pointing out these issues. and we will keep an eye on it. i ask you to do the same. lot.ve accomplished and our military and defense industry output increased 1.5 times. one other fact. in 2010, up to 75% of investment i made the defense industry was for -- in the defense industry was for the procurement of equipment. up to 75% of investment for new equipment and hardware. so now we are observing the process of accelerated formation and foundation for manufacturing weapons systems. we now have young people going into defense companies. we broke >> and the average age in r and

d and design industry, we have 46.5%, and in r and d, 41.5% -- oh, no, not percent, years of course. next year we have a targeted recruitment of 50,500 students ra tie-breaker in a specialty that are required to be in the industry. we will be paying bonuses to the best and most accomplished engineers. in recent, 5,358,000 children were born. the annual increment was $35,000 children. one of the best telling indicators is average life expectancy. today it is 69 years. in 2005 it was 65 years. so between 2005 and 2010, a

very good increase, four years. at the same time, the results -- who is getting free apartments. please carefully follow the process. it is a pretty good growth. at the same time, the results of the census demonstrated how fragile and unstable this demographic balance is. it is evident for us that active policy in the demography is changing. well do everything to support positive trends and families with children. all aspects are important. creating jocks, a flexible tax policy, housing issues, and

development of a stable health care system. the government initiated introduction of tax deductions for children -- families with children. i will have to go back to the address of the president last year. it was not by accident he was focusing on the protection of maternal health, child health and improving democrat demography. this is our strategy. we started a second phase. between 2011 and 2015 we expect projects will receive about 1.5 trillion roubles. what we are trying to achieve in 2015, the first indicator would be the increase of life

expectancy up to 71 years, and compared to 2006, birth rate increasing by 25% to 30%, and the death rate would be lower. looking at the trend we have now, it is achieve. the makeup thing is to keep up the pace. demographic indicators show the different sectors. russian beurocrat's is often criticized and quite justified. we are talking about substantial improvement and reorpting government apparatus to meet the interests of the citizens. we are talking about fighting corruption, trying to make bureaucrats responsible and

eliminate any preconditions for bribery. we need to clean our regulations and laws and eliminate loopholes and vague areas. the new law on licensing lowers by half licensing activitying. and licenses will have no expiration date. starting in 2012, a lot of licensing procedures already put into electronic format. now a little bit about certification. this is an important aspect. it seems mundane, but it is where we have the source of all evil. quite recently, up to 78% of all goods and services had to be certified. now it is only 46%. we will further lower this bar. in many cases producers will

self proclaim compliance to standards of quality. producers will have to guarantee the interests of consumers. while give a short reference. in the past two years, more than 600,000 small and medium businesses were launched in the wake of the crisis. this is very serious growth. i think the regional and local authorities in supporting entrepreneurship should be more open and effective. we should have rankings of effectiveness in the russian federation. despite the post crisis measures, we are going to support small businesses involved in innovation technology, in the defense industry and for those

entrepreneurs who are working in social spheres. we also will assist small businesses with financing through the national bank. shortly we will be providing services of government at the local and regional level in electronic format. we are talking about e-government, an integrated communications channel and data banks. from june of 2011, all necessary coordination and inquiries will be done by agencies themselves and not to use citizens as messageers. those citizens who would prefer a traditional form of receiving government services in person, it will be done, but it should

not be too burdenen some. the initial centers that were -- were created in 2007. in two years we will have 800 of them, and they will be working for the interests of the citizens and municipalities should be able to receive services based on the service of the single window. by june of 2012 there will be a fee schedule for government services, and fees will be charged only based on the tax code and schedule approved by the government. so demands for additional payments above those schedules would be illegal. in the shortest time, the government, as initiator of legislation, will suggest a new initiative. we would like to have the

citizens to be involved in the governing process. so, dear colleagues,-week-old like to arrange for public hearings of all socially significant bills and drafts of laws. this could be done involving the widest range of experts. recently i was talking about the need of health care, and we talk a lot bit it everywhere. i row sently visited a medical facility, and i realized the people don't know about what is being done. so i think that we shouldn't just lay out the drafts and put them up on the website so people can look at it, but also have public deliberation of it and maybe using a system of electronic voting so the people can decide which is is more

appropriate and important for them. a lot of leading countries now incorporate more and more the system of open government that would involve the citizenry in the decision-making process. is we need to encourage active civil engagement and take into account those recommendations and advice given by ibt experts . but of course it will be more difficult, and sometimes well lose on speed, but the quality will be improvement. dear colleagues, please allow me to conclude with saying that practically three years ago here in this chamber we laid out a new program for development by the gofrlt of our federation. yes, we had more challenges than anticipated, but we had to move forward and protect the citizenry from the crisis and defend every accomplishment in the sphere of education and

health care, and step by step restore, recover and increase the potential for growth. i can say with full responsibility this was a successful dash force. now we are making a large scale plan for economic growth. the government will do everything possible to make sure the economy is following positive growth and the well-being of russian families will grow. we will be guided by principle and listen to people. we are not willing to step away from this general principle line. support of citizens always helped us, and we have used it as a support in making very important decisions, and well do everything to earn this trust. thank you very much for your

patience and attention. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> thank you. recent political events both in our country and in the world proofed that the internet plays an important role in mobile miesing people. today on the internet you have the opportunity for wide, informle a and free communication. the user are not afraid to express mayor ideas about the upcoming and presidential campaigns in russian.

that can lead to a crackdown in this issue, and the evidence is in the recent statement by security services on the possibility of blocking ack to interpret sites. our faction is convinced that this is impermissible. we don't want to go back to 1937, and we believe that these actions will lead to discontent in the interpret and destabilize the situation. we would like to hear the principle position of the government in censorship of the internet, and if possible, we would like to hear your personal opinion. >> well, i don't recall that they had the internet in 1937. well, you know, that was a joke. what is the difference between the central committee of the communist party and the secret police?

we are not planning to clip anything. the internet is just a tool. it is a tool for solving important economic and social problems. it is a tool for communication and self expression, also a tool for improving quality of life and getting information. but the main internet resources are owned not by us. they are across the pond. they are owned overseas, and therefore, it cause concern among our security services. the potential of using these important resources for purposes that go against the interests of our society and our country. but it is their concern. as far as i am concerned, i don't believe there is a need to restrict anything.

>> the wave that rolled across the muslim and arab world, various upheave else, mute nissan and things affected the wormed economy. but the question is what does the government do? it is no secret that we had large contracts with these countries. our companies were working there and the re-distribution of financial flows and the migration flows now put at risk many things. the right wings have come to power, and they want to restore the borders in the european. what does the government do to

be least affected by those revolutions that are happening and probably will happen in the near future? >> the main guarantee to avoid social upheave always is social economic policy in the interest of the russian people. with mandatory positive results in our joint work. if people see that we are working defending their sfws, and we yield positive results, they're living standards are improving, i assure you there will be no problems that have to do with maintaining civil accords in our country. but of course there will be always isolated elements that

would be attempting to destabilize anything. in any healthy body, there are some harmful bacteria that are there, but they are suppressed by immunity if the immunity is high. if the immunity is weakening, this influenza presents itself. so if we maintain high immunity in our country, no quasi-political flunes will present itself. as far as our economic losses, in the course of turbulent events in north africa and other countries, yes, we have this problem. we have multi-billion-dollar

contracts in defense, and of course they are now up in the air. in some areas we have already provided services, and the work has been done, and it is not paid for. so it has been suspended. in some parts of the world we had plans to supply a weapons system. it is a huge problem because our companies proceed, according to the contracts, large amounts of weapon systems, but there's nobody to take it. what do we do with this inventory? it was not requested or commissioned by our military. though don't need it but the resources were spent, and i guess we need to somehow support these companies. we will find ways to do it, but it will require additional resources from us, maybe direct

support from the budget. it is not >> coming up, road to the white house with former new mexico gov. gary johnson. also, a discussion of an unmanned aerial vehicles in combat and intelligence operations. later, microsoft founder bill gates talks about his foundations development aid efforts to members of the european parliament's development committee. >> tomorrow, president obama is planned to reduce the deficit is examined by mark azande. also, a look at the women's vote with sullen the lake, president of lake research partners. later, lynn stanton joins our c- span studentcam winners. that is lying at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span.

-- that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> two-thirds of the american people depended on the network news of those three networks as their primary source of news information about the president of the united states. all were hostile to richard nixon appeared >> go inside pivotal moments in american history online at the c-span video library. search, watch, click, and share with every c-span program from 1987 through today. it is washington your way. >> in tonight's "road to the white house," former mexico gov. jerry johnson. from the steps of the state capitol in concord, new hampshire, this is almost half an hour.

>> thank you and good morning. this morning, i'm here to introduce what i hope will be the next president of the united states, gary johnson feared he was a two-term governor from new mexico. during that time, he cast more vetoes than any other governor in the country, more than all of them combined. he was not willing to compromise on core principles like taxes. he is more than just a governor, or an ex-governor. he is also a former businessman. he owned a company that employed over a thousand people. he is a great out fleet. -- he is a great athlete. his the new type of leader that we need in the united states. he maintained core republican principles, like smaller sized government and less taxes, but also believes a personal responsibility and personal freedom. he is the new leader we need. it gives me great pleasure to be able to support someone for president that i can say, not like that have most of the times

in the past, that he is not as bad as the other guy can he is someone i can to support. i hope you will be the next president of united states. gary johnson. [applause] states, gary johnson. [applause] >> this is the first time i get to say this. i am running for president of the united states [applause] . to do that, i think you have to have a certain resume and i like to think i do have that. i have been an entrepreneur my entire life. ever since i was 13 year old, throwing newspapers, mowing and lawns, i have paid for everything iave had in my life since i was 17 years old. when i was a junior in college, i started a one-man handyman

business in albuquerque. 20 years later, i employed a thousand people. american dream come true. naively, when i was elected governor of mexo, bei in business was not a plus. we were not getting the work we should have. in 1999, i sold the business. nobody lost their job and that businesses doing better an ever. i ran for governor of new mexico. i had never been involved in politics prior to running for gornor. i introduced myself to the republican party, much like i am doing right now. i introduced myself a couple of weeks before i announced. the chairman of the republican party in new mexico's said i like you, the republican party

is going to love you, we are an open party, so it's going to be an open process and it will go on statewide. i am thinking this wasll i could ever ask for. then, he says i think you're great, but you need to know you will never get elected. it is not possible to come from completely outside politics and the elected governor in a state that is two-one democrat. i got elected, and i would like to think it is based on what i had to say. everything should be a cost- benefit analysis. what are we spending money on and what are we getting in return? i was very outspoken regarding school choice. i believe in free markets and i believe bringing educational

entrepreneurs to bear would it make a difference. i did that in mexico. it may be a bit of an embellishment, but i may have vetoed more bills when you consider the line items i vetoed, i'd have vetoed more legislation than the other 49 governors in the country combined. it was not just saying no, it was looking at what we were ending money on and what we're getting for the money. i really believe in smaller government. i believe there is a consequence for the legislation gets passed and maybe it is not in our best interest to pass all of the legislation repass. that it layers of bureaucracy on the transactions that are not made any safer by you or i. and in that making it so much mor

cumbersome and burdensome and and that adding a lot of money as opposed to the notion of liberty and freedom and personal responsibility that goes along with it. i raised a dialogue regarding the war on drugs. it was an extension of everything i did as vernor of new mexico, which is what are we spending our money on and what are we getting for the money we're spending? i am outraged over the fact that this country is bankrupt. how did we get ourselves into this position? my entire life, i've watched government spend more money than it takes in. i always thought there be a day of reckoning with regard to spending and i think that day is

here. it needs to be fixed. who is responsible? one week ago, i was askedhould president obama's health care plan be repealed? yes, i think the health care plan should be repealed because we simply cannot afford it. but what i said then and what i will say now, i think republicans would gain a lot of credibility in the argument if republicans would offer a repeal of the prescription health-care benefits they passed when they controlled both houses of congress and ran up record deficits. that spending pales in comparison to today but both parties can share in where we have gotten to right now. i think we are on the verge of a financial collapse in this country. the writing is on the wall. this is not fear mongering.

this is we are going to encounter a financial collapse because quite simply, we cannot repave4 trillion dollars in debt when we are racking up 1.65 trillion dollars in debt going forward. it is just not going to happen. i am advocating balancing the budget tomorrow. i do not have a 20-year plan. the plan for balancing the budget is tomorrow. that is $1.6 trillion in reduced federal spending. the debate and discussion regarding gernment-reduced spending was we need to be cutting government spending by 43 cents it was about less than one penny.

after some analysis, it was less than one one-hundredth of a penny. we need to pla out what happened inashington a couple of weeks ago hundreds of more times if we are actually going to bring this to bear. when y talk about balancing the budget, it is important to talk about medicaid, medicare, social security, it is really about making social security solvent, and it is a defense spending. i think the federal government could blk grant the states a fixed amount of money which would be 43% less than we're spending and do away with the strings and mandates and give states the ability to get health care to the poor and those over 65. that would be 50 laboratories of

innovation. will be talking about this the whole time running for president. this is about 50 states. we have 50 boratories of innovation all out in the notion of best practices which gets emulated. there will be failure, but the notion washington knows best has us in the position we're in right now which is bankrupt. when it comes to social security, social security is pale in comparison to medicare. medicare is going to engulf the entire federal budget and a short time if it is not brought under control. social security needs to take in more money than it is paying out. you could raise the retirement age, have means testing and change the escalator from the

wage index to the inflation index, the third item would make social security solvent into the future. when it comes to defense spending, can we cut 43% of the defense budget and maintain a strong national defense? i believe we can and we have an obligation to do that and provide ourselves with a strong national defense. i think strong national defense is way different than we are currently engaged in which is nation-building all across the world, when we have our own nation to build. i would have been opposed to iraq at the get go. thought we had the military surveillance capability to see iraq rollout any weapons of mass destruction. if they woulhave done that, i

felt we could have militarily addressed that situation. i thought if we would go into iraq, we would find ourselves in a civil war to which there would be no end. i thought afghanistan was totally warranted initially. we were attacked and we attack back. we are at war with osama bin laden and al qaeda and we should remain vigilant to terrorist threats. but after being in afghanistan for six months, we would have affectively taken out al qaeda. that was 10 years ago. we are building roads, schools, bridges in afghanistan and borrowing 43 cents of every dollar to do that. in my opinion, that is crazy. we should get out of iraq and afghanistan tomorrow. [applause] for all of the debate and

discussion we will have over that issue, all of which will be warranted, i suggest to you we will have that same debate and discussion 25 years from now if that is when we finally decide to get out. in the meantime, we will continue to spend more money we do not have and a lot more men and women will end up losg their lives. libya -- in the environment i am in right now, i have to issue an opinion on everything right away, so libya, i am opposed to what happene in libya, starting out with where was the constitutional authority? where was the congress check off on that? where is it in the conitution if we don't like a foreign leader, we should topple the foreign leader?

who are the rebels in libya? have we not injected ourselves into a civil war? are there not five countries that would qualify for the same military intervention we have implemented in libya? under the umbrella oa no-fly zone, saddam hussein existed for 12 years. under a no-fly zone, the atrocities in bosnia occurred. when do ground troops become committe i think we've already seen that. the unintended consequence of government and its actions -- we take out saddam hussein, and there goes the check for iran, which may be a threat -- which may in fact be a security threat to the united states. i do not believe it exists at

all, but we should remain vigilant toward. it goes on and on and on. i believe in free markets. what i am going to embark on, the debate will be over government, government regulati, and free-market. am always the one that will defend free markets. when free markets are talked about in terms of here are the root of our evils, i would point out that it is there reason we don't have free markets is the relt of the problems we end up having. it is a government and the unintended consequences of government picking winners and losers when it comes to business, picking the winners and losers when it comes to

foreign governments, the unintended csequence. having been the governor of new mexico and the telling 750 pieces of legislation, i tried to put myself in the position of what is going to be the unintended consequence of this legislation? was it going to make a difference in anyone's life or were we just going to end up spending more money? looking at health care in this country, belieng in a free- market and the government could provide solutions by just eliminating impediments for health-care entrepreneurs to enter into the health care space to deliver better products and services at lower prices. health care in this country is about as far removed from free- market as it possibly could be, but always in this process i

this upcoming discussion which i relish, i am going to be the one that takes on the defense of the free market system and how if it were applied, it would make a difference. immigration right now is a hot- button issue. it is a discussion that should take place. i happen to think immigration is a good thing. i think this country is based on immigration. i view immigration as a job creator, not a situation that takes away jobs. because of our convoluted immigration policies, kids from abroad are coming and getting educated but because of our policies, we are sending them back to their countries of origin where they will ultimately employ tens of millions of indians as opposed to tens of millions of americans with businesses that would have

been nurtured here in this country. i advocate elimination of the corporate income tax, recognizing it is a double tax and by eliminating the corporate income tax, that would create ns omillions of jobs in this country. this would be the place to start up, build, nurture businesses that are currently taking place in other countries. this corpote income tax started as zero in this country. get back to that and we will really see some job creation. immigration ould be about work, not welfare. we have issuesn this country regarding welfare. immigrants coming across the border and taking entry-level jobs for americans? absolutely not.

we as americans can sit at home and collect a welfare check that is the same amount of money for doing nothing. i think we should make it as easy as possible for emigrants to get a work visa. i'm not talking about citizenship or a green card. i am talking about a work visa which would entail a background check so that applicable taxes would get paid. regarding the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country right now, this is one of those unintended consequences. government has made it impossible for those who want to work to come in and get a work permit. if they get across the border, they know they can get a job because they have hundreds of friends and families and they can come across and get that same job.

when ron reagan set up amnesty in the 1980's, he coupled it was putting the government in charge of quotas. do not get the govnment in charge of quotas. let business determine whether or not there is a need for labor. if not, emigrants will go back to their country of origin. there needs to be a time when the illegal aliens can get a legal work visa, background check, social security card, so taxes get paid. the notion of building a fence across 2,000 miles of border and putting that national gud across the border would be a lot of money spent with very little, if any benefit whatsoever. regarding drug policy, legalize marijuana.

legalize marijuanand arguably 70% of the border violence with mexico goes away because that is the estimate of the drug cartel activity engaged in the trade of marijuana. 28,000 deaths -- if we cannot connect the dots between violence and prohibition, i don't know if we ever will be able to. these are disputes being played out with guns rather than in the court. let's take a new look at these issues and now back to my announcement here i am seeking the republican nomination for president of the united states and i look forward to the debate and discussion that wiltake place. this is a great country. we went to the moon. we can solve theseroblems we have right now which first and foremost is insolvency.

i would not be here right now if what i was saying was being said. the idea here -- what i am posing here is to take part in a contest to be the spokesperson for the republican party. if the republican party does not have options, perhaps the republican party checks off a name that is not all that representative of what republicans might believe. i happen to believe i speak on behalf of the majority of republicans. i look forward tohe debate and discussion that will follow and if i did not say it earlier, i had a mr. smith goes to washington experience as governor of new mexico. i recognize there are a lot of mr. smith's they go to washington, but i was one of

them and i felt like i made a difference and feel i could make a difference in this process. thank you. [applause] i will take some questions, comments, insults' -- describe my approach in new hashire? i have been to 34 states and one of the places i enj more than anywhere is new hampshire, which is good because new hampshire is key in this whole process. i want to do really well in new hampshire, so i'm going to spend a lot of time in w hampshire, where you can go from obscurity to prominence overnight.

i'm going to go out on a limb and say i will not be out worked when it comes to going to new hampshire and talking to people. >> it is a key to the equation to do well in the early primary states where you can go from obscurity to being in a place where the lights don't shine any brighter. i love retail politics. i love the fact that it is a one-on-one discussion and debate. i love the fact that -- what do you think about nit romney for president? i'm having him over for dinner on thursday night, but i need to meet the mall. i like that.

i ran to campaigns for governor were i did not mention my opponent. the idea was to present ideas and give people a choice as opposed to theesr of two evils. when it comes to comparing myself to others, i'm not the person to talk to. i will let you draw those conclusions. >> [applause] >> bypass the exploratory committee? i'm committed to doing this, so why have the exploratory committee. fund-raising is part of this. we intend to have very aggressive online fund-raising campaign that the website would have gone up 20 minutes ago.

when it comes to gun control, i support the second amendment. governor of new mexico in 1995, concealed carry was being hotly debated. i saw that as an issue that would lead to less gun violence. in mexico, i would have been able to sign legislation believing it would lead to less overall gun violence. i think we have seen that play out since so many states have passed it.

>> how can you compete in a market that takes so much money? we believe we will raise enough money to be competitive and to raise enough money to be competitive, that is going to involve a lot of work and a lot of entrepreneurship are part to do things in a more effective way. i have no complais about the process. having run for governor of new mexico -- i have no complain. the rules are what they are and i accept that. i expect to do well in this

process. how do i feel about unions? i just have one issue. that is that let's use it to hypothetical numbers of the union. of those two hypothetical numbers, one is the worst worker i've ever seen in my entire life. the other is the best worker i have ever encountered in my entire life. cannot reward the best and i cannot fire the worst. i have to accept them both as equal and i don't think that works. thank you very much.

>> this week on c-span, we will have to read radio programs to show what iiowans think of the upcoming presidential campaign. the first one starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern tuesday. on wednesday, we will broadcast "the exchange" on iowa public radio. thursday, you will hear the "jim fischer show" from davenport at 3:00 p.m. eastern. you can watch all three of these radio programs live on c-span. may 1, your questions for this professor and editor of reason magazine. the promise of liberty, the man without a hobby. he will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets.

lives sunday, may 1, on c-span2. no discussion on the future of unmanned aerial vehicles in combat and intelligence operations. you will hear remarks from a former intelligence officials and former cia and national security agency general michael hayden. this is one hour and 30 minutes. >> one of the targets that we could not really get to during

the war for these sensitive --, sensitive point targets. we looked at the technology you needed to effectively target and take out such assets. at the time, the technologies were not there. there was a dream of being able touse you may be -- uav's use these targets. now we're 20 years later, and in fact we have that capability. i'm very interested to hear what our speakers today have to say about what the future of uav's might be. they will not talk to the technical issues but the policy and strategic issues. we have three speakers. we have lieutenant-general david deptula, the chief executive officer and managing director of

mav6. we also had general michael hayden, a principal of the church of courage. and dr. richard speer, a former official at the u.s. secretary of defense office, commonly known as the father of missile control technology. i will hand the microphone over to general deptula. >> thank you, michael. i tell you what -- this is a very rich subject area. i am going to do something a little out of character for a retired general officer, i will not use any powerpoint. [laughter] my remarks are designed to stimulate the follow-on discussion that think where people come to these evince find

the most benefits. i would give you my bottom line right up front. i believe that the future of remotely piloted and/or automatic aircraft is very promising. it is going to be very complex and subject to a lot of confusion. in part, that is due to the continued use of an accurate terminology -- inaccurate terminology and an absence of definitions. some examples. the title of this segment, for one. i would tell you that air power in the future will not be on manned -- unmanned. they may have aircraft that are not inhabited, but those aircraft will be controlled by

people. to what degree of economy they employed is where lies the significant policy implications. let me give you another example. today there are few if any unmanned aircraft systems. this is something that, like product in the last session. he showed a chart. there is nothing unmanned about the system at all except that, as colonel black referred to it, that piece of fiberglass at the front end of the system. it takes anomaly about 180 people to maintain one creditor -- predator. and about 400 for a global hot. the majority of the fans -- the

department of defense continues to use this terminology. i tell you that words matter. some might say that i am splitting hairs, but they do really matter. and i will tell you why. another example in a second. it is one of the reasons why the air force began to refer to some of the systems that we referred to as remotely piloted aircraft, because that is what they are. they are remotely piloted. the vehicles are unmanned, so that is an accurate term, but the aircraft are not. i was at a conference similar to this one talking about the plan for remotely piloted aircraft in the future. we can to the question and answer period and someone asked me about how we're getting along with the federal administration -- the federal aviation administration in terms of control or issues. before i gave my answers, i pressed and ask if there was

anyone from the faa in the audience. no one put their hand. it was an audience of 500 people. by and by i answer the question. he i was nice to the faa. i talked about some of the challenges that we have in working with remotely piloted aircraft in the aerospace control systems. but in the hall, this gentleman comes up to me and he says, my name is from -- my name is bob smith and i am from the faa. i said, i knew that there were some of you in here. he said, the single most important thing that the air force has done to facilitate moving forward in getting uav's to operate in controlled airspace, he referred to them as remotely piloted aircraft instead of unmanned aircraft system. now the faa understands that there is a person in the loop. chills ran down my spine.

i am thinking, did you think these things are out there flying around by themselves? of course there is a person in the loop. i submit to you, that is why words matter. it is very important. with respect to ethical implications of remotely piloted aircraft use, listen to some of these and excerpts from a news report on monday about the official british ministry of defense document entitled "the uk approach to unmanned aircraft systems." it was from the "guardian," the terminator -- killer robots. here is a bit from the article. the growing use of them in combat situations raises huge moral and legal issues and threatens to make war more likely as on robots takeover

from human beings. according to an internal study by the ministry of defence. the report warns the danger of an incremental an involuntary journal bridget journey toward a terminator-like reality in which humans are hunted by robotic killing machines. the pace of technological development is accelerating its such a wreck of britain as quickly established a policy on what will constitute acceptable machine behavior. this is from the report. it is essential that of four unmanned systems become ubiquitous, if it is not already too late, we all share that by removing some of the clore or keeping it at a distance, we do not lose our controlling humanity and make war more likely. ladies and gentlemen, i would tell you that in fact today there is actually more ethical oversight involved with

unmanned aircraft vehicle been involved with me and aircraft vehicles. -- with one -- manned aircraft vehicle. that does not even include the lawyers involved in the process. depending on which organization is using these things, that is going to be a significant additional number of people. all that said, in the future i would submit to you that policy issues with respect to remotely power did aircraft will become significant with greater and greater degrees of autonomy. that is the issue.

but the perception is today we are already at that stage of autonomy. we are not there yet. when you send a young man or woman out into a single seat aircraft that has 10,000 pounds of ordinance on and, you are relinquishing much more control and oversight then you are when you are employing remotely piloted aircraft today. a couple of comments on the cultural implications. i think a lot of those, some of the common perception out there are out of sync with reality. there is an old wives' tale out there that the air force has had to be dragged along kicking and screaming toured to adapt to remotely piloted aircraft. that is singularly untruth.

the each those of the air force shows how you can exploit how to operate in that third dimension and aerospace, and remotely piloted aircraft provide a significant advantage that is reflected in that investment and the capability area. you saw on colonel black's chart, 12 under% increase in these vehicles over the last nine years. -- 1200% increase in these vehicles of the last nine years. the most accurate means of large-scale force application, but perceptions and very effective use of perception management by our adversaries can create perceptions much different than reality. they may have a debilitating effect on the uses of one of our key asymmetric advantages. from that same article that i mentioned earlier, listen to this.

"there is one school of thought that suggest that forward to the moral as opposed to just legal, it must link the killing of enemies with an element of self sacrifice or at least risk to one's self." really? are these people serious? some of this was raised earlier today. the taliban who do not comply with a loss of international armed conflict are actually the number one cause of sufficient -- civilian casualties in afghanistan and pakistan. so it is ok for them to kill because they are at risk? i happen to be a supporter of general patton's notion of what your objective needs to be, make the other board done son of a -- made the other poor dumb son of a bitch die for his country.

this allows us to obtain an asymmetric advantage where our adversaries cannot respond. however remotely piloted aircraft, are they subject to what i call excess of exuberance? what i mean by that is, they certainly introduce enormous capabilities that have significant concept advantages, but i suggest to you that we have to be careful about how far those go in terms of trying to adapt this remotely piloted technology to the panoply of different missionaries that we conduct. there will be times and places where you want to have a human being in an aircraft. even if you can promote the system. -- remote the system. a couple of topics that will

stimulate some ideas. i look forward to addressing them further in the question and answer period. >> thank you, david. next we will hear from general hayden. >> michael, thank you very much. before i jump in, all like to make one thing clear to everyone. -- i would like to make one thing clear to everyone. i am not here to directly or indirectly confirmed anything that our government has not chosen to directly or indirectly confirming denied. you need to keep in mind that allyson chairman for 39 years on active duty. -- i was a new chairman -- an airman for 39 years on active duty. listening to the opening comments today, for the first panel, sitting in the back, these systems have become so

ubiquitous that i think are certainly the 2004 level and below, it is hard to imagine a world in which we did not do this and do it this way, they have become so omnipresent. i do not have to imagine the world. i existed in the world for most of my military career. though i think the air force really does get good marks historic play for embracing this new approach and the new technology. as we begin to inject these kinds of vehicles into the flow of our air operations, it was fascinating for me. i was the chief of intelligence for u.s. forces in europe, when we first began to use remotely piloted vehicles during the war in bosnia. and there were serious growing

pains, created not just by the culture in the air force. frankly created by the technological limitations of the platform we were trying to use. but in a short period of time, probably measured in 18-24 months, as the date to come my dialogue with the air south commander who led a band -- as the j-2, my dialogue with the air south commander was from, you want me to do what with what? to, i want that right behind me taking pictures of that i know what is happening. a really rapid development. you can understand why. what you had demonstrated in the first panel by that first to practitioners' here today is a persistent isr and explicit intelligence. the phrase i stuck on,

affordable insurance. -- affordable endurance. we like the ability to unlinking least there. we cannot do it reasonably well -- to unblinkingly stare. we can now do it reasonably well. thee permeating electromechanics -- electromagnetic spectrum. remember the neighborhood that you grew up? i grew up in a big city. by that time i was 10 or 11, i knew what corners i could hang out on all day long. and what corners i had to leave when it started to get dark. and i did not want to be over there when the black band was at that location, -- the black

van was at that location. this absolute persistence, if you are patient enough, it gives you about very focused areas in different parts of the world, and i would add, i was struck by the colonel from special operations command, multiple times during his presentation, this is all about individuals. it is not about formations. it is not about heavy equipment. this is not chasing soviet forces there germany to determine which tanks are in or out of the garrisons. this is tracking a very specific key man being which makes it absolutely optimal for the current war. with that said, absolutely optimal for the current war, let me tell you something that i believe is a truism in intelligence processes. the future is never a straight line from the past.

this thing is going to bob and weave and duck in turn -- and turned. it would be wrong to extrapolate in the the future as a straight line our experiences of the last four or five years. there are going to be some turning points out there that will cause that line to ben. let me suggest -- to bend. but he suggests some of the pressure points that as we look at into the future of this kind of air power. number one, from athletics, you are never as good as you look when you are winning. you are never really that good. keep in mind, it is hard to imagine a better environment for these platforms than the ones in which we are operating today. it is permissive in every dimension. it is permissive fiscally, in

terms of air defenses that do not a sense, it is permissive in terms of facing, it is permissive in terms about freedom of action within the aerospace, it is permissive within our use of the spectrum to send and receive sen dole's -- signals, and no one is trying to override our signals and that kind of an environment. i would be careful about extrapolating these platforms performing so well, and they really are, into an unknown future in which these permissivenesses may not exist. excuse me. thank you. they may not exist in the same way. the set pressure. . we need to be careful with their language because it might confuse our thinking. we refer to these isr platforms. when you are looking at the terms isr that it is a wonderful

term, but it has been fairly corrupted. if you break it down into what intelligence is, and then surveillance and reconnaissance, these are surveillance platforms. is used well, they can create intelligence. they are not in and of themselves intelligence platforms. in fact, our language and our emphasis on them petreaus the particularly american trait -- when it comes to intelligence, we apply and on even emphasis on technical -- technical collection -- we apply an uneven emphasis on technical collection. this is not really even about intelligence. this is targeting. these have been wonderful targeting mechanisms.

but let us not pretend it is more than that. let's understand that. at third point i share with you. these things are creating an environment that is bigger than all outdoors for the people in the back end. if you're serious about this and you move this way into the future, we cannot begin with the center and then look to the platform and then look to the back and as an afterthought. that is the intelligence portion, the after of all this data. we have a crisis in processing exploitation and dissemination. that is where the real challenge lies. we need to keep that in mind. of fourth point. you saw the tremendous growth in isi platforms. we have other problems. we have all whole family of man the platforms and other

platforms. this tremendous growth has absorbed a significant amount of the american treasure. it is inconceivable to go forward into the future to think that that can continue without affecting those other two baskets i just mentioned. what does the success in that basket -- unmanned isr's --mean for the other two baskets? it is something we really need to look at. and to the back end of the earlier discussion, there are some liberal arts questions out there about this whole new way of war. i am with david, i am very comfortable. consistent with american military tradition, consistent with everything i can think of, but not everyone agrees.

we had herald, secretary clinton is a senior legal advisor, forced to give a speech on lawfulness of targeted killings, for example. we have others out there arguing and frankly some well- informed folks like david ignatius, who echo, who romanticize this version of warfare. if you're not at risk, you do not have as much morrill authority to put other folks at risk. that is only going to get more serious as these become more widespread and more well known. and as we take the steps that were suggested that the back end of the first presentation, as we have to get more automated at the back end, because of the avalanche of data coming in, this question of a robot-like response to creating legal

action is going to become more and more prominent. so, again, like general deptula, i'm quite comfortable with how we're doing. and well into the future. but this will be an issue that will have to be addressed for us to put this within the broader global and particularly within the american political culture. so again. tremendous platforms, but they create tremendous problems. that will affect how that ran those in the future. -- that ramp those in the future. >> our third panelist is richard speier. to and because these remarks are on the record. i'm going to forgo all humor. [laughter] i am going to discuss a problem that i helped create and a

possible solution in the future. the problem, if it is indeed a problem and not an advantage, concerns the missile technology control regime, or mtcr for short. the origins of the mtcr reside in national security decision directive no. 70, which was signed by president reagan on november 30, 1982, and in in, the president directed us to hinder the spread of nuclear capable missiles. he defined specifically what was to be hindered. of relevance to this conference is that we were to hinder and unmanned rocket-powered or air- breathing vehicle that could reasonably be bonafide to carry

a nuclear warhead a significant distance. -- reasonably be modified to carry a nuclear warhead a significant distance. in the process of designing and negotiating and implementing the time until aat public announcement in 1987, we gave the specific engineering definition to what should be restricted most tightly. and that was at any unmanned air vehicles, reconnaissance, target, cruise missile, whatever, capable of delivering a 500 kilogram payload the weight of a relatively unsophisticated nuclear-weapons to a range of 300 kilometers. the strategic rein in the most

compact theaters that we could see. there were some rare exceptions to this, if you read the mtcr document, you can see the exceptions are cumbersome. and rare, meaning not usual at all. and the mtcr, because it is a policy, could not under international law supersede treaties the required technical exchanges such as nato's programs. but otherwise, there is a strong presumption to deny exports of kg,s that exceed the 500 300 kilometer threshold. that is a fundamental tenet of our missile non-proliferation policy. let me expand a little more on this and read the cleared statement given to the press on

the date that the mtcr was announced, april 16, 1987. the less we are as concerned with cruise missiles as with ballistic missiles. however, the threat of the full restoration of cruise missiles is developing more slowly. -- of the proliferation of cruise missiles is developing more slowly. many vehicles have in the past been relatively small, with little or no payload. target drones and reconnaissance drones do not need to carry more than relatively light packages. however, there is a recent trend toward larger drones and remotely piloted vehicles, some of which are intended to provide the option of munitions delivery. this may be a route to cruise

missile proliferation. we were pointing specifically at uav's, remotely piloted vehicles, not only as something to be flown on a one-way mission, letting them up with a nuclear weapon and flying them to a target, but also as vehicles that could be used as, let's say, two-stage cruise missiles, where they would make a round trip, but when approaching the target or outside of the zone, could release ammunition they would go on to the target. -- a mission that would go on to the target. -- a munition that would go on to the target. the regime was widen somewhat in 1983 -- 1993, by adding concerns with chemical and biological weapons as well as nuclear weapons, adding a

resumption -- strong presumption of the nile is a vehicle of any range or payload was intended to deliver weapons of mass destruction, and covering the vehicles that exceeded the 300/500 threshold "regardless of their purpose." again, emphasizing that uav's and other vehicles ostensibly, for other purposes than munition delivery, would be covered if they exceed that threshold. as expected, after the mtcr was announced coming engineers in designing systems for exports built right up to the threshold of 300/500. this was the reason we gave that a specific engineering definition.

a, at the time of the mtcr in an embryonic form in special offices in coalition -- in the embryonic form, it fell below the threshold. exceeded thats threshold, including the global hot which was developed a decade after the announcement of the mtcr. starting in the late 1990's, there began to emerge pressure to weaken the mtcr, to make an exception for unmanned air vehicles with various characteristics that exceeded this 300/500 threshold. this culminated in roughly 2006

with an effort within the mtcr to make an exception for uav's they were not especially adapted it to a penetrating defenses -- that were not especially adapted to penetrating defenses. in addition to this being turned down by the mtcr nations, the problem is that even if uav's are not especially designed to penetrate defenses, there are lots of targets in low defense environments. in addition, eight uav that goes low and/or slow can be very difficult to intercept. we do not have appropriate defenses against these, although we are working on them. and finally, what i call the

two-stage cruise missile, the uav that orbits outside of the defended area that can deliver a ammunition into the delivered -- the defended area, still is a threat. and many such two-stage systems have been proposed, including systems designed to intercept ballistic missiles in their boost phase, where a uav with or but wait for an -- waiting for a missile to be launched. and then systems to target the launchers. all these, even if they could penetrate defenses very well, would be serious systems to consider. in addition to this attempt to revise the mtcr, there is

concepts have been proposed " sot safeguarding "uav's they could not be used in an offensive manner. many of the safeguards systems involve process project problems of software, making the uav impossible to use or modify, to be used offensively. without being going -- without going into that in detail at this point, anyone who believes in such a concept to look at the history of the hacking of automatic teller machines at banks. a british professor at university computer laboratory, cambridge name ross anderson has written extensively on this subject, so-called jackpotting,

where relatively unsophisticated criminals who do not have access to atm machines, can hack the software and extract money from these machines, and the countermeasures battle on this subject. contrast that with the recipient of a uav who would have that in his full control for decades and it would be responsible for repairing and maintaining and logistical support in being uav with extensive access to the inside as well as the house side of the vehicle, and any concept to safeguard the uav becomes extremely questionable. let me sum up at this point by stating the problem. the problem is -- to share the benefit of uanmanned benefits, the benefits we of heard about

extensively this morning, isr, even munitions' delivery, to share those benefits with our partners without increasing the threat of a cruise missile proliferation. how are we going to square these two objectives? here is my proposal. that the united states engage in a serious program of providing uav services to our partners as an alternative to providing the uav hardware itself. the missile technology control regime defines as an export only the transfer of items outside the "jurisdiction or control" of the government. as long as a uav remains under u.s. jurisdiction or control, it

is not restricted by the missile technology control regime. the idea is that we would provide uav services, let our partners have shutter control, access to the downlink and so let them have the benefits of uav's. there are precedents for this. in southeast asia, nato, david ignatius of mentioned turkey, and in some cases, the buzzword for these are fee-for services. if there are any questions, we going to them. what the advantages of uav services? it allows us to share the benefits of uav's more widely. it makes it unnecessary for us to dumb down the ua the systems that we might want to use with our partners. it might make them more

affordable, depending on the financing arrangements. it avoids a slippery slope where you start to undo the main tenets of our missile nonproliferation policies, and the net stop being to share space-launch vehicles, which i think most of you know are interchangeable with ballistic missiles. have to assess the efficiency of having a central operator -- if gives us the efficiency of having a central operator. we've heard the problems of the army versus the air force on operational concepts. it is worse when you're trying to deal with international partners. it would allow, by having a central operator, for aerospace integration, which we heard about this morning. better interoperability, better band with use. band with use.