decisions made about tax exempt applications, how do we build an enforcement process that can't be captured by one party to tilt elections? and it's not a matter of how much money the parties get. a much more effective way to undercut a party is to come out with a last-minute scandal or last-minute enforcement action saying one party cheated. i mean, the clinton campaign thinks the fbi director cost her the election. and that was -- she was never even indicted. but the mere fact that an enforcement person said something new about her e-mails ten days out from the campaign, a lot of people think that was the reason why they lost. so to me that's an important first amendment issue. >> these critiques are about any

system for enforcing any campaign finance laws. this isn't a criticism that's specific to public financing. it applies to whatever regulations you have. >> but that's my point. >> so that's an argument for -- >> there isn't a -- >> first of all -- >> there should be a lot fewer of these regulations in the first place. but nevertheless, that's part of designing these systems in a first amendment way. and most of the people that have proposed these types of systems want a very strong figure making the enforcement decisions. but how do you ensure that person isn't going to tilt it in some way? it's a very difficult problem to solve. i don't think anyone's solved it. >> the states -- look, we'll see what happens. this kind of reform always takes place first at the state level, it's always been the history of most kinds of reforms in the political process. there are more and more states that are moving to public

financing systems. we'll see what kind of record of experience we have with that so far. the enforcement problems you're raising have not been an issue at the state level in maine or arizona. >> but look at what happened in wisconsin. no, wait a second. in wisconsin, we had a campaign finance law that a prosecutor had this john doe process. he conducted pre-dawn raids on essentially every important conservative group and activist in the state, shut down the entire critique from the conservative side or support for the governor's policies. >> but again, that isn't a public financing system. that's just an ordinary system that we have in the federal system and in most states. >> look at the new york mayoral race, a lot of people think de

blasio won because of the enforcement process. >> you're going to have more enforcement which leads to the problem. and the states that have put in public financing have an overwhelmingly blue tint to them. and just while we're looking for solutions to the party problems -- >> i don't think that's true of arizona. >> no, it's getting peeled back, it's not working. that was the by and large of the comment. but i think the chances of what amounts to the food stamps for politicians going in on a federal level is like -- is like slim and nil. so if you want a solution for strengthening parties, you need to look beyond the notion that government handouts are going to help your favorite politicians, who we've all been saying are not held in particularly high regard by the public anyway. >> and that's why we won't get bipartisan support for public financing at the federal level.

>> on this somewhat contentious note, i need to say that our time has expired for this panel. i think they've done a terrific job, very informative, let's give them a round of applause. [ applause ] while congress is on break, we're showing american history tv programs normally seen only on the weekend here on c-span3. we start at 8:00 eastern with sport and race in the 1980s, followed by coroners in the 19th century south. u.s. refugee policy since world war ii. and 20th century white supremacist groups. that's tonight on american history tv prime time at 8:00 eastern. this week on c-span in prime time, tonight at 8:00 eastern, president barack obama and japanese prime minister shinzo abe visit the american naval base at pearl harbor.

mr. abe is the first sitting japanese leader to visit the site of the attack that launched u.s. involvement in world war ii. wednesday night, beginning at 8:00, a review of house and senate hearings from 2016, on topics including the flint, michigan water crisis and the wells fargo unauthorized account scandal. >> seriously? you found out one of your divisions had created millions of fake accounts, had fired thousands of employees for improper behavior, and had cheated thousands of your own customers, and you didn't even once consider firing her ahead of her retirement? >> thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, we remember some of the political figures that passed away in 2016, including former first lady nancy reagan and supreme court justice antonin scalia. and friday night at 8:00, our in memoriam program continues with shimon peres, muhammad ali, and former senator and astronaut but

on generjohn glenn. this week in prime time on c-span. ♪ the presidential inauguration of donald trump is friday, january 20th. c-span will have live coverage of all the day's events and ceremonies. watch live on c-span and c-span.org, and listen live on the free c-span radio app. a new generation of military helicopters is being developed by the pentagon to include aircraft with common technologies and enhanced capabilities. the plan, called the future of vertical lift or fvl program, was discussed by a group of military officers from the army, marine corps, and special operations command. this is an an hour.

good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us this morning to talk about future vertical lift. before we get started, let me take care of the obligations that we have at all our prevents, before i get into the meat of this fascinating topic. let me just give our security announcement, for all our events we just like to remind folks that we're in a nice secure facility here but nothing is as secure as it could possibly be. so if anything were to happen, i'll be your security officers, i'll give you directions on where to go. most likely we would head out the back here and to a safe location over by the national geographic building. if that were to become

necessary, i will let you know and there will be the voice of god coming through the speakers. in all likelihood we will have an event that will not be eventful in that sense but will be eventful in substance. i would like to thank our sponsors. this future vertical lift series is sponsored by bell and textron, we want to that anything them for making this series possible. today we'll talk about, again, about future vertical lift. as i mentioned, this is part of a broader series of events that have been looking at this question of what's the future of vertical lift, where are things going. and i'm really excited, actually i've been waiting for many amongst to have today's event where we're going to talk about a requirement for future vertical lift has been wednesnd its way through the pentagon and has actually gotten approval. we're at the stage of rather than just talking about it, people are getting deeply into beginning to execute programs.

so that's a major step. it's what we want to focus on today. we've got an all star cast from the services here to make us smarter about this. to my right is colonel erskine bentley, united states army. he has had a number of command positions in the army and aviation. and has been the air requirements branch chief as well as ground requirements branch chief at socom. he's a dual threat at least, perhaps more. to his right is colonel john barranco. did i pronounce that correctly? barranco. from the united states marine corps, currently assigned to marine corps aviation branch head. he has previously served as executive officer to general kelly. if you are like me and you have your u.s. marine corps cabinet

bingo sheet at home, i've determined you can pretty much staff the entire cabinet with former marine officers. i'm going to pencil you in, john, as a future secretary of transportation, if that's okay with you. and in all seriousness, he has a lot of experience obviously in aviation and instructor pilot and naval academy graduate. to his right is colonel david phillips, who is a peo for rotary wing at socom, a test pilot, also trained as a program manager, so another dual threat joining us. and with that, we're going to start with the army, which is the lead service for the activity that's under way, and then we'll hear a little bit from the other two panelists. and then we'll go into q&a. but colonel bentley, over to you. >> great, thank you. good morning. first of all, sincere

appreciation to csis for putting together this event, and to you, mr. hunter and ms. johnson also. as we look at the future vertical lift family of systems, you know, that encompasses the entire dod vertical lift inventory, from our smallest to our largest helicopter. we've taken a mission systems approach to defining our requirements for the vertical lift family of systems. we have department and service equities across that system. but as we look at the army requirements and specifically for capability set three, we see that the greatest joint need across the services is for capability set three aircraft. and so that's our intent to go after a cap set three first. specifically for the army, we're looking at a utility mission. this utility mission involves medevac capabilities. it involves our air assault

capability. the ability to assault life forces and their equipment. and also involves troop movement. as we also look at what the army requirements are, we look at the reach, protection, and also the lethality of fvl aircraft. when we talk about reach, we're looking at the power, speed, range, and endurance of fvl and specifically cap set three. this enables the army to conduct strategic deployment. and once we arrive in theater at a place in time of need, it allows us to immediately go into operations. so it's about strategic deployability with tactical deployment once we arrive. the other thing about reach is it gives us maneuverability and agility in and around the objective area. as we look at protection, fvl speed and range also enables us

some additional protection for the force. not only for the aircraft but also for the occupants and the force in general. the speed and range of fvl coupled with, you know, advance survivability equipment, sensors and other equipment enables us to increase the protection of our force. as we look at the lethality of fvl, once again, the speed and range coupled with sensors, lightweight precision munitions, is going to increase the lethality of army aviation and vertical lift aviation in the joint force. we spent quite a few years developing our requirements. and we still have a long way to go. we're just kind of, you know, scratching the surface on developing our initial requirements. but really what we have is a well-informed decision-based plan of execution. we have a very large investment

in s&t that's informing capability set three and fvl. we're looking at different ways of manufacturing using different materials, advanced technologies for vertical lift, and we're also looking at the opportunity to use a modular open systems architecture in fvl aircraft that could be common across the family. but we've done a lot of it work getting to where we are. we have a lot of work to do. even before we start refining our requirements and before we start writing production requirements for vfl. but the army is excited about capability set three. we're definitely excited about leading the multiservice team for fvl development and specifically capability set three. and we're looking forward to the future. >> all right, thank you. colonel barranco, please. >> well, good morning.

thanks for having us here today. andrew mentioned i i'm a naval academy graduate. he didn't tell you i'm a west point grad. i don't know if you guys know, there's a little game tomorrow, maybe you heard something about that. >> is there a wager? >> not yet. but we'll see. a great opening by colonel bentley. and, you know, i agree with everything that he said. you look at what's the need and the impetus behind the future vertical lift family of systems. probably a lot of you saw recently articles about the america deployment that the marine corps did with f-35. you look at f-35 across the joint force, across the three services, f-22. we're fielding and have fielded fifth generation fighters. that's important, we need that. we need a fifth generation fighter attack strike aircraft. with the exception of the osprey, you look across rotary wing, which makes up the

majority of our flying force in the joint force, we haven't really seen any large technical advances in aircraft since third generation, second or third generation. really since vietnam, what massive technical leap, despite all the technology progress we've seen in the last generation, have we really seen in rotary wing vertical lift aircraft? with the exception of the osprey, which is a very small portion. it's kind of a shocking assertion, when you think about it. so the need, both for industry and across the joint force, to leverage technology and to develop a new, more capable aircraft, has never been larger. when you look at the threat out there today, you hear a lot about antiaccess aerial denial, a-280 systems, for a variety of potential peer competitors that the u.s. plans for, plans to

compete against, our assembly areas, our rare areas, are going to have to be farther away from the action, from the flaw, that they have been before. they're going to have to be. they're going to have to be. our ability to penetrate, to get close to where the action is is going to be limited. it's going to be limited by those systems. that's one of the reasons we invested in our fifth generation strike attack aircraft. it's going to take range and speed to be able to range back and forth from the assembly areas to the flot. we've talked about a lot about distributed operations. we're going to have smaller, more capable, more lethal, more networked, net centric forces. and they'll be distributed more widely in smaller groupings across that flot. we're never going to get away from the concept of, at the decisive moment we'll still need to mass our forces and bring that to bear. that also will require vertical

lift systems. i'm very excited to be participating in this with the army. the army-led multi-service program. as colonel bentley said, we're still in the early stages. but what we're finding is, with cap set three future vertical lift, we have a lot more in common with the needs that we've identified across the services, socom, army, and marine corps. i'm very excited about being part of it. i think we've already put a lot of time, a lot of effort, and most importantly, money towards it. we're looking forward to successfully deploying cape set three as the first of a large future lift family of systems. thank you. . >> thank you, colonel. and then pulling up our rear guard is colonel phillips from socom. >> okay. good morning, everyone. i would like to start out by saying, if you first get a call

from somebody who says, hey, come sit on a panel in washington, dc before christmas with a lot of questions fielded from the audience, consider that call carefully. person that is made that call and think about are they on your christmas card list. so with that, i would like to say thanks for having us here. i would like to say thank you to my peers for taking this on together and thank you to c sis for having this. i think we should get something out of this conversation. it should be a two-way conversation and open it up because we should leave with a better shared understanding of the challenges ahead. i really think it is great to see the familiar faces in the office but if we don't leave with the shared understanding, we'll waste the opportunity. so why is it important to the special operations command. if we start by looking at the environment and look at the risks and the way we should collaborate to address those risks, i think it will paint a

little bitter picture from the so com perspective. so diffusion of power and technology and we just talked about that, the world is not getting to be a more safer place and we know that our near peer competitors in regional states and violent extremist organizations are continuing to threat our national interest so we have to be cognizant that as we develop a future future vertical lift aircraft it could keep up with that environment and we want to really stay ahead of that environment. so fortunately, the investments that we made down at u.s. so com in the 1990s, when d.o.d. was in a draw-down period, it came to bear after the attacks of 9/11. so we were able to execute long range assault and infiltration missions through the mountains at night in afghanistan and we were only able to do that because we had invested in it the equipment and the training to be able to do that, those

missions. the kilo is a good example. that black hawk ran a lot of thoseons and we invested in those and fielded those in the 1990s. so looking at that history, how should we be prepared to look at it in the future? i think one of the enduring ways is to have better interdependence and greater integration and operability. and those three tenants over the last 30 years and particularly over the last 15 years have shown we can't operate soft and conventional sources separating in space and time any more, we have to operate together and with nested operations, we have to operate with nested acquisitions. so integrating with the services in the past could be conceived -- perceived to be a challenge. but i think going forward, i think that is the right thing to do. and a couple of skpaexamples i d call out in recent history, the army developed the ua60 mike

black hawk and they gave us that at so com and we modified it to meet our mission requirements and we feel it is the mh-60-m and the ch47-f block two program under way with the army and the renew program underway with the mh-47-g, those two efforts are directly aligned and the synergy there is paying off in development. so we have to keep up with the environment and we have to learn from our history and take these lessons that we've learned and the recent fielding of aircraft and employ them on this future vertical lift opportunity. we have to learn as much as we can from the flight tests coming up on jay mar. i believe that speed range and pay load are achievable and i think that the j mar flight test down at the two vendors that are building those aircraft are going to prove out the envelopes that are possible to get there. but i think that the key point and the key point i would like to make is that operational suitability is not just about

speed, range and pay load. operational suitability is really including sustainability and survive ability. and those are the kind of things that help build the combat power for all of our forces. not just for so com. so that combat power and the readiness that is driven by sustainability and survive ability has to be up there on the priority list and we have to think through that carefully. i think after we get those five things, not just the top three, but all five, but i think then we should fold that into carefully considering better equipment and better horde wear and better software and better mission architectures and those architectures be agile enough to keep up with the environment and to stay ahead of the environment. and said that earlier and i'll say it again. i think it is that important to stay ahead of the threats so we can maintain that comparative over match. the last 20 years of mission

equipment there has been a lot of great opportunities but it is littered with examples where we didn't live up to our expectations on open architecture systems. we've learned a lot. i think that learning is still going on in the s and t community and if you are in industry and not familiar with the missions systems architecture demonstration or the architecture process demonstrations, if you are not familiar with those acronyms or those programs, go out and get familiar with the army s and t and the nav folks working on that. i think it is important. because the really collective challenge is to prioritize those efforts along with the speed, range and pay load that we'll see in the jmrtds. so provide value to soft commanders, given the expected costs, it must provide those capabilities and in all weather, all environments, and we have to be able to -- to execute our missions when the enemy least

expect it. integrating open architecture with emerging sensor technologies is a way to do that but it can't be cost prohibitive. it can't take too much time and it can't cost too much money. so the bottom line, so com absolutely is lined up with the other services, we need an aircraft with range and speed and pay load and an aircraft that is survivable and sustainable. we shouldn't get focused on the architecture of today we should look at the architecture of tomorrow. and we have to address the risk collectively and in environments starting here but in a lot of ipts and a lot of discussions with industry and keeping our operators involved in the process along the way to make the right decisions for fvl. thanks again for having us here today and i look forward to your questions. >> thanks. well we'll start with a couple from down here and, by the way, as i encourage the panelists to question each other if you would

like. i don't know if i can get you to do that. but we have a couple of events recently where i've had panelists engaging directly with each other and it keeps things lively. so you are encouraged. i want to start this on issue a couple of you raised about the commonality of the requirement. and i guess it is kind of a multi-part question, but there is a requirement that has gone through the j rock, but as colonel bentley mentioned, that is really a starting point. that is not the -- that is an in is -- an in ishl and early look at the requirements and there is still work to do and the fact that the tree of you are -- the three of you are here today means we are fairly aligned, but the question is how do you stay aligned as the requirement matures and grows more detailed. and it strikes me that there is maybe more differences between future vertical lift than where we were with the joint strike

fighter than similarities but it is a program that comes to mind as a major joint program where the services tried to align requirements going forward. and that proved to be quite a challenge. and it turned out there was less commonality between the various aircraft when they were finally produced than maybe had had been the notional perspective going in back in the '90s. so i'm just interested in each of your thoughts on how do you maintain the commonality of the requirement as you get more detailed into some of the issues you all raised about deploy ability, ability to do mission upgrades and your thoughts on that? >> this is something that we're all looking toward and really what we've developed is, i think, a broad area of joint trade space that we've noticed. and because really as we look at

the pay load capability of the aircraft, we look at some of the speeds and ranges that we're looking for in a cape set three aircraft, there is a lot of alignment on the capabilities between the services. we still have -- as we said, a lot of work to do in that area. but we've definitely identified the trade space that is there. and when it looks at things like pay load of the aircraft, even though the army, marine and so com requirement may be different in say number of soldiers or marines on the aircraft, we can trade that pay load for other things. for instance, we could trade part of the pay load that the army uses for soldiers into fuel to increase the range that the marine corps needs or that so com needs. the other thing is we look at the multi-service capability of the aircraft. there is a lot of components, a

lot of dynamic expensive components that we could see using throughout the services. both our members here also mentioned the open architecture system. so there is great commonality there in an open architecture system across the services. >> to colonel bentley's point, you talk about differences and requirements in trade space. every requirement is a range. a threshold, a minimum that you think you need, that you assess as your need and objective, your ultimate desire. within that spectrum, whether it's from x speed to y speed or x amount of troops to y amount of troops, that is kind of your trade space. and there is a lot of overlap in between there. to get to as close as the perfect shared solution, will there be compromise, yeah, of course there will be. that is not a bad thing. because the reality is and

colonel phillips touched on it, we're in a fill cally constrained environment and anybody who thinks that will change radically for the better is probably fooling themselves. we need shared technology and we need shared systems, we need shared aviation supply and logistics. that is a reality. it is not just a fiscal reality, it is a battlefield reality. we're not going to be able to sustain, move, supply, multiple unique systems across the services like we've done in the past. i think to think that we're going to have that kind of flexibility or that degree of overmatch in the future, i think that's probably a wrong assumption. talking a little bit about -- you touched on f-35 and i think -- an important distinction to kind of make here and colonel bentley touched on it. this is on f-35, but lessoned

learned. this is a multi-service project, versus joint. what does that mean? is that just semantics? we set up a joint program officer f35 and that was an unheard of creation and an amalgamation of different services, very unique and on a construct that existed previously, when you do something new, you learn a lot -- a lot of lessons learned. it becomes more difficult to leverage existing relationships and structures that work well. that is not what we're doing here. this is an army led -- army program management led program with participation from so com and the marine corps. so using existing army program management structure, existing nav air support, we're not creating something new from scratch. that in and of itself doesn't guarantee it is more successful or goes smoother than f35 -- the f35 is doing well.

the marine corps has one complete squadron already fielded but this isn't structured different than f35 was. so yes, there are similarities but we've looked at those and tried to take some lessons learned from there and structure this a little bit differently. >> so i think the aoa will flush a lot of that out. i think we'll absolutely have the opportunity to think about that and talk about that together with services. a good example, this is a good example of the f35, and another good example for us in so com is the fh60m and the mh47g. we made some hard decisions back in the early 2000s to have a common set of mission equipment in that -- those aircraft. and that decision was hard at first. and it required a lot of compromise but we built in the flexibility and the ability to upgrade those systems and now

with common contracts, comment sustainment tales, that is really the way that we could efficiently operate the fleet today. and if we hadn't made those hard decisions early, 15 years ago now, then we wouldn't be where we are today. >> thanks. a related question but also moving into kind of the next topic i wanted us to cover is the issue of threat and what is driving the need to get to a next generation of vertical lift systems. and again you all referenced this to some extent in your remarks, just wanted to drill down deeper and in particular something -- several of you mentioned as the -- we focus on speed and range and lethality and those are wonderful and fantastic and i wouldn't in any way minimize them and they have the potential to support new concepts of operations, as you

mentioned, colonel bar ano and there is that piece that will encourage sustaining commonality because my sense it, you can correct me, that the pace of the threat development is pretty consistent across the mission sets you are looking at. but there is also the aspect of sustainability and adaptability that we're hoping to have in these new systems. so if you could maybe talk a little bit about how that -- how that need to get to a more sustainable fleet or set of fleets, in the case, or system of fleets, and the need to adapt and how the threat is moving in a way that is consistent or not consistent across the various mission sets you're looking at. knowing that you can't get too much in threat and unclassified environment. >> thank you. one of the things, as we look at the future threat and colonel

touched on it earlier, obviously the speed and the range enables us to stay outside of the threat envelope. but as we look at sustainment of the future aircraft and the ability to move a joint force into np aran area of operations inoperability through the services by commonality we're able to reduce our footprint. we're looking to explore different types of inner operability where possibly we could share maintenance capabilities, not only the sustainment chain of parts and supplies, but also the ability for services to work on other services' aircraft. i mean, we think nothing today of flying on another services aircraft. we would probably want to explore joint sustainment. you know -- the other thing is, and we've touched on the open architecture capability, really that allows us to plug-and-play

and rapidly interphase new technologies into the aircraft. so if we go to a more of an app for that approach, or with resident firm ware and hardware that is available and we really define that open architecture system of how different capabilities can plug-and-play in the aircraft, how easily it is to update the aircraft. and then one of the other opportunities is with a clean sheet design, we can design all of this into the aircraft up front. we've had both in the h1 fleet and the h60 fleets over the last 30-plus years, we've experienced great growth and enhanced the capabilities of the aircraft. so with this in mind, we would go into capability set three planning for that growth in the

feature. >> that is absolutely a great point. and you know, you talk about the sustainability of logistics foot print, there is also a threat reduction piece to that. you look at the range and speed of our current aircraft and the amount of far b that you need to sustain, every one of those, obviously it is a logistics draw, but every one of those, particularly with the advanced systems out there, threat systems, is a target. it is a draw on man power and force for protection and draw on either resources for air defense. every one of those is a target. it is not just a draw on the legitics and it reduces threat with the additional range and speed. you talk about open architecture. we think about an all networked aircraft. it could easily share information. think link 16 but even more so. the ability to share information.

shared information shared situational awareness is its own form of threat reduction. the ability to have the open architecture and have all of our aircraft linked, sharing threats, sharing friendly location and enemy locations, mission data, et cetera, realtime simultaneously on the battlefield, that is one of the greatest aircraft survive ability equipment pieces, threat reduction things that we could possibly do. and that is not to say that we won't continue to invest in direct energy systems for counter ir missiles and other counter radar systems. we are. but i can't think of no better way to reduce the threat in the modern environment than to be linked and have everyone be in network node sharing information. and i would argue that probably that capability, that kind of digital operability, that is probably the greatest overmatch right now against our opponents, potential opponents. you look at some of our potential peer competitors out there, they make good hardware.

they make very good tack air jets. they make good wing aircraft. but can they network them and share information realtime in a battlefield like we have the potential to do? i would argue, no, they can't. and i think that is probably our greatest potential over match and that is where we have the greatest advantage and we need to exploit that. an that is what we're building from the ground up with this system. from cap set three to the whole family of systems, some of it backward fitted to legacy aircraft, that is going to benefit all aircraft across the joint force. that is really the direction that we need to go. and so then we spent time in the marine corp, we are building that network right now. but what we're building right now is more of an ad hoc after the fact. what we're doing here with cap set three is to build with the ground up this digital inoperable network where we are all connected. so i think that is a really huge advance for us. >> so that is a good question.

and i think the two points that the gentleman had earlier honestly about sustainment and survive ability are inextricably linked. so i think our sustainment in so com is linked to the services today and we are absolutely tied to the army for some of our systems and tied to the navy for some of our systems. so we have some experience doing that on the sustainment side and on the survive ability side as we share lessons laearned acros the community and we have to share the lessons learned and not forget them during aoa. we can't focus on the tech demonstrators that we forget about the rest of the aircraft and the requirement and that focus, those discussions, staying focused on where the threat is going, and trying to stay ahead of that, is very important. >> and i've got one more question and then we'll turn to

our audience. i have to a at these future vertical lift events there is as much or more knowledge in the audience as any other gathering that we tend to have here at csis. at least on vertical lift and the technical questions. and the question, and i think this is the issue that is probably the most lively discussion this year on capitol hill and probably for a little set of years here, and probably has been already, is this issue of timeline. and how this capability, this next gen vertical lift capability is going to start to deliver into the operating force. so i just would be interested in each of you just tackling how the timeline looks from your service perspective? when does this need to deliver -- colonel, you referenced about backward fitting some of the advances here to the existing force which seems like a key point. but if you could each talk a little bit about timeline. >> as we look at our cap set

three development, we're looking to get this capability into the force in the early 30s. we've already mentioned we're currently involved in analysis of alternatives. that is going to help us refine those capabilities. and then starting in probably fy-19, fy-20, we're going to be making some decisions there on the multi-service aspect of the program, that joint trade space again. and we're going to continue to refine our requirements there. probably in the mid-20s we're going to make a decision to go forward and build representative aircraft. our prototypes. and then we'll look at a low rate production of one of those proto types in the late 20s. but i think the first time we're going to move into full rate production would be in the early '30s, with