a racial bias is, when you look at the state department, i think it is common knowledge that the air from the bureau in the state department -- the africa bureau in the state department is the least funded, has the smallest budget,it has the fewest resouro where the issues to deal with africa, they get short shrift. i wanted to mention a couple of instances of racial bias, i think, in the media coverage of africa. you can find instances of this but i wanted to mention several. if you google -- there is a newspaper published from new york called -- the publisher is

an immigrant from you going to. -- uganda. in the nine rich in the 1950's, the new york times correspondent writing about this, and the editors would tell them, no, it is not-enough. we want you to make it more negative. to fit the stereotypes that americans have of africans, including someone like the president at the time. there are instances where the correspondence refuse, the editors in new york what actually put in their own negative comments and shape the story said that it comes out much more negative.

-- so that it comes out much more negative. in the washington area, there is the "washington post," and i have always been unhappy with how they cover africa. of course, when i read the "washington post" and other media, i see how they cover the united states, too. there is of parallel with how they cover black communities here and africa. but i want to give you one example. there are several younger people in the room, so they may have forgotten, but some years back, in 1994 during the height of the rwanda genocide and just after, the acute washington post" sent key to record -- keith richberg,

but when he left on the assignment and came back, he wrote a book. basically the theme was, i am glad that being african- american, my ancestors were enslaved to get out of africa, because africa is a mess. i know this caused iraq does -- is cause they ruckus -- this caused a ruckus in the area i wasn't. so i want you to moderate and keep your discussions down, they told us. my point is that in the coverage of the african stories on the continent, i see a clear place where the attitude seems to be

-- and i have even talk to journalists about this, so it is always, we want bad news is because peak -- for that is what people want to hear. i do not think that is true. some racial bias that i see in public policy and the coverage of africa in the media behind that, and finally, just to say a word or two about solutions. i main suggestion pretty much is that, you know, in the morning and this afternoon, one of the points that each struck me was that there is an optimism about how the u.s. deals with the varsity.

-- with diversity. america's democratic roots may not be perfect but it years to democratic principles. the first thing i like to see change in u.s. farm policy toward africa -- far and policy toward africa is to stop backing dictators. it is easy to do because what it means is that the u.s. is taking -- washington is taking your tax money and giving it to a whole bunch of corrupt, violent rulers in africa and nobody's elected. at the end of the day, it does not been that that -- who nobody elected. at the end of the day, it does not benefit the african countries. >> thank you. i briefly want to talk about the project i am working on in brazil, and then open up to some

of the questions that you all have written. what we have talked about and what many of us have been involved in is struggling against racist policies on behalf of the united states, and one of the products i am working on is looking at it from the other side, how to further racial equality in this instance in brazil. but before i get to that, a question overhanging our panel is -- why should people care about foreign-policy? why should people care about what is going on in the rest of the world? when we were doing work around south africa, we had a meeting and someone stood up and said, why should i be engaged about africa? i do not see anyone walking around with signs. we had to take this question very seriously. i have three responses to that.

first of all, it is the right thing to do. martin luther king was often quoted saying, when you face public policy questions, you do not ask a question of it that is popular, if people supported our not. ordeal as if it is politically in my benefit? the question you have to ask is if it is the right thing to do, the moral thing to do. one of my mentors, professor ron walker refused to say that if it is morally right, it cannot be politically wrong. so morally is the right thing to do. secondly, there is a direct impact in terms of foreign policy on all the issues being addressed this morning. if you lost your job in detroit in the auto industry, it was not just because of domestic policy, but because of international

policy. everything has a broad global impact because we are very much interconnected globally. and thirdly, we should look at what other people in the world are doing. there are things that people do and the rest of the world that are better than what people are doing in the united states. so their best practices that we should also engage in and let's get. for example, this project in brazil, one of the key issues we have been working around his sickle cell anemia. that is an issue not just in the in added states affecting the black community here, but it affects the black community in brazil. in brazil, one of the ways the address that community is using cultural practices as part of their medical intervention around this particular issue. there are things that we have learned -- brilliant things

through that engagement. we have to address this issue that there are many people -- in which particularly hear this from the broad conservative movement in this country, which unfortunately often black people will buy into, that we should not be engaged with the rest of the world. we should not be given foreign aid but only focus on our own communities. we have to take up that challenge. i'm working with a project called the joint action plan for the elimination of racial discrimination and to promote racial equality in brazil. it is a collaboration between the u.s. government, the brazilian government, the u.s. civil society, and the brazilian civil society. it is a unique project and that it is bringing together those offered different elements to sit down at the table and to a collective process to come up with projects to address issues in education, employment, the

environment, criminal justice, and in health care. what we have done is put together for the interagency process in the u.s., centered in the western hemisphere division of the state department, but involves the u.s. labor department, the epa, the department of justice, other government agencies and on the brazil side, it is focused in the ministry of racial equality but also the ministry of foreign affairs and other ministries related to labor, at the environment, and health care. and we have civil society representatives in the united states, and i am one of the cochairs, we are engaging in projects and ngo posture around the u.s. to addressing these issues in the u.s. to partner of with people in brazil and organizations and ngos there addressing these kind of issues.

it means a whole range of activities. for example, we work with the police -- brazil has one of the most notoriously racist police departments in the world. in terms of how it treats afro- brazilians, and one thing we have worked on is to rewrite the training curriculum for the brazilian police. this involves not only the department of justice but people active around police initiatives, whether black police officers or the community groups. we have brought people involved in justice department and policing issues in brazil, with about them to the united states to set them down and look at what might and might not work, how we get these guarded on other issues, and in other areas we have done similar kinds of work. i wanted to raise that because

this is an innovative model, and there are problems. so this is by far not resolved, but it is an approach that we cannot even think of 20 years ago. it was actually initiated by condoleezza rice during her last year at the department of state but it carried over into the obama administration and the project has continued. i wanted to throw that on to the table. i wanted to open up to questions raised by the audience. i think i will read three questions and open it up to the panel. we're getting into a time crunch. one question that came up -- how would you characterize the american media's coverage of race around the world? what does it say about the media? a second question -- to what extent should the so-called arab spring be seen as a racial he

then? -- event? how much of the criticism of cultural and confidence is -- confidence is accurate? -- competence is accurate? >> in my opinion, there is no question that there are african leaders, who i think, do not deserve to be leaders. corrupt, yes. undemocratic, yes. but as an active as, when i look at government, i am looking less at the person than the institutions and the process these. i agree with president obama when he said that africa does not need strongman but strong

institutions. to the extent that we do have an african leaders who do not make the grade, i place the fault not on their character, but on the lack of institutions, which is why my recipe for u.s. policy in africa is to help build strong institutions. on the other hand, africa has 54 countries. not all of the leaders there are corrupt. therefore it is a question of stereotyping, a question of a military leader as an african leader, it means that he does not make the grade? and by the way, just this morning, a foundation announced a prize for this year. last year in the year before, it could not give it, for excellence and african leadership.

they give it to the president perez. he retired in august and retired peacefully. he did not change the constitution to stay on forever. the president of the foundation was being interviewed and said, we announced this in london, and all the journalists that came today, using the criteria, i ask them, named a leader who would of qualified. none of them could name one. quickly on the arab spring, one of the things that strikes me very much about it, it has to do with how the media covers it. it is a story that is not well

told at all. all the leaders that are in trouble, tunisia committees have, syria, yemen, bahrain -- except for syria, all the others, even gaddafi, they work u.s. friends. they were american friends. i think the story that i would have liked to see, and i frankly think the media, i would call a dereliction of duty. as they are not telling the american people the most important part of that story. how is it that all of these dictators -- mubarak, 30 years, bahrain, yemen, how is it that all of these hearted dictators are our friends and allies? -- horrid dictators are our

friends and allies? the united states in africa, and i know and other areas, but africa is my country, and in average said the u.s. is close with very undemocratic regimes and the most americans know -- have no clue what it is being done in their name. -- but it is being done in their names. >> not covering issues of race globally, not the issues on the far end of the projection certainly of u.s. foreign policy, as melinda has so well laid out in haiti. not identifying the racial issues and the racial questions in american foreign policy strategy is. the media to some extent has

been influenced by the academy. one of the most difficult in the world with respect to international relations is to have a discussion about race on a global plane. being a factor in international relations. in my experience, with respect to scholars, it does not compute. it did not compute during the height of south african apartheid. it was always an economic issue, it was always a power issue, it was always a class issue, it was always something else supposedly more neutral than what is never a racial element with respect to ir analyses of south african apartheid. i think this is somewhat

pervasive as a matter of theory and doctrine of international relations. i think the u.s. media to some extent has picked up on it. in terms of characterizing the arab spring as a racial movement, if you will, i would not do that, but significantly there are elements of racism in its, particularly with respect to the supposedly and probably to some extent accurate mercenaries that gaddafi brought in from niger and other parts of africa, and how they are being treated in the post-gaddafi process. here we have a situation -- and

this relates to much of what he said with respect to africa -- the progressive movements that challenge the status quo are demanded by the majority to be angelic, to be, if you will, without fault. if indeed fault is noticed, then indeed the validity of that movement, the legitimacy of that movement is challenged. african governments are demanded to being of an american democratic standard. the arab spring in libya is demanded to be stainless with respect to its post-gaddafi behavior. and therefore raese is being reported and there is a validation here with respect to discrimination and in some cases

horrible treatment of people of overtly african heritage. including some deaths. the race is not only being reported for the wrongful mness of those deaths and that kind of racism, but also by some in an attempt to discredit the legitimacy of the entire anti- gaddafi movement. in times of african leaders being incompetent, again, this is distorted reporting certainly what points of some general accuracy. thei'm glad you mentioned one foundation. let's call for rolde.

-- the role. let's include benjamin, and let's include nelson mandela. why do i mention these leaders? this is more frequent for this one continent and on both continents, certainly in asia. you had leaders who deliberately stepped down so as to ensure a peaceful line of secession -- succession so that the new leaders could peacefully takeover, and they walked out of politics and had it fatherly president' -- and developed of fatherly presence for the country and help it stability. it is not reported orders not

rounded up to sue -- to the systematic observation that it should. american foreign policy with respect to actions in the united nations touch on question on race, it is not reported. even when it was obvious and i am thinking about the advent of coffee and non -- kofi annan after the united states fell of favor with boutros boutros- ghali, he fell out of favor with washington. i think the secretary of state, madeleine albright, indeed was a proponent of that position. the united states combined with france to threaten the entire african delegation at the un to

say that, all right, unless you take our candidate, which at that time was kofi annan, we will not accept boutros boutros- ghali for a second term, even though a second term is the usual course. we will not do this for this particular african candidate. not your candidate, but our candidate. and indeed that is what happened. now the nice thing about this was that kofi annan was sufficiently strong and progressive to exactly realize what the game was. and during his two terms, he has become perhaps -- not perhaps -- one of the strong the secretary general's, and by strong, i mean willing to stand up to the great powers in the

interest of the un on global issues such as iraq. so kofi turned that issue around but it was not reported with respect to the u.s. role in the secession -- succession of the secretary-general in that regard. >> are we on time? melinda? we have time for one other question. all of their fundamental differences between raese and policy in africa and in south america? does raese mean different things on both continents? -- does race mean different things on both continents? >> that is actually a great question. one of the big differences that we see globally is that people define race very differently. what race may be in the united

states may be different in the u.k. or symbolic way for brazil or cuba. race takes on different connotations based on the specific history of different countries and how they are racial stratifications in those countries involved. that is critical because it means you cannot import your racist -- racial solutions automatically to other circumstances. but because race manifest in similar types of ways, such as criminal justice, access to health care, political access -- in that light, but that are a lot of overlaps and similarities. so that is important. very quickly, two other items to add to henry's list on how race as a global phenomenon

has evolved. the conference in 2001, for the first time, it brought together tens of thousands of people around the world to put on the agenda of public policy the question of race, racial discrimination, racism. it was a profound movement. it culminated in the conference that took place in durban, but involve thousands of meetings and virtually every single country around the world addressing this issue, not only in terms of government but also in terms of non-government organizations. we still have not sufficiently summarize the impact of that. of course what happened is that two after that conference ended, 9/11 happened in that hijacked our ability to see critically what that conference men.

the second item i would mention is the global impact of the election of barack obama. whatever you may think of the obama administration domestically, at the global level that campaign put issues of race on the agenda that states never wanted to address that offer you have the phenomenon in brazil where because of eight individuals in 2008 iran under the name of barack obama, they all lost. but it reflected a transition on how people thought about public policy and political behavior. it also inspired candidates in russia, in canada, in japan, even people interact or motive -- in iraq were motivated by this campaign.

you still have the impact of all of that as we are looking at the complications of dealing with race and public policy in the united states. >> [inaudible] the former slaves taken from east africa. that is very significant. that is overlooked all the time when we talk about issues of race. >> that is exactly right, egypt as well. >> one of the results that came out of this is that the un general assembly last year designated this year as the international year of peoples of african descent. so we have a couple of months to still work on it.

a shameless plug -- i hope that clarence will forgive me, but as a result of that, on november 4, i am giving a lecture on friday, so i hope as many people here as possible can, and we will address the peoples of african descent and democracy. >> it takes a minute to warm up, is what i have noticed. i wanted to address the plight of both african descent in this hemisphere, and my friends at transafrica were talking about engaged in celebrating peoples of african descent toward of walking into a prison in colombia is much like walking into a prison in united states

in that you will find black people most predominantly in the prison population. it is definitely a minority population but we're still seeing criminalization happened at a high level. i also wanted to see the difference between this hemisphere and the african continent, and there is very little difference -- we see depiction of people in africa and of dissent as farmers and an obol house blunders, and we see the minimum size and -- of african descent as farmers and animal husbanders, and received a minimization of other professions. -- we see the minimization of other professions. >> let me go back to your point about the election of barack obama. i do not believe that the united

states realizes that that of its racial problems -- the depth of its racial problems as much as the rest of the world does. and therefore the election of barack obama it globally, or even collectively a bit harder, in terms of its significance and even it did in the united states. >> thank you, panelists. thank you for your in debt and excellent analysis. i will turn it over to the professor to close it up. thank you on coming out on this beautiful day. >> in closing, i want to thank all of you for staying with us. we again thing c-span for blessing us with some coverage of this. i hope that you got something

out of it. i certainly did. again, thank the panel please, and we will see you next time. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, anita hill talks about her testimony and the senate confirmation hearing for supreme court justice clarence thomas. after that, president obama and kevin mccarthy with the weekly addresses. then a discussion on the future of the homeland security department. >> it has been almost 30 years since a small group proposed building a memorial to honor dr. king. this sunday, but watch the official dedication of the

martin luther king jr. national memorial in washington, d.c. live coverage at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i am the first one to admit every day i have to get up in the morning and tell myself i can do this. there is no one better do this than i am. >> harvard medical school, neurosurgeon, a social professor of neurosurgeons and oncology, johns hopkins university, home was illegal farmworker. >> i have to believe that every time i go into the arena, in the operating room, i have someone's life in my hand and i am fully capable of getting this patient in and out of the operating room because that is the trust that the patient has on me, and i walk that fine line between confidence and arrogance. >> he shares his life story sunday night on q&a. >> it is a fact they story on a

topic of your choosing. every store has a good beginning, a solid metal, and a strong and in. -- a solid middle, and a strong ending. ♪ >> you do not need the best video equipment. cellphones and flip cameras are good. do not let that stop you. if you need more help, go to c- span.org. >> this process can be confusing but c-span will help you. i find it useful to read the rules carefully and make a checklist of what you need to do. but do not worry, the process gets clear what you get started -- and another great thing is that you can work alone or you can work in teams. for example, if you are a good writer but not handy with a camera, then get a friend to help out.

not only do you learn something, but to increase your chances of winning. >> you do not to be an expert to make this work. you can use our parents, other students, teachers, and c-span as resources for you along the way. this process is both fun and extremely rewarding. with a little bit of effort, anyone can do this. ♪ >> it has been 20 years since anita hill's testimony to congress, about how supreme court justice on front reclines thomas sexually harassed to purchase a law professor at brandeis university and the offer of two books. this is an hour.

>> tha >> thank you all so much. i'm excited to talk with you. looking forward to it myself. i want to turn to your book in just a moment, but i also want to begin, because i know that you had wanted to talk about how your team was put together for that hearing, and to the knowledge so many of the people who are here today from the opening salvo in history. did you want to say just a few things? >> i always like to say thank you. i did testify, and many of you

have ts vision, the image of me sitting there by myself at that long table with all of the senators lined up in front of me, but i also want to remind you that i had some wonderful people who, as i say, had my back, who came together really, because they believed in the proce, the integrity of the court, as i did, and they wanted to make sure that at best i could be fairly treated as best as they could help me. one of those people -- i see one of those people i know, judith resnik, who you heard from this morning. prof. judith resnik. professor charles ogle three who you also heard from -- ogletree

who was also heard from. professor and a jordan is somewhere in the audience. there were so many others. janet napolitano, john fra, warner gardner, kim crenshaw, who i am looking forward to hearinthis afternoon, i kim taylor thompson, who is here in the city teaching at nyu. maybe some of her students are here in the city today. so many people came together. many of those people were my colleagues in aching. as pat said, there were so f of us in lot teaching, and these wonderful individuals, including judith resnik, who knew me when i was a student at yale law school, all came together.

people talk about our hot shot team. it was a pretty hot shot team, but it was not the high-powered law firm that people make it out to be. i just want to say, 20 years later, thank you, thank you, thank you to all of them, and for what you do now. [applause] >> i know you mentioned that two members of your team have passed on, warner gardner and tom frank. -- john frank. i wonder if you could share that moment when you realized that this was something beyond a single moment of testimony. >> when i look at into today's audience, and certainly in the immeate days following the hearing, i have lots of support from women. but john john frank had been an expert on the supreme court and the

confirmation process. he was there, he volunteered and came from arizona. i did not know he was going to come. at the end of my morning testimony he came to me in tears and he said, "i know this is very hard for you. i know this is a challenge, but you have no idea of how important this is to our country." i was at that point trying to get through the rest of the day. i do not think i fully appreciated then exactly what he was saying to me. here was this man who had been at yale many years ago in the practice of law and studied the supreme court. he was saying to me that this was an important moment in our country's history.

it was as if so he looked into the future and had seen you today. i really do want to remember him especially. it was in a little way may be preparing me for what was to come, but i do not think anything could prepare me for today.am steering geaseeing hee is wonderful. >> i think this moment could allow us to forget exactly what you did go through when you say this is difficult. this was traumatizing as well. as alan simpson promised, in addition to all the accusations, waving the bible talking about exorcisms -- >> that was a moment. [laughter] >> but he did not go away with the hearing.

if followed you for quite some time. there were security issues, practically emotional torture to the extent that even friends of yours were forced to move from oklahoma. little packages of what you described as a fecal matter were sent in the mail t you. there were constant security issues for you for quite a bit of time and even to the present. >> it is a testament toy friends and colleagues that i was able to continue. there was pressure at the university of oklahoma for me to be fired. it was comin from officials, legislators,tate legislators. when that did not work, there were threats to the existence of the law school and the funding of the law school. that was an effort for my

collgues to turn again me. one of the women who was othe faculty then -- i believe she is here. shirley was with me on the team and came with me from oklahoma to help out in any w that she could. she ultimately did leave oklahoma and went on to have a great career. 20 years is a long time to keep people together. the people who were on that team in the beginning are still with make. the witnesses who were friends of mine back in the early 1980's are still my friends today. the are all kinds of pressures that are put on people. and the of you who have gone through these kinds of claims and problems and issues in your

own workplaces or attempted to critique correct problems knows that you can lose people along the way. i have been very, very fortunate not only to keep those people about also to really engage with a lot of supporters threw out these last 20 years that have made what i do in my survival possible. you talk about the difficulty -- it was very difficult. when you return from a testimony that has become this event that you really had no idea what it was going to be what it was -- i would walk out onto the street. they did polling immediately

after the hearing, and it showed that 70% of the population thought that i had perjured myself. in addition to the pressures i was having on the job, the threats to me personally, bomb threats, the law school at my home, i had to go to the grocery store and realize that seven out of 10 people that i would encounteat the superrket thought that i had perjured myself and my testimony. so, psychologically, the pressure was difficult. of the pressure at work was difficult. and the fact that your family is going through this with you in a very public wy was difficult-- public way was difficult. i was also quite fortunate.

>> at one point you said you wanted your life back. i remember hearing you describe having to give that up as a part of the healing process and moving on. do you mind sharing more about that? >> i think that was very much the toughest part for me and initially. ok, i have given this testimony. a week or so later, the vote was taken. i wanted to say, ok, it is over. enough is enough. i want my life back. i really resented that i could not get it back. once i let go of that idea and said, you know, it is not going to happen that way. i have a dferent life now. the question i had to ask myself

is what life do i want? i could accept that i was not going to be the life that i had. it was a pretty good life. i like it. i knew it was not going to happen again. out of this, what am i going to have that i can shape, that i can claim for myself so i can continue to do what i do to be productive, to care about the things that i care about and continue to live? that happened perhaps six months or so after the hearing. i had to figure out really what my resources cannot my talents were, what i could do, and what my options and opportunities were. and what kind of support i would

be getting to move forward with this new life that i had a chanceo shape. those were all things that i had to really sit down and account for. the other thing that i had to do was to say, younow what? it was an important event. it is helped to shape my life, but it is just an event. it is not me. it is not who am. so, i had to get back and understand who i am and why i was on this earth in order to move forward. >> i want to turn to your story. i want to say that i feel's about the term -- feel possessive about the term "anita's story." i remember barbara underwood

came to yallaw school and she described what is very common for women of my age. there were no ladies' rooms so she was assigned to the janitor's closet to go to the bathroom. my conference story is apparently -- j assigned a security guard to the men's room here just outside the hall to keep all of us from taking it over. [laughter] i love this are: times. -- ark of time. >> i am the real anita. [laughter] [applause] >> as contained in your book,

which is a phenomenal book -- i cannot say enough what a gorgeous writer. she writes like a dream. in the title, you use the word "home." tomorrow will be the 100th anniversary of your late mother. you dedicate this book to her and your grandmother and your great-grandmother. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about the framing of the discussion of the housing crisis in terms of the women in your life. you told me a story about ken burns. i wonder if you could start with that. >> we have all seen the wonderful documentary's that ken burns does on pbs. after the conclusion of the one on jag, i had a conversation

with the filmmaker. was really a moving conversation for me because what he said was that he had grown up -- he and i are roughly the same age. he had grown up during the civil rights era of. -- era. i believe he lost his mother at that time when he was about 12 years old. so this was a very emotional time in his life and a time that had stuck in his memory. when he came up with the trilogy, the first was the civil war, the second was baseball, and the third was jazz. for him, each of those were metaphors about race in america. i found that very moving. if you think about it, it makes sense. but then again, it does not.

my question to him was well is there and metaphor for race? is there a way for us to think about and talk about race that is not so male-dominated? if you think about the civil war, jazz, or music, most othe stores were about male artists. baseball, of course, the first league formed after world war ii. how do we have a conversation about race and that includes women? -- race that includes women? his response was i did a piece on it susan b. anthony to talk about gender. well, that is a little problematic, too, because we know in the suffrage movement, there was a marginal causation

of african american women. other women of color just did not even appear, because native americans were not included in women's suffrage. how do we then have a conversation about gender that is not racialized? so i started thinking about ways to do that. what is our metaphor for thinking about equality that does not rely on male domination nor racialization? how can we have an inclusive conversation about the quality? there is one element that looms large in our quest for equality, and that is "home." the finding of the home, whether it is the establishing of a place that one cause their own

when we think about stories like "a reason in the sun," and how significant the home is. for those of you who do not know sun," therehe is a more popular reference -- "the jeffersons." in order to show that "the jefferson's" had made it, they moved on up to the upper east side. it was not just any place on the upper east side. it was a "de luxe apartment in theky." [laughter] they did not even eat the same kind of food anymore. this was the symbol of them having made it. but you also know and maybe have

not thought about this that when louise jefferson has made it, she becomes a stay at home mother, and what does she do? she getse a maid who is a black maid. all of these issues about the signifance of home and how we define it and how it figures and are thinking abouthe quality really was in my mind. than the housing crisis hit. and the collapse of the housing market really devastated communities and send some many people really in chaos. and i started reading the stories about h it was being read in the press, and so few of the stories includethe impact

it was having on women. women of color in particular, women living on their own, trying to buy homes on their own. i realized that the housing crisis is not only a set back economically. is a setback in our social advances for women -- it is a setback in our social advances for women. women were out there buying homes on their own for the last 20 years. this was a social advancement for women because we were finally saying, "look, we can do this on our own. we do not have to wait until we have a spouse or a partner." that was an important movement that was occurring in the year 2005.

so i wanted to tell the story of the significance of home without really having to tell it through the lens of male domination, to really tell the story through the eyes of the women i talk about in the book. >> yet this story has been so under-stated in the media. at one point, you point out why it is so ignored. >> it has been ignored in some ways because the presumption is that the he includes two parents an children, and teh assumption is it is a man and a woman. that is how we have thought about the home and home policy. so, that is what the media has followed. they have not a dog and and look

at who is a new home buying market was -- they have not dug in and looked at who the new home buying market was. when i look back at my own family stoes, i realize that when my grandparents homestead in arkansas in 1895 -- it was a significant milestone in our family achievement. my grandfather had gone from being born a slave to owning property. that was significant. that was a significant milestone. they lost that farm. circumstances that were not unlike what is going on today. bad credit optio, a poor economy, racial and unrest and

violence. that was significant, too, and it had an impact on my mother as well as our family. for generations to come. when i look here at a college and i think about young people today, i realize that this home in security that we are experiencing now will indeed have an impact on their future. it may be even having an impact on their present whether or not they are able to get student loans through their parents because of what is going on now. all of these things we need to begin to address, and that is what came together. >> you pointed out the dirt. -- the degree to which the statistics are lacking because the statisticians do not know whether to count women because they are counted as a divorced oridowed, but the frame of

reference is to a man. >> it is so siificant because what we know now is that that dynamic, the family dynamic, is just not representative of a huge part of the population of where we are. the real things that i think about when i write this book is people say that we know you as your testimony 20 years ago. that is very much part of who i am. but i have also beeteaching for those 20 years. what i really enjoyed about this book was that it brings together so many parts of my life. it brings together in my life as a teacher.

it brings together my life as an ancestor -- i mean as a granddaughter of a slave. a great granddaughter of a woman who was a single mother for 10 years when she moved from slavery to being a free person even though she lived in the same place for those first 10 years. it brings together my history. it brings together some of the impact that the hearings had on me. it really brings to me the issue of the quality that i care about. sexual harassment is one of those issues. what try to do in this book is to give voice to the people who have not been heard from during this crisis. that is really what i was trying

to do -- what i have been trying to do with the issue of sexual harassment for the past 20 years to help people to find their voices, to talk aut the issues that keep them from living life fully and as equals. i want to leave some time for questioning, but one final question. you tell a lovely story in your book and i wonder if you could read a quick paragraph on your definition of "home." >> i do have a vision that i think -- i call it my 21st century vision of the quality. i thought i had a right there on that page. now i have to juggle the microphone. one thing that has happened in the past 20 years -- [lauter] yes, i have the reading glasses now. the final chapter is called

"he at last." i define "home" -- i have three definitions. a lens through which one can safely view the world. we know that for some many women, a place inside tehe home is not a safe place. it is an important element for us to have that home to view the world safely. the second part of the definition is a place where one's ideas, experiences, and work are seen as valuable. that, for me, is home and it symbolizes so much of what is living in the lives of women, the valuing of ourork, whatever it is, not that we are

trying to emulate anything but how we are trying to be valued for who we are and what we offer, not only for our work but our ideas and experiences as well. physical body, the being and the place where it is welcomed. it is a physical state of being as well as a pla. in my great-grandmother had to imagine what freedom was like after living her life as a slave. she had to imagine what freedom was like for herself and her son, my grandfather. my mother, when she sent me after college or high school and then to college into a world thashe had no

understanding of, she had to imagine for me in 1970 what equality was going to be like for me. she had to help me imagine because it was not her experience having been born in 1911. she sent me out with two sets of luggage. she had to imagine really for herself and her children what the quality was going to be like. i think we are at that juncture now it. we must imagine for a new generation what equality is going to be like. we have reached the point now, for example, where we have said sexual harassment -- which can raise our voices and complain about it. but we also should imagine a workplace where it no longer exists. [applause]

so, we are constantly working on the quality. we are putting together all the pieces. when we talk about the events going on in the world, the occupation of wall street. when we think about all the issues that we are struggling with today, all of us are urging us to imagine what the quality is going to be like in the 21st century. we have so much energy in this room today. we have so many ideas. we have heard from so many wonderful people, and we are going to hear from others. all of those are helping us to imagine a better world for the next generation. i could not be more proud than i am today to be a part of that,

and i think you. thank you. [applause] >> we are going to take questions now. while people come forward, if you would like to tell the luggage story that begins her book. >> when ias 17 years old and graduated from college, my mother told me one day that i want you to come with me and we are going to visit a family friend. the family friend was an african american teacher who taught some of my siblings english. at the time when i graduated from school, she had gotten older, sick. she traveled fairly widely in her life but was no longer abl to travel. she said she had something to give me. it was a set of samsonite

luggage. i guess now is called vintage it had her initials on it. four years later, my mother gave me a gift when i was going off to law school. that gift was my own sert of samson that luggage. it was brand new samson night nite luggage. my mother sent me off with two sets of luggage. the older version and now my own set of samsonite. in that, for me,; the symbolism from both of those women who were sending me out to a world

that would be so different from their own and the courage that each of them had to say ok i have prepared you i have ven you something go out and claim your own life claim your own home and be all that you can be. i think about it today. people say what is the best gift you ever had? i say ait was those two sets of luggage and what it symbolized for may. that is my story. [applause] i say give your daughters luggage d not baggage. [laughter] >> hi. i wondered in the context of your comments abo "home."

was your family impacted by the tulsa race riot war? >> we remained on t farm. even though they were in oklahoma at the time of the tusa they were not, really affected by it directly being out in the rural area. they happened in 1921 i believe. in an urban area in tulsa that was primarily black and quite prosperous. ooted and bned. to this day, many people do not know how many people were killed during those "race riots," which

were really mass murders. they had an indirect impact in terms of people did not go to the city after that. immediate impact we did not have. professor hill, what a pleasure to hear you. >> thank you. i'm fine. thank you. [laughter] >> i spent my time at harvard because they had a really good events. we had a theorist who was there during that year and i turned to her and said it does anybody know if anita hill is ok? i want to get to a question about home.

d.s. news reported a story last week that onin three americans is a paycheck away from losing their home. we also know that the economic crisis that is a flooding our courts with new money-related cases with foreclosures, unemployment, medicare, child support, domestic violence, and at the same time, money for legal services is being rolled back a 2000 levels. the administration is not leading a very good fight about increasing its or keeping it at 2011 levels. given the increasing need and decreasing access to justice, i would benterested in hearing your thoughts about closing the justice gap either through advocacy or in terms of using

all of these unemployed law students that are running around. i would be interested in hearing your thoughts about closing the gap. it is great to see you. >> i do propose a number of things in my book. part of it is through better enforcement of the programs that are out there that are supposedly helping people to stay in their homes. the problem that i see is about inequalities that the been built into the living system, that have been blt into it and have become institutionalized because of years and years of discrimination against women, people of color, the way that communities have developed over the past few years. there are even bigger

inequalities' when we start talking about women's income. they tend to, because of the pay differential, are going to have less money to access homes. we also know that women, many of them, will spend about 50% of that lower income on their home. these are the kinds of things -- and that is higher than the rate of men that spend on their home. these are the things that i think we need to begin to address. what i propose is something that i am calling -- i propose that the administration get involved. i suggested to the council on women and girls should be a place where we can get this conversation started. is there anybody out here who has access to the council of

women and girls? yes, i have one hand. can you take that message to the council because -- it is one agency that is charged with improving access to women and their families. there is no more critical of an issue for women and their families than homes and housing. so there is a role for the administration to play, but it has to be very comprehensive. it cannot simply be just renegotiating mortgages. and using free labor of law student to do that. it has to be really rethinking a lot of the process about how people find homes. thank you. >> thank you. [applause]

>> i am a city council member in new york city. [cheers and applause] i was here in 1992. at the end of the conference, i was working for the mayor. you kindly came back to dinner, so i want to thank you for coming that night. >> thank you for finding a. >> you were terrific and as you are today. we spend a great deal of time now trying to stop cyber bullying and bullying in thes schools. as somebody who has taught for a long time and given your experience, do you think we as a country e doing enough to stop the bullying? >> i think we are beginning to understand the issue of napoleon. there was a piece in the new

theytimes at todtoday about why are being bullied. my experience really in terms of dealing with people with workplace issues is that in some ways there is an analogy, that what is going on in the workplace is an extension of the kind of bullying that happens to people when they are in schools. as charles below road today, it is a lot of ways about identity, perceptions of whether someone is a masculine enough, whether someone is gay or straight. all of these things or ways that we have, using our power over other people in ways that really prevent them from doing what they are hired to do in teh

workplace or going to school and learning. have we done enough? i do not think we have because the problem continues. i am not an expert on what more we can do. i think we are starting to become aware of the problem, and that is the beginning. that is the beginning. thank-you. >> hi. i hope you can bear with my other terror in being up here. what to want to ask is a very personal question, in that how do you deal with having had to deal with so much? how do you deal with fear? not over it, udner it, but through it? >> thank you. [applause]

well, thank you for that question. i think you have dealt with fear. [applause] you set out and you asked your question. i think the audience here has demonstrated how i have dealt with my own fear. that is through the help and support of many others. but the fit part really is to walk up and confront it. i know there were times when i was afraid. i knew there were times when i stepped out and i did not kno what was going to happen to me next-- there are many people out

there that will share your story and your fear and be there to help you. i had to learn to reach out. i was always a very private person. the other part of it is you are trained not to show that you have some weakness.

because we are all supposed to be strong and tough. and i had to let go of some of that. but i thank you because even though you are talking about fear, is an act of bravery to stand up and ask a question. not that this is a hostile group, but this is a group of pretty strong folks. so, thank you so much. [applause] >> hi. good afternoon and thank you for your time. i am a journalist. in your introduction that w given by ms. williams, she made a reference to the idea of what does credibility look-alike. in light of your position as a professor dealing with young people, students, and young

women, i was wondering how you counsel young women that you encounter on dealing with the idea of being in excellent students, may be great people in the way that they are seen by their peers or are perhaps shot down if they are put in a position like the spotlight that you were put in. >> we talked about organizing this conference -- one of the things i said that i wanted to be sure of is that we had young people in this room. i wanted young people and people of all ages because i think theres a sharing there. for me, when i talk to young people i have the luxury of talking to them one-on-one so i get to sit down and say what do you see as your strength. what do you think you are good at?

then build on that. if you go out -- people say i think you should work on your ficiencies. you know, yeah, but that always puts you in a hole. so i likto tell people go out on your strengths. what are your strengths? what do you care about? what are you passionate about? what do you know that you do well? with that, you can build your confidence. even though there will be circumstances that you will not be expected for all that you have to offer. just knowing what your strengths are and understanding what they are will help t you beyond those situations, realizing which of them are important and those that are not important for you to continue what you ed to do.

this may sound contradictory. find something that is a challege to you that you really want to do, something that stretches you. because even if you get a little bit closer that goal, you've started to grow. and that -- there is nothing more rewarding than facing something that is a challenge to you that you come closer to because you know you have given everything that you have. even if you do not -- may be your challenge is to win the nobel prize for peace. i would applaud that. you may not win the nobel prize for peace.

but if you engage in activity that promotes peace, then that's a victory in it of itself. find things that you are challenged to do, set some goals, and then go out and try to achieve it in your n life and in your own way. again, all of this takes the conversation about who you are and what you care about. so i do not give it very often generic advice because i think advice ought to be individualized and specific. you are a journalist. do you want to win a pulitzer prize? >> [inaudible] >> how are you going to go about doing it? are you writing now? you have already started on the road to your pulitzer prize. >> yes. [laughter]

>> what is your next step? >> to continue to expand and continue ttalk to people like yourself. >> whawould make you the happiest? >> i am very interested in issues that affect women. i like to look at all issues from a gender perective. might thesis was on human trafficking and how it affects women and girls. >> have you thought about turning that into a book? >> yes. >> have you allied aid? >> yes. [laughter] >> see? you are already there. [applause] those are the kinds of conversations that i like to have. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> that is just the beginning of our conversation. >> good afternoon.

it is an honor to hear you. i was hoping that you could tell us a little bit about the experience of getting the voicemail message a year ago. virginia thomas, clarence thomas' wife left a voicemail on your machine, i think asking for an olive branch but basically asking for your apology. what was it like to hear it? how does it sit with you a year later? >> i will be honest. i did not know that it was her. i thought it was a prank. my first description of it was that it was bizarre. either way if it was a prank or her. as you know, it became a news story. but en, honestly, once it

became a news story, i remember within 24, 36, or maybe 48 hours, i got about 500 e-mails about this, how inappropriate was. but what really stuck with me is how passionate people were writing about it. honestly, i started talking to people. kathleen was one of them. emma jordan at georgetown was 1. i said this issue still resonates with people. [applause] do not let the moment be captured by something like her voicemail. let's take the passion ourselves. and shape it. and out of this came this conference that happened last

week. i am going to be going to detroit. i am going to visit with an all- girls academy in detroit to talk about issues that they a facing. that is my reaction to that voice mail. [cheers and applause] >> i think we are only going to take the questions of the speakers that are in line. we are running a little bit over time. >> i will answer in short answers. >> i just want to say that when the hearings were going on ars ago, i was in hollywood working for a production company. can you imagine what i heard? "you are making the hoing up." what astounds me is that recently i learned that there were people who could have

corroborated your evidence, and they were not allowed to speak. i think how this resonates to modern-day. i think about the banking crisis, and i think about all the regular people who really have a little say over what information gets out. joe biden decided 20 years ago now we are going to cut the hearing short. had any of the bankers been held accountable for what they have done? has anyone been held accountable for how they cut you off? for someone like me, when i was 30 years old and i had no idea that there were people willing to testify for you and to tell of their experiences that were similar to yours, it shocks me. i read a lot, too. i am just astounded that the

committee work that es on in the senate when there is usually one man in power who says "we are going to stop it." that sort of thing needs to en [applause] [laughter] >> i will say that the individual who was ready -- one woman got out of a hospital bed ready to testify. these were not people that i had called. these were people who had come on their own to testify. yet, it is a travesty. it is a travesty because there was information that was lost. that testimony was not a part of the public record. that is a travesty. it is emblematic of the stories that get lost. but it was also a travesty for those women, personal. it was an affront to them.

so, how do we make sure that that does not happen, that we do not just this mess -- "oh, there is another woman so we are not going to bother to call them" -- how do we make sure that we are all heard from in aay, how do we make sure that all of our processes include our voices? thiss a time where we are dealing with those issues. you are right. that is not just something that happened 20 yearsgo. we are constantly dealing with how to have a really inclusive democracy. we are at that time. we have to hold our leadership accountable. including president obama. but we also have hold ourselves accountable. we have to be accountable.

we cannot sit back and say we are going to wait for the president to do something or my senator to do something. each of us have a responsibility. look at all of the powerful men and women who are here today. what can we do to make sure that every voice is heard? that is the question that i will leave you with. i am going to make it more personal. what are you individually going to do to make sure that someone who does not have a voice gets heard, considered, and when policy gets made, that their stories are accounted for and included in the decisis that are made? thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, a forum on the future of the homeland security department. then a discussion on the wall street protests. after that, a house hearing with leon panetta and joint chiefs of staff chairman martin dempsey. sunday on "washington journal", a look at the economic proposals for the republican presidential candidates. our guest is economist an american enterprise research institute fellow alex brill.

that is followed by the harvard professor roland fryer. he discusses martin luther king jr. and a discussion of race today. starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> it's been almost 30 years since a small group of the alphi phi alpha fraternity proposed a memorial. this sunday, watched the official dedication of the national memorial in washington d.c. live coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> on "newsmakers", texas congressman pete sessions, chairman of the texas -- national republican congressional committee. he discusses the campaigns. "newsmakers" sunday at 12:10 p.m. eastern following the dr. king memorial dedication. and again at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

homeland security secretary janet napolitano and your predecessors michael cherthoff and tom ridge spoke tuesday at george washington university about the future of the dhs . thad allen moderated the discussion. this is an hour and a half. >> it an honr to welcome secretary janet napolitano and former secretaries michael cherthoff and tom ridge back to

our campus. we have a unique opportunity to engage the world from this nation's capital and to allow our students to witness the power of knowledge in action. one of the ways we do so is by convening discussions of the urgent issues of our time, and our ability to do that depends on our partnerships with institutions and agencies that surround us. we are very glad to have as one of those partners the united states department of homeland security which is long supported research and educational efforts across or university. george washington's homeland security security policy institute weeds must our work in this critical area. we have for training programs for first responder s. in fact, the university hosts an array of security related initiatives spearheaded by entities like the elliott school of international affairs and the school of engineering.

today we will have the opportunity to learn from an exceptionally distinguished panel. i look forward to hearing it insights into the homeland security environment. i am delighted to note that our alumnus thad allen, retired commandant of the u.s. coast guard, former national is a commander for the deep water horizon oil spill and now a professor and public policy will moderate this afternoon's discussion . before hearing from the secretary's and admiral allen, will first hear from our hosts, the director of our homeland security policy institute and mark pearl, president and ceo of the homeland security business council. please join me in welcoming frank selufo. >> thank you. let me echo your welcome to

everyone today. it is a distinct privilege to be able to coast today's session. as i was in the room out back, i saw a decade of my life collide simultaneously. you do not get better public servants than the three that are joining us today. i've had the privilege to work with all of them. we had the privilege to oppose all of them in the past, but never simultaneously. so i know i certainly am excited to hear what they all have to say and thank you all for joining us. let me thank our co-host. he has done a yeoman's work and trying to translate the nouns and verbs in terms of public- private partnerships and of course, our friend admiral allen. thank you, all. i look forward to this. thank you. >> i want to thank everyone for

joining us today and particularly the homeland security policy institute at gw. for helping us put together an important and what we think is going to be an exciting program. this is the second in the homeland security and defense business council's national conversation series that is trying to look for to how we continue together to build the structures, apostasies, assistance necessary to have the most successful homeland security possible. while the phrase, this is the most critical time in our nation's history is overly used, this is a pivotal time in our nation's history. we're the crossroads of a perfect, not necessarily welcome confluence of a global, economic, social and political dynamism that one not only have an impact on the infrastructure of our nation but will test how we proactively rather than reactive we tackle the issues that bring us together today. we need to look closely at what the government's role and

responsibility can be in preventing, preparing for, responding to and being resilient in the face of a major catastrophic event. well what we do and what has created -- has been created since 9/11, including katrina, h1n1, abdullah, times square, oil spills, and the decimation of al qaeda in the past 10 years is an evolving work in progress. industries, particularly those that provide it ought to come services, and product solutions is ready, willing, and able to work even more collaborative with government. our goal is to have ongoing dialogue focusing on working together to achieve mission's success. the council's march national

conversation at the american red cross which featured the fema administrator focus unpreparedness and resilient. today, on this gw campus in front of an audience of experts in their own right, we have passed four individuals to a long since graduated from dhs 101 to help us tackle the issues surrounding the evolving homeland security, homeland defense landscape under a new normal politics and policy. what will and what should be the frame work going forward? the council also a 20/20 homeland a security vision, providing the need for clarity and exploring what the world must look like in homeland security in 202. one housekeeping announcement. we provided you with cards that you can write down a question when we open up the floor. i urge you to pass them to the outside.

will pick them up and get them to our moderator. speaking of our moderator, there are few individuals in our nation and understanding as much as advocates -- as admiral thad allen of how to successfully operational lies homeland security. his capstone of his career and being a command and of the coast guard started in june when he started of -- in june, 1971, was being the principal federal officer in the gulf in 2005, and being called on to that region in 2010 to become the incident commander of the deepwater horizon spill. a "times" article said it -- allen's candor and competence brought an aura of calm to the crisis. long before his face was blessed

across our tv screens, he had given so much to our nation. he led the first modernization of the coast guard since world war ii. and while he has multiple or honorary degrees, he also had his bashers in science and engineering from the coast guard academy -- his bachedlors in science and engineering from the coast guard academy and his master's in science. in order to bring some order and to help us in our mission to lay up the-- lay out the next decade, i bring you admiral thad allen. [applause]

>> i had the great fortune and a great honor to work with these three great leaders. i think a couple of comments are proper it. i will start with secretary ridge who give up the economy of being a chief executive and pennsylvania and was the first homeland security adviser. i remember when the president signed the legislation on november 25, 2002 to establish the department. that was done between sessions of congress in midterm elections, the 60-day mandate to set of the department. i remembering seeing secretary ridge in a cubicle. we walked over to the coast guard travel officer -- warrant officer and we gave him a card. >> army of one. >> secretary cherthoff left

the safe con fines of being a federal judge and risk all by coming to washington. we are glad he did that. prior to my intimate relationship with him during hurricane katrina, he launched a major review of the department based on the feedback he had gotten from secretary ridge. we looked at the border transportation security under the secretary to see if that was the right format. he launched the second stage revue, which was an attempt to take a look at the department 2.0, and dealing with the challenges associated with the legislative band-aids following hurricane katrina, especially with the revised role of fema. somebody i dealt with on a daily basis with the president during hurricane katrina. thank you. [applause] and in december, 2008, after the

election and before the inauguration, i was home visiting my parents in tucson, arizona. i thought it would behooves me to go to phoenix and meet my governor, janet napolitano. we had the opportunity to get to know each other in a very good conversation, not a lot of distractions are around. paved the way for relationship that extended past the inauguration and into her first years as secretary of homeland security. we have experienced some of the same types of the external pressures related to events that you do not always predict. i've always appreciate it her forthrightness. i was grateful she was my governor. [applause] the general goal of tonight's discussion, and we wanted to be a discussion and encourage the interchange between our

secretaries that are here, is to start off with a couple of comments about where the department is right now. there have been a lot of retrospectives on the department since it was formed, were the agencies came over in march, 2003. we have been to the first quadrant of homeland security review. and we have sufficient oversight by congress, i think we would all agree . what i would like each of the secretaries to do is comment on what i would call the dhs enterprise. this is a turn that has taken for over the last 24 months, partially as a result of the first quarter and of homeland security review, that tries to look not only the department's role, where it's at in mission in relation to the homeland security act and hspd 5, and take a look at the broader issues that are confronting the homeland now, in relation to not only what the department does but the role of individuals,

communities, and the private sector, academia, our national labs. and the goal after that initial discussion is to walk through some current issues, including the current and developing threat environment. some of the challenges are laid up for is structurally in governing incidents right now related to interagency coordination. more specifically, how the department and the homeland security enterprise and trucks with the department of defense. significant some action taken place over the last two years to the council of governors. then i think you'd like to have the secretaries give us their thoughts on the evolving threat environment. we moved away from a monolithic al qaeda. we have dealt with home-grown plots. we're looking at all hazards and threats, including germs, weather, oil, whatever to cross

state boundaries and create a national challenge. following that, i would like to start focusing on the relationship between the department and our private sector partners. the homeland security and defense business council has done a great job of laying out the essential elements of where we are at and what has happened, not only for the nation but to the homeland security enterprise. i think the questions are left over that we want to zero in on are the things we can do together, not only because the private sector owns a much critical infrastructure, has a lead role to play and cyber security, but also how we solve the road complex problems that generate requirements that are well beyond the capacity of individual organization and government to solve? we just had some very sensitive oversight and activities regarding the role of systems

integrators. i think some conversation about how we need to move forward with the government solving complex problems would be worthy of discussion. finally, some comments on public as private partnerships. -- public-private partnerships. i think we need to move away from euphemisms and talk about what is important in the private sector. we look forward to your comment on that. with that is an overview, let me first ask the secretary ridge a couple of comments on that day on at the 24th of january when you walked into your office and a couple of thoughts you had on the dhs enterprise. >> as you know, we grew from 240.1 billioone individual up o downglad we've got them at the border, secretary. that is where need them. i think it is really important

for the discussion, at least for the potential from of reference for all of you is to view dhs as a holding company. and on that day that we were assigned the responsibility to integrate people from 20-plus agencies, 180,000, you had mergers, acquisitions, start- ups, and divestitures all going on at the same time. we did not have a year and a half to do it. i was sworn in on the 24th. the national security council showed up a couple days before march 1 and said, we will go into iraq. as your set of the department, tried to build an infrastructure in case there is some blow back for terrorists. i said, not a problem taking that from of reference, and to think about the following things -- first of all, there were a couple of principles we tried to in bed and my colleagues have done the same thing. they build upon it. the first thing you know is that initial structure will have changes. and i think one thing that three

of us have demonstrated is the openness to change, and the need just like the private sector for continuous improvement. the first, second, the third iteration. the threat warning instrument is a great example. it initial started out with the alert, be aware, have a good day. then we had secretary janet napolitano saying we will downsize differently because public messaging is a critical feature of homeland security. the second iteration, secretary cherthoff looked at structure created and supported by the administration. but the past experience and said, are there other ways we need to integrate some of these resources? a couple of good thoughts. homeland security is a national mission. it's a federal agency, but you -- one of its biggest jobs is to integrate its capability with state, local, academic, and the

private sector. i think we all agree on that. one of the principles is you push your border out as far as you can carry you want to make sure the goods are secure and it is much information about the people that come into the states whether getting on a boat or flying on a plane. one of the biggest challenges we have, was we also needed a new culture, because america is the battleground. the cold war culture was the need to know. for homeland security to be most effective, it needs to share, not only horizontal it within the federal government but down at to the state and locals and police chiefs. that was a challenge for us. i presume it has gotten better. as i take a look at a couple of things that happened over the past year, i still think there is plenty of room for improvement. while you are doing the business line integration, and everyone has their own i.t. or procurement, different budget modalities, hr, i think we have

proven pretty well that we can execute the game plan in terms of policy, but remember, i think this agency is subjected to more political pressure. the incident of the moment sometimes drives change, not necessarily the change that we would necessarily agree to. finally, our challenge was at that time and by colleagues have fallen but successfully, you do all of these things consistent with the american brand. you do a consistent with the rule of law. you do it consistent with the constitution. we started off with a big holding company. then you in bed in your mind that there needs to be continuous improvement every step along the way. i think my colleagues have demonstrated not only their desire to do so, but their ability to extricateecute on improvement. >> i stepped into the job, after 2 years after the birth of the department because tom had done a phenomenal job of standing up

the basic framework from scratch. it's still not completely mature. by way of reference, if you go back to the department of defense, most people would argue that between the department of defense established in 1947 in goldwater-nichols that came afterwards, there was a tremendous amount of maturation that took place. most recently, it came as the success against osama bin laden in may of this year. so, we understand there was a lot of work to be done for the foundation. i would say from a high altitude standpoint, there were three basic challenges. one was to get within the department of a culture of jointness, a shared understanding and execution of the mission, which is part of any organization, and important when you are bringing in constituents from a lot of different agencies, some of which were -- have varied

degrees of enthusiasm. [laughter] >> you're being very mild. >> so there was that element. how to coordinate with state and local governments and the private sector? again, probably more than any other department and certainly more than the other security departments, dod and justice, at washeart of dhs's mission having a robust relationship with state and local government and the private sector. and a lot of the challenge there is in the fact that there is not a command and control relationship that operates on a vertical basis. in fact, i used to get asked this all the time. i am sure tom and janet did. who's in charge? in many cases, there is not one person in charge. even the presence of 30, with matters in a state or locality,

is limited. the governor's authority is limited. you learn it is a different culture. it is coordination and how to maximize teamwork. i used to say to people, basically is like a baseball team. we might be the manager, the manager is not out in the field while the play is going on sang to the shortstop, throw the ball to the first base man, and saying to the first baseman, cover the shortstop. you are training and establishing plays up front and allowing people to take the field and use that information to operate in a coordinated fashion. so that was the second challenge. a third challenge was in dealing with a set of expectations people have a about homeland security. the concept of homeland security was a new concept. i grew up in a world where the defense department in the justice department had completely separate and distinct areas of authority to deal with

security threats. basically looked at a security issue. if it was at denominated -- military issue, a matter of war making, then you have a set of entities that dealt with a said of authorities and a set of legal rules. if itif it was criminal, it wasa different set of laws and very little overlap. homeland security was dealing with the world that does not fit with that categories, where we use all of these tools to deal with threats. which tools we use very indifferent particular situations. we have bin laden who was indicted defended and was also a military target. we needed a department that embodied a new doctrine and understands what used to fall

uniquely within the jurisdiction of different federal organizations. it was a challenge in and of itself. admiral allen, we had to build a strategy to deal with a different menu of threats, one of which you could be dealing with medical threats, biological threats, natural disasters, transnational criminal groups, smuggling, border security, and terrorism -- and sometimes the line was not very clear where one ends and the other begins. these were the next stage of building after the basic framework laid out by tom. i do believe that we maturity department over four years. we had some bombs and the road certainly. >> thank you, sir. generally when there is a transition of authority, there is a party that has been talk of

power and there are a cadre of folks in consulting somewhere waiting for their term for that happening. -- their turn for that happening to the transition between the bush administration and the obama administration or that did not exist in those different areas. , maybe youitano of could comment on the challenges of a group that did not have the alumni out there. >> yes, and first of all, thad, you are a marvelous colleague had and we went through some very large matters together. he provided great leadership and counsel to me. and to my predecessors, i want to say thank you for that. i was also very lucky, and my two predecessors, because i knew

gov. richard very -- gov ernor ridge. this department is so new, it has never had a transition. it had to be designed out of whole cloth. mike design did. his department executed it. but i got a glimmer of what i had gotten myself into when the people started arriving in 3oenix with dali's fault of inch binders of things i needed -- dollies full of 3 inch binders of things i needed to read. there were 94 single spaced pages. and three years after the fact, i know virtually every acronym

on that list, which is scary in and of itself. it continues to be a process of building and maturing and adapting. building the department, coming together as one dhs, with some finance of culture, common business practices, among different agencies, adaptations, deciding what initiatives we need to pursue and looking at a variety of angles. issues that implicate the coast guard and customs and ice and fema and the office of health affairs and a science and technology directorate, the national -- the npd directorate.

it is taking all the tools to adapt with new and emerging threats. and then continuing to identify and what the threats are out there that are real. there are a lot of speculative threats and we do a lot of the what ifs. but enough teaches us what our adversaries are and thinking about technologies in other capacities that they do have at their command, and what we need to do to enlarge our maximize our ability to prevent occurrences, and then to respond and recover as quickly as possible. those things are all happening simultaneously. lastly, one of the things -- the department of homeland security has been the largest

reorganization of the federal government since the department of defense creation. it is not until you are in it that you realize how immense it actually is. asset reorganization has occurred. it impacts other participants in the so-called interagency, because, for example, the department of homeland security has a huge international footprint. we are negotiating international agreements all the time. we have people stationed in 75 countries around the world today. that culture, which is relatively post-9/11, where ministers of the interior, homeland security secretaries, they have their own pathway to communicate and relationships. that is a new and evolving set

of international relationships that i think will only grow more robust as time goes on. and conversely, now we have a situation where as the department of homeland security matures, and there is a greater realization of about its role and responsibilities and its statutory mandates, that means that it affects other members of the federal family purity can be dod, the justice department, members -- members of the federal family. it can be dod, the justice of farming, having to make changes in a good way, -- the justice department, having to make changes in a good way, so that assets can work together appropriately. that is still a process of that patient under way. >> an observation to the secretary's credit, i remember

calling on secretary napolitano of the night before she was going to be announced. i was in europe and i would take the liberty of speaking to my successor, secretary- treasurer. there are only two people in washington who know what you did and did not do. their range of challenges and complexity, i think you need to feel very comfortable calling us both. from time to time we get calls and we get had set up about changes and what you think about it. that transition continues, and it is far beyond what i think most people would normally associate from one is not -- from one administration to the next. takeght out the top, i'll one discussion at that. -- out of this. we have had this discussion for a number of years in washington for across-the-board cuts in

this era -- and the words of robert gates perpetuate mediocracy. we have have a better discussion. in the context of the evolving homeland security enterprise, the points that you all made about the evolution of the department, you could have what you think is your evolving threat environment, and the criteria in need to focus on, as well as the strained budget environment making tough choices. their threats and vulnerabilities out there, and having the ability to have that conversation suffer from a mandatory budget level, it is very important. i think we will start with you. >> thank you. [laughter] one of the things that has changed, as the department was building, and we are still

getting big budget increases, because things became more manifest. with the appropriations process, you get 6% increase and in some years it was 7% over the prior year, and we are not in our environment now. it is high there's something equating to a freeze or percentage point or two below that, or even in some scenarios, five percentage points below that. it has put a premium on really evacuating everything we do and how to do it more cheaply and effectively. -- on really evaluating everything that we do and how to do it more cheaply and effectively. i wanted to point that out, because some of you in the audience are interested in this. make sure that we are not spend

it -- sending good money after bad. when we have tried something for a long enough time, so you have an idea that you have something more you do not. but making hard decisions about when to cut expenditures also that we can conserve resources for other activities. it means that we really need to look at the right mix of manpower to technology, and some things in the hopper technologically speaking that will be forced multipliers for our manpower, even though that may be down the road. so it continues to make sense to invest there. and then again, the whole business of the enterprise. the sharing with the state, local, the private sector, nonprofits -- part of that is because homeland security is not neatly describes.

it does involve a lot of things, but part of it is that you need to be able to share the division of responsibilities, share the work. so that everyone is not doing all the same thing all the time, but you actually are doing and sometimes this is unintentional as well as intentional, but what you're trying to aim for is a mix, so that everyone's budget is used for maximum effectiveness. it is a very complicated process. when you go through in your own department's appropriation and budget process, it does not necessarily take into account the impact of the other parts of the enterprise. how we grow and knowledge that complication, i think, is still ahead of us. >> very true, and i completely agree with you, pat, that the idea of an across the -- thad,

that the idea of an across-the- board cut is bad. what you cannot do well, you should not do at all. we were in the periodic rising budgets in my tenure, and there is a tendency to pay for all the security. why are you not doing that? there was a period of budget austerity that can be a good thing, which allows you to say no to people. when i was there, if you said to members of congress, i don't think that that is a federal responsibility, they would say, what is the matter of with you? you are not protecting the country. now we say we cannot afford to do that. we have a limited budget and we have to make choices. it can be a healthy environment.

that being said, we need to think about not the four missions of that department but the best locations for the various levels of responsibilities. there are a host of things that can be done on a security standpoint quite well at the state and local level. those ought to be done at the state and local level, and ought not to be done perhaps by federal agents for with federal money. i understand that the state and local level they had a budget issues and this is the moment where they need more help from washington. what i would suggest to the people who have their hands on the fiscal pipeline is that it ought not to be about the screams the loudest. something that all three of us have been committed to looking at the risk, figuring out the right level of investment to manage it, not eliminate, but managed the risk, and who is

best situated to actually execute on that. sometimes it is the private sector. sometimes you say the private sector gives you information but we will not give you money. so there can be a useful exercise here, provided that it does not over -- get overwhelmed by the tendency of a lot of loud voices to overwhelm the decision making process. >> secretary ridge, you have been consulting and you do work with state and local governments. having been a governor, can you give us a counterpoint to that on how you would cancel them to respond? >> we all agree that one of the challenges is to get the people on the hill, the political class, to know that homeland security is about risk management, not risk elimination. you have to prioritize their risks internally.

and then the austerity measures that we have now, prioritize, and determine not only what risks are, but the best situation to deal with the risk. when i was governor, i would walk into the budget to the secretary -- the budget secretary's office, and nothing stimulated the immune that -- the imagination like a budget test. think about that. you have the dollars right now presently. i think the secretary would say that you have beefed up in terms of the muscular man power or womanpower, you have got personnel. so as you think about these austere in difficult times, the burden is on the department and you get pushed back from the hill. this is where we believe we need the forces and it will be a real battle for the secretary, once they have made those difficult decisions on a case by case basis, to preserve the funding in those areas.

i think secretary chertoff knows something about identifying who is best equipped to deal with certain elements of the risks. some of us need to go back to the state and local, and part of the advice that i've had as governor, you cannot secure the country from inside the bloody belt way. you have to trust not only the state and locals, but the private sector. it remains on what responsibilities you have. you have to go back to legislation and you need commercial off-the-shelf technology. no more experimental technology. there is a lot of stuff that could be in bed if you believe in risk management. there's a bright idea that we can eliminate that all of their risks. show me that you have done that somewhere else.

manage the risks here. i think there'll also be additional revenue, not an overall budget line, but if you focus on technology -- and there are some contractors in the room. you may nafta take a haircut. -- you may have to take a haircut. i hope you do not mind, secretary, but i thought i would throw it out there for you. [laughter] >> thank you very much. [laughter] >> this is really getting interesting. maybe the next evolution of the conversation would to be to pick out a couple of technologies related to the department we know exists, and think about how to get a solution, sometimes a policy solution with state and local government, and translated into requirement and acquire

things that we decide are important. as we think about the changes in technology with cloud computing, dealing with large unstructured data sets, and maybe you could opine on the difficult problems that might be susceptible to more of the private sector solution and how we might move forward in that environment. i will start in the middle this time. >> we can talk about this and a lot of different contexts. i spent a lot of time on cyber security. i do it now in my consulting as well. there is a challenge and cyber security in that most of the assets are in private hands. ofre dealing with an area where there is a lot of sensitivity because we talk about how people communicate with each other. there are countries in the world where they monitors of the government said on the internet and control what goes back and forth.

that is a different kind of security than what we think about. it suggests to me that the model of having the government watched everything go back and forth and intervene to prevent bad things from happening is probably not going to receive a hospitable reception in the and that instead -- in the united states. but there are things we can do that are valuable and important. this is something where the private sector has a place to go. the ability to create trusted agencies or entities in the private sector that have the capability of working with enterprises in the private sector on security, know how to work with the government, are able to handle classified information, so that they can interface with the government on sensitive information, " windup executing with private hands on the controls. this creates the kind of distortion of power that reduces

the risk of -- dispersion of power there reduces the risk of government control. they have the opportunity to see what is going on that makes them more capable of managing the network security that company that only rarely sees what comes into its own domain. that is one example of a place where i spend -- where i think the private sector has a lot of capability, to work with the government. >> madam secretary. >> when you think about cyber and that evolving area, in terms of homeland security, it is probably the most rapidly evolving area. it is an area of where i know there are no international rules, really, no legal framework on which to hang

things, where things by their very nature cross national boundaries all the time. we know the internet is an accelerant of certain types of recruitment activities. there is good to it and add to it. we know that there are attacks on us from the internet and there is a lot of economic assets of the country being stolen by the internet. there is a lot of work that needs to happen in this arena. we also know that 85% or so of the nation's critical infrastructure is in private sector hands. it is depended on a cyber network of some sort or another. -- it is dependent on the cyber network of some sort for another. something that will happen in congress is that they are going to be picking up legislation to try to at least the find some

roles and responsibilities and statutory jurisdictions, primarily the division whether it is in the department of defense and the department of homeland security. the basic issue that i think defines the two major bills pending is to what degree that the private sector will be mandated to do certain things, to what degree they will be " incentivized" to do some things, or that we assume that the market will somehow take care of an issue or profit -- or problem. and that issue, as it will be encapsulated in the debate, really will go to in the security arena to what degree we think the private sector has inc. security concepts as part of their own core competencies, that they will take on

voluntarily, or to what degree because they control critical infrastructure it that everyone is depended on, is there a governmental interest that needs to be taken more strongly into account? that's all underway right now. >> when i think of cyber security, i think of two issues -- attribution and accountability. technology is pretty good right now. we are generally able to attribute an attack to a particular source, but i am skeptical that the global community will come into accountability standards. if you do this to us, these are the penalties you will pay. maybe that will happen over time. we need to do everything possible to make sure that they do not gain access. as secretary chertoff pointed out, if there is a state or an area for a dimension within which you absolutely need the

public/private partnership, this is said. it is to the point that i think that the congress and the executive branch should look at their regulations that really in hit it the ability of the private sector -- and have it -- inhibit the work of the private sector to come in and work with the talented people in the public sector, and they do not have the breath and the debt of the judgment available throughout the united states. they have hit on something that is credit -- critically important. if the electric grid goes down, the federal government's efforts. so it is there. this is a classic. if there is one spot, one place, one to mention where that public/private relationship for

national security reasons is absolutely imperative, this is a debt. >> just a comment, i the opportunity several weeks ago to have a conversation with a cheap technical officer and science adviser to the president. he postulated an opportunity to have a public conversation with a leading cio, and he longed for a metaphorical switzerland to go and sit down and say, what are the rules in hitting us -- inhibiting us? he longed for a way to have that discussion and the principles that could come out of that governing the way forward. let's get to the hard part. there is a consensus on the stage right now on this issue on what needs to be done.

the real issue is that when we have a congress that has not been reformed pursuant to the 9/11 recommendations, how you constructively move this forward? >> first of all, i think we begin with the president's review of cyber security on how organize the government itself. realize the government itself has all kinds of overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities. when you really boil it down, the dod will have responsibility in the dot-mil and dhs will have jurisdiction in the dot-gov jurisdiction. the question is then, who is to use the nsa, the greatest technological resources the

country has? will we build two, one for civilian and one for military? you have to figure out how both can utilize that resource. secretary gates and they were able to negotiate and ammo you -- and i are able to .egotiate an mou but that itself is an evolving relationship. we see those things, and then you get to the question where how you bring the private sector to bear, all of those cio's and what have you. i do not see a lack of a metaphorical switzerland. i think the key question is who gets to comment. -- who gets to come. everyone raises and hands and

says i should be there, i should be there. we should not only be working with critical infrastructure players, but it can be thinking about moving forward. what is it that we need is an end product? do we need to have a regime for financial institutions must tell you, must tell the department, when it has had an intrusion, something that many are reluctant to do right now? do we have a regime where we can create some kind of intellectual lockboxes where information can be deposited i nonymized? those questions are still not answered. these are things that will all

be debated in the context of legislation. but even afterwards, i suspect. >> it is a challenging area because there is not one problem. there are a whole sets of problems. and they are different levels of consequences and present themselves in different ways and have different solutions. we're well past the point where people believe there is one magic bullet to solve these issues. we talk about what is some times called cyber fraud, which is really is the same thought -- same as fraud that we have seen in the past. there are some technical issues but frankly it is not terribly different from what we have seen before. there's that that of intellectual property on a massive sell-off -- that th heft of intellectual property

on a massive scale. there are a tax that can disrupt or destroy critical systems, including control systems. -- there are attacks that could disrupt or destroy critical systems, including control systems. some of them implicate largely private players. someone have a public the fed. some can be dealt with from a market standpoint because people want to protect their own assets. some because of collateral consequences are areas of market failures because the company will not invest more than the value of the asset it is protecting to protect the asset. and yet many times the failure of the asset will have a huge impact external to the enterprise itself. so you look at all of this stuff in figure out your doctrine. how'd you treat the different kinds of threats?

what you view as essentially a private and in essentially public concerns? and then how you deal with these issues? that requires some hard choices. when do we regard an attack as an act of war or not? it is a laborious and challenging in all actual process. -- intellectual process predict you look at the tools that we have, incentives, information sharing rules, and mandates, and regulations in some circumstances, and perhaps direct government actions in others, and we can overlay that on our doctrine and figure out the best way to carry out the mission of dealing with that particular challenge. the one thing i would say is that it is my experience in my years in and out of government, and i can say this because i

used to be a judge, so i can trash lawyers. [laughter] the biggest problem is the lawyers because they come in with the context is that you have to figure out some make this work within that concept. i would argue something different. take the constitution -- that is the boundary. that is the one thing that is immutable. within that, everything else is a matter of statute and regulations. those things can be changed. we need to put together a doctrine and a strategy based on a serious policy decision about the optimal way to deal with these challenges. once we have agreed on that, then congress ought to make laws that what we think that doctrine in the strategy ought to be, rather than trying to fit the doctrine and the strategy into a set of legal roles actually built in the 20th-century before we had a robust internet.

that is one my big suggestion. >> what would you add to the blueprint? >> one is the skepticism that congress will move as fast as the technology. [laughter] >> well-founded. >> i don't know why i am skeptical, but that is important between the private sector and the government itself. secondly, i suspect that, given the fact that you have invested as taxpayers billions of dollars in cyber research across the board, there are probably some capabilities, digital capabilities, that for national defense and security reasons cannot be shared publicly. i suspect that is triggered i do not know it to be true. homeland security is about risk management, in terms of national security there is a level of

risk management. in terms of other agencies, they may require in order to protect certain risks that may be great in the private sector but once it is out in the public domain and a sensible to our enemies, they will have to assess those capabilities internally. it is incumbent if you are skeptical that congress will move with the agility and foresight as quickly as technology, you accept the notion that there are some risks and probably some digital capabilities within the government that will never see the light of day. and finally, the final word is trust. i liked the notion of a switzerland. my notion is not who you invited in. everyone has a seat at the table. i go back to the battle we had early on in homeland security. you have to create a culture of

sharing intel. there is always a reluctance to share with the governors or the big city mayors or the police chiefs. if you cannot trust americans, who can you trust? if you cannot trust the private sector to come in as patriots, to help deal with the threats of sovereign incursions', organized crime, and all of those -- a long list of people, they know that we're being attacked by multiple sources -- who can you trust? i will put an exclamation point on what they were saying. this is the time to have a really robust collaboration between the public and private sector. >> could you put this in the context of the dhs enterprise and a larger effort that we're trying to do nationally and will uphold government response would be to this?

i worked as the chairman of the interdiction committee trying to migrate technologies successfully used inside in essayed to the southwest border to take advantage of krajina inside -- inside nsa to the southwest border to take advantage of that. i remember sitting around the table and talking with everyone, saying, i was there was a cosmic days six that could provide oversight or structure or lead the conversation. by me go back and say in context of the evolution of the homeland security enterprise, is there a logical role for a broader role for homeland security? is there a limit to that role if we move across boundaries? had you construct a model where

you have the right people of the table and convene that meeting? >> there's an opportunity to model itself in a different way. it is all about networks, now. you do not control things but you cooperate. you work together in a collaborative way. that sounds new-agey, but even the president does not have the power to control state and local government or the private sector, as we learned in the steel seizure cases. one of the things we learned is a recognition is that you get people together to plan, identify the problems, planned jointly, trained jointly, and exercised jointly. that gives you a running start. in 2008 we had a couple of hurricanes.

one in louisiana and one in galveston. after could train them -- after katrina, we spent a lot of time and effort doing detailed planning with state and local government in the gulf, including doing a census of everyone in nursing homes, a very detailed evacuation plans, and a backup plan for buses. gustav wascane coas about to hit, we were ready to evacuate ever from new orleans that needed to be, including people in hospitals for the last minute -- to a last-minute had been moved. -- who at the last minute had to be moved.

to me, part of that governing situation for the homeland security enterprise is about using collaboration and coordination to move a lot of different independent bodies, playing off the same sheet of music, and producing a unified team. rigid tune -- unified tune. >> i thought the coordination of the governors during hurricane irene showed a maturation of what they believe their role to play. >> and if i could add a couple thoughts, we ought to start with -- give me your identification of cyber security. i do not think it will be unanimous. in this switzerland, it could be

dhs or the white house, bring the practitioners from the grid, from the financial-services, where the manufacturing base, and dod and nsa and everybody, and say, based on experience, what you see are the greatest threats? is that access? is it a encryption? i would suspect have a meeting like that and since dhs oversees the private-sector anyhow, it is not a bad place to start. from that, if you could probably handout a task assignments. i am a strong believer that one should have identified the problem, attacked someone to it and strong -- attach someone to it and then come back. as a country, we need to build

on priorities of risk- management, and based on what we collectively agree are the priorities, then we go out and find individual capabilities from the private sector to respond to those risks that we exist -- we see exist in the digital world. >> we are taking questions from the audience. if you have a card, pass them to the outside. i have one to post a panel. given your extensive political backgrounds, we will start with secretary charles. does divided government negatively impact our national security? >> that is a huge question. i would say the answer is actually know. i'm a huge believer in the system that we have. it has some challenges. in great britain and canada, someone is given the reins of power and the majority party can pretty much take it as far as

they can during the term until voted out. i think our system works well for us. it does create certain challenges. but there is actually a surprising degree of agreement across party lines on the kind of core requirements of security. it is not manifested in what you read or see in the media, or the media tends to gravitate critics are to the report is -- gravitate to the people in the extremes. -- tends to gravitate, sorry to the reporters in the room, to the people in extremes. a travel initiative requires a much more secure document across the land border with canada than no rigid than was the case prior to 9/11.

the 9/11 commission recommended it and it was passed through legislation. there were some members of congress on the border districts adamantly opposed to it because they thought it would hurt the economics of the local communities. but it was necessary to protect the country, not just those districts, but those in the interior which might very well feel the brunt of an attack if someone stuck across from canada. there was a concerted effort to push back. we got a substantially down the road, and then secretary napolitano got across the finish line. got it up -- got it across the finish line. you have to be willing to take a certain amount of flak to make it happen. in the and, there comes a point in time -- and i am a non-

politician here, never have run for office, never will -- you have to look in the mirror and say what am i here for. if i'm here to occupy a position, that is one thing. but that they have -- but if i am here to do a job and i figured out the priorities, i have to push it even if it cost a certain amount popularity. >> if we talk about national security or foreign policy, that involves critiquing some of the things going on and we're not here to do that so i am not going to do that. it is important that if you talk about national security and homeland security and the role of the department is playing and how it is playing out in the international arena our friends and allies, i would be very interested in what secretary napolitano says, but what we tried to do is convince the

state department that we needed a uprises there. thanks to the secretaries here, we now have a presence in 75 embassies and that is very important. ever since 9/11, from all law enforcement point of view, and from an intelligence gathering in sharing point of view, we are probably up as good as we are than ever before. i think secretary napolitano's efforts to push that to even more of a state department sharing responsibility, and divided government and washington about foreign policy and domestic policy, it impedes both branches from operating as effectively as it could, but from a homeland security perspective, it is working pretty well. you have to push the border out. the only way is to get allies and friends to buy into some of

the things you want to do. we had a tough time getting information from the european union about travellers coming into the united states. secretary chertoff said, that is that continuous improvement. he said that we have new algorithms and technology and we need more information. and and eventually they got it. and secretary napolitano says that they're pushing it even further. >> i think that one of the problems -- if we think of divided government as separation of powers, i do think that the inability of the congress to reorganize itself to a line with the creation of this department has been a problem. one is, the sheer number of committees and oversight panels

and reports and things that the department has to undergo takes a lot of time and efforts and resources away from other work. in an era where we're talking about flat or decreasing budgets and maximizing every dollar, there are a number of reports we are required to submit in writing, not on line, and i series to believe they're not ever read by any by -- and i seriously believe they are not ever read by anyone. that is a problem, the resourced command on the department. and secondly, the fragmentary notion of the actual oversight itself. you have the two homeland

security committees and they do a good job. we have good relationships with both of them. beyond that, you get committees where all lidless that is this the sure that issue or this issue, and what you miss is that kind of overall strategic oversight and guidance that one would want out of the congress. i keep hearing that you cannot take that reorganization. congress only can reorganize itself. that is a given, but i would have hoped there would be the opportunity for some self reflection in the congress and for some reorganization on its own terms to meet this new department that it has now created. >> real quick, all three of us are in complete agreement that one of the requirements is a better report is that the congressman or senator, the

secretary is allowed to give them a test. if that passed the test, they are allowed to ask for another one. and if they do not pass, they are not allowed to ask for another one for period of time. [laughter] i remember hundreds of time testifying with iraq and afghanistan going on, and i was on the hill more than secretary rumsfeld, and i'm sure you were. but this is a great example. if the leaders in congress in that two weeks before the new congress, and i think we would be willing to figure a way to work full -- to figure out of way to reorganize now. and as a member of the house for 12 years, i can remember the lament of my colleagues been on

so many committees and subcommittees, but tried to take it away from them. it just does not happen. here is where if they want to be the strategic partner that the secretary needs and the future secretaries may, they're up to 100 plus committees, right? >> it is 108. >> on this line of inquiry, i'm retired and my pension is assured. [laughter] our proposal is time to end random oversight. thank you for those comments. i think will go to a lightning round. we have a lot of questions. with talk about cooperation that the state and local level. secretary napolitano, there are a lot of legislative opportunities for quasi-

enforcement of policies that could be presumed to be a federal responsibility. any insight as you build this vertically integrated dhs enterprise, the best way to talk about immigration enforcement? >> i gave a speech last night at the american -- last week at american university that is online. it is about immigration enforcement. and what makes for smart and effective enforcement, with a statutory scheme that is more and more out of kilter with the actual needs of the country. it is combination of enforcement stratagems that allows us to prioritize those that we seek to remove from the country, and encouraging and make a smooth as possible the business practices for legal immigration.

>> for secretary chertoff, i remember having wonderful discussions about this topic. in light of the decreasing budget environment, any thoughts about the homeland security grant program? and how to move forward on that and get the biggest return on the money available, including leveraging the academic institutions policy? i remember standing with you and taking those speeders coming in when you try to adjust the grant program. >> any grant program that gave the money to someone else was a really bad program. some communities would go out and in the run-up, that would point out that it was really dangerous and unsafe. and the chamber of commerce said damage or killing the tourist business.

-- you are really killing the tourist business. during my term, and i do not know if it is true now with the new budget, but the president submitted a budget and the congress that they wanted to give more money for grants. it is a very popular part of what dhs does or congress. that being said, the purpose of the grant program was to make capital investments, investing in the capabilities that will allow the building up a foundation of the state and local government to operate perry would not be apparel subsidy for state and local governments. -- to operate. it would not be a payroll subsidy for state and local governments. there is up 1 at which you would say, you've got a lot of money.

you have built the basic capabilities. now you have to engage in the process of maintaining this. there are some areas in some communities where the vulnerability and the threat is enhanced, because of the fact that what is being served is not just the community itself, but the surrounding areas. problem.externalities the ports and airports where there is an economic foundation for an entire region, and it is good to have the federal government to recognize the benefit of extending not just to the city itself, but to the whole region. but that being said, in light of this disciplined approach, it is time to look at what has been spent, what has been obtained

for the expenditure, and talk about how you wean some of the communities of of what they have almost began to regard as an entitlement. >> secretary ridge, this question is back to a focus on terrorism. we deal with all has is an off reds and it does not clearly -- can you comment on the role of the perceived threat of terrorism as a relates to managing the entire portfolio? >> i think obviously the profile of the terrorists, tours of the terrorists, the tactics, the number, it has all changed in the past 10 years. but the threat of a terrorist attack has not.

one of the things that think as i look back of the past 10 years is that we have proven ourself to be an undeniably resilience country. t country very we will hopefully always prepare for the big event like a 9/11, but given the fact that the past 18 in 24 months, we have seen more interdictions and address of the homegrown kind, the naturalized citizen, so this scenario has not changed. we had demonstrated that we are resilient. the professionals are added every day. we are no longer is breathless as we were about it. even though bin laden is dead, have you go to -- how you got

tozawahiri and said that you are now no. 2, good luck. al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and others, we are a war against the belief system, and ideologies that is perverted and an interpretation of historic and profoundly about religion. we will always be at war. thosea war that -- with that engage with that tactic, who kill innocents and advance their values. i think we've finally got that. we need to keep it all in perspective and remind ourselves 300 million people, there is still a chance that someone will come in and a better chance that they are already here or can be converted here. this is the new norm of potential nuclear engagement.

what we do, we empowered are professionals, we manage that risk, and we went out with a diversified economy, the digital revolution, it is the norm. we have got it. homeland security gets it. we will continue to manage that risk effectively even among -- with the most austere budget conditions. >> we have a question regarding the current relationship within the department with mexico. the recent paramilitary killings in veracruz, and we know that it is a ubiquitous problem on the border. give us an update on your current thinking. >> we have engaged in very vigorous efforts with a calderon administration to deal with the cartels in mexico. that is a homeland security

issue in part because those cartels all have fingers that region to virtually every state of the united states. -- their reach into virtually every state of the united states. we do not want them to be the rule of law and the northern state of mexico. -- in the northern states of mexico. there has been some danger of that. .

the secretary has us embarked on a strategic review. the idea is that we really need to understand what we must do for the nation. we have projected it out to 2020. we can look back and have four operating memorandums. we're trying to do across the immediate fiscal crisis to determine what the nation needs, not what does the department of defense need. what is the nation need. one of the answers to that question is tremendous integration with other agencies

of government that have those relationships accrued in ways that are absolutely remarkable. we have to keep that going. that is some of the ways we can close this gap you describe between what the military has to do in the nation has to do. the work is ongoing and it is on a fast timeline led by this secretary of defense. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. jones. >> thank you very much. thank you for being here today. i have the privilege and honor of visiting walter reed in bethesda. i said thank you to so many marines and soldiers that have lost both legs. one person asked me this question -- why are we still in afghanistan?

mr. secretary, great respect for you, you are a new one board and that you will develop your own policies. that leads me to my question. february of this year, we had secretary gates testified before this committee. i will read enough that i think will get you to understand the question period by the end of this calendar year, we expect -- less than 100,000 troops and that theater. virtually all of those forces are in afghanistan. that is a key point. that is why we believe that, beginning 2015, in accordance with the present strategy. we can reduce around 27,000. these projections assume that afghanistan will be

significantly reduced by the end of 2014 in accordance with the president's strategy. if our assumptions proven correct, there's plenty of time -- proved incorrect, there is plenty of time to adjust the size and schedule of this change. i support the chairman and most members of this committee that we do not want to see cuts that would this make the military. -- that would just decimate the military. but with $120 billion being spent each year in afghanistan, karzai is a corrupt leader. in fact, a marine general. i hand this out to riveted the -- to everyone that comes to my office. it says the number of people who have been killed in afghanistan and the cost. everyone who wants to see me about any issue, i and this and tell them to call the white house, the speaker of the house, and a leader of the senate, and tell them they're concerns. how do i answer the lance

corporal who has been there twice, severely wounded the second time. many have been there four times or six times. would you reevaluate and not just accept what secretary gates said, that we will be there until late 2014 and significant reduction in 2015. mr. secretary, you know a is a no-win situation. i will read you this and in view that time to answer. mye had a marine general as adviser for 21 months. what do you say to the mother and father, the wife of the last marine killed by a corrupt government and a corrupt leader in a war that cannot be ignored. -- that cannot be won? we continue to stay there until 2015? how many more have to die?

how many will have to lose their leg and uncle sam will have to take care of them? if you give me an answer, are you willing to reconsider what secretary gates testified before this committee? >> congressman, our present strategy in afghanistan is one that was developed by the president of the united states and by our allies who are in nato at the lisbon conference. it is to gradually transition our forces out of there by the end of 2014. that is what we're doing and that is what we will continue to work at in order to do it right. we are in the process of making that transition. we have already taken down, by the end of this year, the first 10,000 of the surge that was put in. we will take out the remaining part of that surge next year, by the end of the fighting season. then we will begin to take down

the remaining force through the end of 2014. so we are on a path to gradually transition down and remove our combat forces from that area. i have to tell you -- talking with general allan, as difficult as that war has been, the fact is that good progress has been made in terms of security. we have trained the afghan army and police. they are operational now. we are making transitions. we have transition several -- we have transitioned 7 areas. we will transition and other bavaria's in the fall to afghanistan security and governance. we will continue that process through the end of 2014. yes, there are concerns. yes, there are problems that you have identified. but in the end, there is only one reason for this mission.

that lies in the fact that afghanistan was a safe haven for the taliban and for al qaeda to conduct the 9/11 attacks on this country. one thing we do not want is afghanistan becoming a safe haven again for al qaeda. that is what this mission is all about. >> mr. secretary, mr. chairman -- >> thank you. >> al qaeda is dispersed all around the world. we got bin laden. let's bring them home. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary and general. welcome. i first question is for you, secretary panetta. it has to do with the military buildup in guam. in a recent hearing, secretary of defense carter indicated that the palm of -- the guam

realignment was on the table for cutting. i feel that this comment is in direct contravention of this country's agreement with japan which was reaffirmed in june of this year. these comments, along with certain actions by the navy, have created a sense of uncertainty and that isn't helpful. does dod remain supportive of the guam realignment and the greed implementation plan? >> we continue to stand by that agreement. it was related to this that chelation and okinawa. -- the situation in okinawa. we will continue to work with japan on this. the challenge will be to try to make sure that we do it in a cost-effective way. that will be the challenge. as to what we need to do, as to the effort to try to reduce our presence there, i think that is something we're committed to. >> thank you. that is what i wanted to have. >> may i add very briefly?

>> yes. >> i mentioned the strategic review we're undergoing. one of the questions we're confronting is the issue of forward presence -- how much power, how much rotational this conversation will occur in that. >> very good. the next question is for you, general, as well. there have been a number positives of the elements for the military buildup. the senate has raised concerns and suggest that we rethink the entire program. i believe this is otherwise -- unwise given the current threat environment in the asia-pacific region. what are we doing in view of the other agency partners in getting japan to achieve tangible progress in okinawa? further, what is our government doing to help the government of japan to achieve tangible progress? whichever, general? >> to kind of spin off of my earlier answer, what we're trying to do is become articulate with their friends

and allies about our intentions. we are not the only nation that is facing a new fiscal reality. so japanese partners are facing some similar cases. we have some issues on the korean peninsula as well. they are related to our future charity and the new fiscal -- future strategy and the new fiscal environment. i can just assure you that the conversations are ongoing. >> good. secretary, another problem here is that do we not expect to see final master plan for the military buildup in dot? cost increases are becoming an issue. i think that is what you mentioned. can you give us an answer on that? >> first of all, i am not sure about a military buildup. at this point, what we are engaging in, as a result of the number we have been headed by -- theave been handed by a congress, is that it will be an effort to reduce the budget in a responsible way. but what i can share with you is that, as we develop a

strategy for what we will need in the future, as we develop the decisions that will be part of our budget presentation early next year, i fully intend to consult and advise with you on that process. >> very good. one final question, general. as we move to a post-iraq and afghanistan military, what areas of the world do we need to refocus on. >> that conversation is occurring even as we sit here. clearly, we have some emerging regions in the world that we had somewhat neglected because of the demands in iraq and afghanistan. you last what concerns me in the -- you ask what concerns me in the post-iraq and a guest and -- i -- and afghanistan, i'd am

concerned that we will convince ourselves that the job of defending this nation is complete and that we can somehow go back to where we may have been in the mid-1980's, which is a military that was not sure of itself or its support. that concerns me. again, back to one of the ehrlich questions about leaders, -- earlier questions about leaders, we have to keep the right leaders in our military. that means we a train and educate them. we have to continue to inspire them so that, when you need them, they will bill -- they will still be there. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> mr. secretary, i heard the chairman said that we have only five minutes. if i had longer, would complement to on all the things you have been very good that until this time. i will get to the point. less than a month ago, when you appeared at a senate committee some the two hours, you made the -- similar to ours, you made the statement that if we allow $6 billion in additional cuts, it would be like shooting ourselves in the head. i think that would be a good analogy.

but that was more across-the- board cuts. even though we said $600 billion, it would still be like shooting ourselves in the head. but i took it from that that what you really mean is that, for us to ask for $600 billion in additional cuts to defense before we have done a strategic analysis and review would be perhaps reckless, irresponsible, even dangerous to the country. is that a fair depiction. >> all of that. >> if that is the case, mr. secretary, then would it not also be reckless, irresponsible, and dangers for us to do the for under $50 billion in cuts we have already done -- to do the $450 billion in cuts we have already done before the strategic review and analysis? if not, the three and g-8 --

differentiate the two. >> the reality i am dealing with -- >> i am not blaming you. >> i realize that. but the reality of having to reduce $450 billion and do it over the next 10 years, obviously, the better approach, had read the resources in this -- had we the resources in this country and had we managed our budget's more responsible way, the better approach would have been to develop a strategy to be able to discuss exactly what we need, determine what resources would be to meet the strategy and then come to you and say that this is what we need to do the job. >> but to the more the same. -- but the two are essentially the same. one of them is perhaps reckless and perhaps more dangerous. you could say that the other one would be, too. the other thing i wanted to raise -- we heard a lot about risk. both you and the chairman mentioned that there were risks in institutions. yesterday, we had the former

chairman in here with terrific expertise. we have former chairman skelton who made an observation. i asked him to give us the biggest warning he would offer us as a committee, congress, and the nation. he said that in his tenure in congress, he saw 13 conflict. -- 13 different contingencies, conflicts. 12 of the more unpredictable. -- 12 of them were unpredictable. that means that the president, whoever he might be, will have similar unpredictable missions that we cannot foretell right now. when we talk about acceptable risk, is it not true that we're not just talking about risk to the mission or the institution but risk to the men and women who are performing those missions? >> you're absolutely right. >> with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you both for your service to the country.

>> mr. courtney. >> i want to take a moment to highlight your announcement today about moving up the auditability target. it will in fact help us get toward the goals we're talking about this morning in a smart way coming inefficiencies, and an auditable set of books. it really helps us accomplish and does not affect our ability to defend ourselves. congratulations on that announcement. you said you want to have a military that is capable of reacting to surprises. last march, president obama had to react to situation that arose in libya for we had a humanitarian disaster on the brink of happening.

what he did at that time, which i think was the right call, was exercised what i think he described as unique capabilities to help nato intervene. we had a submarine fleet in the mediterranean, to scranton, to florida, in a matter 48 hours, neutralizing deduct the's air defenses. -- neutralizing gaddafi's air defenses. a submarine fleet is somewhat of a cold war relic. obviously, the events in libya demonstrated that it gave this country the ability to react to a surprise. but we are at a point where all three of those books will be -- those boats will be going offline in roughly 10 years. we are now slated 0.4 sailors are being deployed in seven- month -- we are now at a point where sailors are being deployed in seven-month stints. instead of the normal three-

month period. we are dealing with the shrinking fleet size. i want to ask and get your view on the roles of our submarine fleet, post-9/11, particularly in other areas of the world that you mentioned earlier where underseas warfare seems to be on the upswing with some of our potential threats. >> i have always considered our submarine fleet to be an essential part of our forward presence projection and also the capability of being able to respond to the kind of surprises that we run into in the defense business. i think we need a full range of capabilities in order to be able to address the threats of the future and the threats of the present. submarines have provided that additional arm, particularly with regards to our fleet. i think that is absolutely essential to our defense in the future. >> good. thank you. maybe we could get you to come up to the commission and mississippi in december. >> if i could get, congressman,

except for one saturday every year in december, i completely support the united states. [laughter] >> thank you. a corollary to that issue is obviously the replacement program, which we have spent a lot of time in this committee and the sub-part mini. you mentioned, general, the nuclear deterrence, which is a low-risk situation right now, but nevertheless a risk. i was wondering if you could share your thoughts on the need to move forward with the replacement program that the navy has worked hard on. >> as you know, we have been studying and must continue to steady the capability given -- continue to study the capability given to us. it is the most survivable leg of the triad. i considered to be indispensable. as we move forward, it could change.

but for now, i think we are exactly where we need to be. >> thank you. one last question, mr. secretary. secretary gets, about a year- and-a-half ago, announced an initiative within the department of defense to really look at our regime of export control. >> yes. >> which are also in cold war mentality. again, i realize you're pretty new into the saddle. but if you have any updates you can give us on how that is progressing and your own views in terms of -- like >> are fully support what -- in terms of -- >> i fully support what secretary gates is trying to do. we really do have to update our export laws, and begin to bring them into the 21st century. not only for purposes of technology in the industries we have here, but we are in a stage now where, very frankly, as we develop those 9 ounces -- develop those alliances, nato

performed very well in terms of libya. the question is, if we are going to develop those kinds of capabilities, develop those kinds of alliances, the have to -- they half to be able to have the latest in terms of technology and in terms of weaponry. that means we have to be able to share that kind of technology. i am working very hard to try to see if we can do away with some of the barriers that were established. >> some of us would like to work with you on that for. >> this is a good time to which the navy had a pretty. [laughter] -- to which the navy happy birthday -- to wish the navy happy birthday. [laughter] mr. miller. >> i am interested in knowing if this is the first opportunity we have had to hear from you

directly -- you share his enthusiasm for that aircraft? will you commit to helping make sure that we move forward with it? >> i am supportive without caveat of the development of a fifth generation fighter. i am concerned about the three variants, as we go forward in this fiscal environment, whether we can afford all three. but i am eager to learn more about that. i have great respect for the generals judgments. that is something we need to keep an eye on. three variants is critical challenges for us. >> it is good to see. i look forward to working with you in your new capacity. also considering the stovall aircraft, i watched a video last

week of the new aircraft landing. my question is, with two trulls -- with sea trials ongoing now basically, it has been on probation, which the term probation does not exist in any of the acquisition areas. it probably has created or could be considered a black market on the snowballed aircraft. -- the stovall aircraft. what remains now as far as items that would allow it to be moved from its probationary status? >> this is the fifth generation fighter. it is something we absolutely need. it is a remarkable plane. is it really does the job well. what we want to do is make sure that, as it goes through this test period, that we are able to understand all of the issues

involved, that we're able to be fully confident that this airplane, once it goes into production, it will be something that will be totally effective and will be totally capable of serving the mission that is required to do. the term probationary is out there. but what that means is give us a chance to test it. give us a chance to see how it performs. if it performs well, obviously, it will be able to make the grade. >> thank you. the other thing is guidelines for 2013 and the budget, where it states that departments shall identify programs to double down on because they provide the best opportunity to enhance economic growth. i did have the opportunity to go visit fort worth where the s- 35 -- 127,000 direct jobs right now. if we can remove some of the

instability in our purchasing of this aircraft and move forward with what we initially intended to do -- and i and stand the budgets start -- the budgetary constraints we are in right now. i am convinced and i do not think he meant to the way you said it -- we have the resources. we do not have a tax revenue problem in this country. we have a spending problem and an allocation of where those dollars go. but i would hope that, if that is what the administration would like and we're trying to increase jobs, then this is an aircraft that we do want to go forth, looking forward at what time is doing and how fast china is producing their aircraft, which is quicker than we had anticipated. i hope they would look at the as-35 very carefully as meeting the on the challenge. >> i certainly will do that. -- meeting the omb challenge.

>> i certainly will do that. >> i look forward to working with you into the future. i think we can all agree that we are making the fiscal constraints on a bipartisan basis. like mr. skelton said, there contingencies and we will have to be prepared, no doubt about it. i have to areas of inquiry that i want to explore with you briefly. first, it has to do with organic manufacturing base. at installations like the rock island arsenal. in the past, i think it can be argued that we probably threw -- drew down too much and some contingencies came up, issues

came up. it took too long for probably to go back to that organic base, build up those capabilities. congressman schilling and i are on this committee. we crossed the mississippi river and political lyles. -- we have been working all across the mississippi river at across the political isles. the second issue has to do with reserve components for the guard and reserve. a lot of us have concerns that come as we begin to draw down, that we will see the capabilities of those forces also declined and across the spectrum. including title 32 duties as well. first, i would like to ask both of you to respond to the issue of the organic manufacturing base. how does that fit into the overall plan, making sure that those capabilities are maintained, that they do not decline like they did before? >> two very important issues.

number one, one requirement i have with regards to our overall strategy is to make sure we maintain our industrial base. i absolutely have to have that. if we will be able to have a strong defense, if we will be able to maintain a strong defense, if we will be able to respond to the crises of the future, i have to have the industrial base that can respond to that. if we have to mobilize quickly, what and as quickly, i have to -- if we have to weaponize quickly, i have to have an industrial base in place. if we cripple that, we will cripple our national defense. i am asking that we develop a strategy. we can go through some of these decisions and make very sure that we are affecting the base they talked about. so those skills and capabilities will always be there when we need them. it will require some decision making. we will have to be able to get the cooperation of the private

sector. i met with them and i am fully confident that we can get that. on the reserve and guard, i will let the general speak to that. we have gone through a remarkable time were the reserve and the guy has really performed in an outstanding fashion with regards to the wars we have been in. we have been able to rotate them in. they have gotten battle experience. they're better. they're more capable. they're more experienced. i do not want to lose that. i want to retain that kind of experience the best we can. secondly, i would like to keep them on some kind of operational capability so that we can basically move them into roles that will continue to benefit from that experience that we have gotten from them. >> thank you. >> i do not have anything to add on the defense/industrial base. i can assure you that it is

prominent in our strategy review. as part of the reserve component, if we are to to what we say we are, which is a learning organization, we need to learn some lessons as our relationship with the reserve component has changed over the last 10 years. as we developed this strategy, we might find things that we decide we do not media elite. -- we do not need immediately. they can be placed into the reserve component. the things that were in the reserve component that we now realize are needed immediately, they can be active. what do we need to see is a very healthy discourse among the three components to determine what is our new relationship based on the last 10 years of war. >> thank you. i think both of you for your -- i thank both of you for your service and your support for these issues. one little area of disagreement in december, we will have to argue the outcome of that game. i have two children who are

unable academy graduates. [laughter] thank you verizon. >> i have two children who are west point. we really are at odds. >> thank you very much. [laughter] i yield back. >> thank you for being here. thank you both for your service. mr. secretary, i want to thank you for the clarity of your response. there should be no further cuts in our military and defense. equally, i appreciate you stating the belief that that is the position of the president. this is so important that our country know and that our adversaries around the world know that we will be prepared to defend the american people. general dempsey, with the number of threats that the secretary identified that are rising, not being reduced, it is very important that we be able to cite a to-conflict war. i'm very concerned with the drawdown, the army below

225,000, the marines below 186 -- that puts us at risk. will we be able to face a two- front war? >> that analysis is ongoing, congressman. but i can assure you that i will never advocate a strategy for this nation that would limit us to be able to do one thing at a time. that is not go -- because that is not the world we live in. >> thank you very much. mr. secretary, i am very honored. i worked with ranking member susan davis to promote military families, service members benefits. they have the resell system. they operate in the most bizarre locations around the world. it is a really great morale- builder. it is a way of showing our

respect to our military. and we have extraordinary facilities. what is your view about our military resale system? in light of the budget constraints, can we count on behalf of this benefit to be available? >> i view that as a very important announcement for the families that are out there. having served two years myself, my family benefited from that. i and stand how important that is. it is something we will continue to provide. as we go through the process of looking at the infrastructure, there may be some areas where women have to reduce air -- where we may have to reduce our

presence. >> a side issue has been raised, the number of military families that work in remote areas around the world that simply could not find employment otherwise. it has so many side benefits that should be considered. i am really pleased that this issue has been brought up. the importance of the national guard and reserve, as a 31-year veteran of the reserves national guard, and the proud father three sons were in the national guard, as we really get into the circumstance of budget cutting and determining prioritization, i cannot hear enough. i do know firsthand of the extraordinary success like the 218 brigade out of south carolina -- our reserve appreciate serving overseas and in the country.

>> there is another factor here that i think is extremely important to the reserve and the guard. the reserve and the guard reaches out into every community across this country. it makes every community in a part of our national defense system. to some extent, every community has to participate, not only in service, but also in sacrifice that is involved when we defend this country. for that reason, the grassroots operation of having a strong reserve, a strong guard that can help us as we confront the crises of the future is something that i want to assure you that we will maintain it. will strengthen it. >> having served multiple course in iraq and afghanistan, most of the time, when they get on a c-13, it is a national guardsmen. have driven up route irish, and

i have been defended by the fighting 16 of new york. the highest compliment we can pay the guard and reserve now is that you cannot tell what soldiers are enacted, which soldiers are guardsmen, and which soldiers are the reserve component. we're certainly one source now -- one for snow. thank you. -- one force now. thank you. >> welcome. we look forward to many more appearances before this committee. i do not relish the job you have. you have a very difficult task and you of the extraordinary -- in view of the extraordinary challenges they face as a country. we would all have known for some time that, as we face the death -- the debt and the deficit, the defense department would have to observe its fair share. but we all know that we want to do it in as a thoughtful way as possible. i appreciated, general dempsey, when you said you are a learning organization.

as you talked about the assessment of risk, how you develop strategies and uss those risks, just a comment. i would hope the two will also take into account that not every risk can be dealt with through military response. there are limits to our capacity to deal with every threat militarily, that there perhaps other ways as well. just a comment for the record. as a learning organization, i'm sure that is something you will take into account as well. also, i wanted to reiterate the importance of the national guard and reserve. in the fifth district of massachusetts, most who are serving today are doing it through either one of those great organizations and they have done it with such dignity and professionalism. but i wanted to go in a slightly different direction.

yesterday, the former chairman of our committee, i testified in a hearing that "the strength of the military flows from the dedication and skill of an all- volunteer force. indeed, the new defense budget must maintain our nation's security by keeping "the profession of arms" professional. i believe this is a view you both share. with women now playing an ever increasing role in our military, supporting our all- volunteer force requires an understanding of the issues and challenges confronting both the service man and the servicewoman. an issue i would like to address today is the issue of sexual assault in the military, which is reported with alarming frequency. mr. secretary, in 2010, there were 3000 two hundred 30 reports of assaults in the military. -- 30 to 30 reports of assaults on the military -- in the milk -- 3230 reports of assaults in the military. the stories i hear from returning women veterans and the be a organizations and massachusetts, those numbers are

accurate. obviously, it is unconscionable to begin with that so many of our brave service members are subjected to this criminal and predatory behavior. i would also -- however, were also concerns me is that this systematic abuse will affect our readiness by keeping patriotic women from enlisting more reenlisting in our armed forces. in a time of two wars, a massive budget cuts, our military needs to attract and maintain the most capable personnel possible. in 2008, when and then we became the first woman in our nation's history to be confirmed as a four-star general, women made up 14% of our active duty personnel. we must make sure these women's needs are being met. there are several important

steps to address sexual assault in our armed forces. this work has been done through the combined efforts of many of my colleagues. when he appeared before our committee interviewer it, i raised this matter and responses to it from secretary gates. i asked him why the department had previously resisted efforts to put certain protections in place. he responded that he had not realized that the department had resisted. he said he would find out. i have a very simple question. mr. secretary, in this time of austerity where we face massive budget cuts to the department of defense and potentially threatening cuts, can i count on your support to fund new initiatives aimed at preventing

sexual assault in our armed forces? i do not want to see this budget environment become an excuse to not fund these initiatives. >> absolutely. thank you for your leadership on that issue. it is an issue that i am paying a lot of attention to. women are performing an outstanding -- in outstanding fashion for the department of defense. they put their lives on the line. they're doing great in terms of helping to defend this country. i think we have to make sure that we provide all of the protections necessary so that what happens in these horrendous sexual assault cases, they should not happen. it does happen -- when it does happen, justice should be rendered quickly. >> thank you. i look forward to working with you on this. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, in your discussion of

the range of threats that we might face, you said that nuclear conflict is unlikely. it is unlikely because of the strength of our deterrent. it is credible and unreliable. cuts currently before this congress could affect that deterrent. at a time when china and russia are investing in their nuclear weapons infrastructure, we're looking a proposed cuts that would create vulnerability and instability crude our investment -- instability. our investments rate looks at the issue of deferred costs. mr. secretary, i will ask your question that i know your answer. we had discussed this on tuesday. i appreciate your commitment to the modernization of our national security administration. -- national nuclear security administration. it is important to have you expressed those opinions in this

venue. as you know, we're heading to the prospect of an omnibus in which there could be significant cuts that occurred to our nuclear weapons infrastructure. i know you are aware that the new treaty is being proposed. the president and the senate are taking up the issue, recognizing the issue, going to lower numbers -- you actually have to set aside increase dollars so we can have both security and understanding that we need deferred maintenance and go forward with their minimization program. the president said, modernization requires investment in the long term. this is my commitment to congress. the administration will pursue these programs and give the bill -- programs and capabilities is for as long as i am president. the program includes an $85 billion investment for modernization. as your both aware, this program

resides in the department of energy. secretary gates, enjoying -- showing his commitment to the program, set aside $8.3 billion or the next five years to invest in the program. sector -- secretary gates then said that this modernization program was carefully worked out between ourselves and the department of energy. for we came out on the play significant role in the willingness of the senate to ratify the new start agreement. the risks are to our own program. this modernization project is in my view really important. my question to you is that, do you agree with secretary gates on the modernization program? what is your assessment of the proposed cuts? the modernization program, in addition coming across from the president's budget that is fully funded, it came out of the house budget which was fully funded. it came out of this committee fully funded and then stumbled in the appropriations committee. as we know, with the omnibus

moving forward, your statements are even more important now. i want to highlight one of the issues with your support of $8.3 billion. as those funds come out of the appropriations committee with cuts, in effect, your funds are being used for water projects across the country. i think you may have an opinion about that. [laughter] >> as a former member, i know they will reach for whatever they can in those committees in order to try to see if they can fund those projects. i understand that process. but i think it is tremendously short-sighted to reduce the funds that are absolutely essential for modernization. we are in lock step to our positions and frankly with the president -- we have to fully fund the modernization effort

with regards to the nuclear area. this is too important. we have always been at the cutting edge of this technology. we have to stay there. there are too many other countries that are trying to reach out to develop this capability. it, we jeopardize the security of this country. for that reason, i certainly would oppose any reduction with regard to the funding. >> your statement is very important to identify the this is not an area where we can find savings, an area where cuts would actually expose risks. if it begins to a atrophy, it will fall into a decrepit state. as we look to lowering numbers, with less and our ability to hedge.

>> just to reinforce what you said. >> there is a nexus -- for the record, i am sorry. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. thank you very much, mr. secretary and mr. chair for being before our committee and answering a great diversity of questions. i want to echo the remarks of my good friend and colleague mr. jones. i know he is no longer in the room. but i really do appreciate his vigilance encouraging continuing -- vigilance and courage continuing to highlight the importance of bringing the troops back home. i know we started the day with protesters in the room could sometimes they seem disruptive or their taxes may be -- or their tactics may be lacking.

but there protesters and almost every city in which we represent. but there is huge dissatisfaction in our country about the representation that they feel that many of us give them in congress and one key area it is about ending the war. many people feel we were misguided getting into iraq, that we have been in afghanistan to long. with the budget deficit, we cannot justify $120 billion per year. i want to echo mr. jones and say that i have been on the committee for three years. but i have the feeling that we find ourselves often in somewhat of a unconscionable inertia around the war. 2014 turns into 2015 and 2016. and people wonder when we will end the war, particularly after the capture of osama bin laden, after the reduced number of al qaeda operatives, and, in fact, and in light of security concerns for countries over the world that we're not adequately

prepared for war to defend ourselves. i do not think it is unrelated that we are facing these huge need for budget cuts and there is satisfaction out there for the way we do things. on the right is our growing deficit and responsibility. many on the left is why we do not and the war and wire which any $120 billion? i think that is why we are facing such difficult cuts. i just feel -- it is important hey the to echo that. i agree with so many of my a strong defense. i am proud to represent the greatest shipbuilders in the world. and then stand that we do not have a strong enough navy, that there are pending threats from and the ira can china and we do not want to be a that iraq and in military. there are true security needs the around the country.

need and ani believe that this war, which has been crippling us as a cost, which has had us prepare prepared in other areas has toall that said -- i know you stated your own opinion on that -- i just feel the importance of reinforcing it and think that i not name any reflect the thoughts of many of my colleagues in congress and certainly the majority of residents in my district. this is an issue here about frequently. on a completely different topic, as you are pondering the difficult cuts the need to be made, i wanted to echo the remarks made about the defense direct and his business for. i do appreciate your response to that. and hillary init is still a plan that is under consideration. talking about the difference in the retirement system for a billion light on the military men in civilian life. i think you said it very well.

i strongly oppose the plan. headline but at the top and can work and build an atlantici did do not agree with making those kinds of cuts. with the commission on wartime and a a a a hanna hijacking fine contracting signing between $30 billion and $60 billion and indeed billion of it arriving in an billion lent wasted weapons programs that need it -- that never make it into fighters' hands, it seems to me again that there are other places to be cut. it is hard to justify targeting military families. there are other places to be cut. you stated your numbers. i am pleased to hear them. i wanted to add my voice to others. through ahead>> i recognize the frustrations. has not been through these wars

and losses that we have incurred. i have been through these wars. we are in the proces of ending the war in iraq. with afghanistan, i am confident that the president is committed to ensuring that we transition. we just have to do this right. what i do not want to have them -- happen is if we do this in the wrong way are so fast that if it becomes a safe haven for the taliban or al qaeda and the other subjects, then the world will look at us and say how can you let that happen. that is what i'm trying to prevent. >> i would like to answer that one for the record.

>> thank you. congratulations on your appearance in new roles. i want to thank you for your comments about irresponsibly -- responsibly disengaging. and not precipitously so. we had many sons and daughters to have served there. it would be a terrible disservice to them. i want them to serve. i want to congratulate you on your announcements about 2014 and 2017. it is overdue to have an audit. by has neither one of us will be here. -- perhaps another one of us

will be here. i am cautiously optimistic. i appreciate your taking this and trying to get that done. looking at these budget cuts, those in the works and those horrifyingly that are potentially out there, i am mindful of the former chief of staff of the army he used to talk about the tyranny of personnel costs. i know that is us some concern as to have stepped up to meet our obligation to the men and women who are serving in terms of medical care and pay raises. we are keeping faith with those who have served. i was recently in fort bliss

texas business in my favorite soldier. you're talking about families and soldiers about the story that was ripping around the united states army. in the "army times" and elsewhere. there is the high level of concern about the retirement benefits. that they would be yanked away. i'll be breaking faith that want to focus on this retirement. they would get something substantially less than what they had signed up for. i want to be absolutely clear. i want to hear the your adamantly oppose -- that you are adamantly opposed to making

that happen. the change in those retirement benefits for our serving men and women. >> i am adamantly opposed to changing the retirement benefits for those where currently on active duty. i am open to the potential changes to the retirement system as part as the overall compensation for the future. >> absolutely. we can not break faith with those that have served and deploy time and time again. they were promised the benefits. they're going to be protected under any circumstances. >> i yield back. >> thank you.

i want to congratulate each one of you all for your suspicions. -- your new positions. of afford to working to you. -- i look forward to working with you. i answered on this committee for -- i have served on this committee for almost five years. one thing i have noticed is that from time to time we needed the presence of our capitol hill police officers to maintain order in room where we conduct our business. i certainly respect the rights of people to come in in protest what we are doing. they did not have a right to end -- to interrupt the meeting. we had a large contingent of protesters today. we were able to proceed with the meeting. we were able to proceed with the -- we had adequate resources

to maintain order. i appreciate their service. i also noticed during his streak from time to time there are disturbances throughout the world. these disturbances may interrupt some of our interest around the world. it is necessary for us to have some kind of force to maintain order. i hated that human beings have to have some protection,the strong over the week, and they take over from the ben strong folks. this is something like competition, like capitalism. it is a natural human phenomenon.

we must have sufficient force when necessary to bring about the kind of relief we need in terms of maintaining order throughout the world. this is why we need a sufficient military force that is ready to respond immediately to whatever the circumstances may be. people always try to get more innovative and coming up with new ways of doing things and hurting people and hurting us. we have to stay a few steps ahead of that at all times. if we do not, then we are not taking care of our business as elected officials in country. having been said, i believe having been said, i believe that