that is the biggest window. that is not over populated by u.s. capacity and capability. it is not religious. it is a it is not religious. we can extend it as needed. it should make us be more urgent. we find that when we bring urgency to almost any discussion inside of the u.s. government is a constructive thing to do. >> there are a number of areas in the u.s. government that look at failed and failing state. the undersecretary for political affairs has that responsibility. dns see used to chair and -- the nsc used to chair a

committee. how does cso play into this? >> we try to work with everyone that you mentioned. we want to be aggregators of talent and good work that has gone on. for example, something as simple as analytics, we have a metadata analyst in our shop now, but we want him to be an aggregator of aggregators. i keep saying you have to be made silver on steroids -- nate silver on steroids. we cannot run enough staff to review and it turns out the intelligence community loves being called by the state department. they are flattered by it. they want their work respected

and called upon. it is not hard. often times, in the military community, there might have been times when the state department has not been as friendly to these other partners as they could be. particularly when you get to something like policymaking, there has been this secret formula -- like kentucky fried chicken, you have to go into the back room and no one can tell you what the elements are. i happen to believe the process should be widest at the beginning and then narrowed down. that is the way we are trying to do it. each time i get an answer, 10 times more hands go up, so i am not clarifying. [laughter]>> i want to hear how the intelligence community loves being called by the state department.

>> i am also impressed with the process you have gone through and being catalytic in the bureaucratic process. i have a concern about the short time horizon. you said the window is zero-two- one year. if you're going to get at the heart of the structural issues, it need a longer-term strategy of some sort. using the example of kenya, for example, everyone is concerned about the elections, but one of the problems is we focus on elections, and then go home and think everything is ok. it is not. how will you get to the next stage where you get to the underlying drivers of the failing state rather than just the triggers? >> i hope in my answers and more so in our work that we are

touching on those issues on the front end, and not just running through an election process, but really going at the core issue, in a place like kenya, of surrounding political elites so they do not have the room to instigate violence around the country. it is basically -- the bigger idea of getting these people and play if they will not only tame idle youth, but they won't let political candidates know that the space they are -- would let political candidates know that the space they are operating and is shrinking. it starts precisely with the behaviors of the political elites in that country, but you have to figure out how you check it. in kenya, you have a wonderful press, a very rich, civil society and some rule of law.

a lot of things are going on that do not exists -- exist in other places, but there are some things that have been used over and over again through the decades and it tends to come back to a few buyers who have been acting highly irresponsibly, trying to limit political dialogue to one of tribal divisions as opposed to how the country is run and how it should be run moving forward. so, the second part of the answer is there are many parts of the international community, including the u.s. government, that are there to play the longer game. in some cases it takes them two years or three years to get there, but that is where most of the money is. there happened to be two places where the money sits. one is the instant emergency.

the other is the longer-term play, and in between we have not done that good of a job. i do not think we have done that good of a job at getting started in the right direction. if somebody who is working on aids starts to worry about the political elite -- stops worrying about the political elites, they will be much more effective. the u.s. government needs to be much more vectored on the problem, and we are here at the beginning of the vector, and what we should do should fit inside of the vector and it should be highly catalytic, but we are not responsible for the whole ride government needs to e much more vectored on the, nor f

the international community -- community. at the end of the day, it is like having an alcoholic relative. you will have to help out where you can, but let's keep it on focus. that is not easy because we have a lot of wonderful things we do. a question as a follow-up to that question -- on rule of law, you mentioned the rule of law in the failure of rule of law and the lack of governance in failing states, nor is any partf the international. to what extent does business and helping them create a better economic environment, to what extent do you get involved with that type of work? there are projects you could do in that area that could have long-term implications, especially in a country like honduras. >> sure. i am not sure this is answer your question, but we see the business community as a huge area of opportunity that has not

been called upon as aggressively as it should be in these cases and we are trying to do that. we had dinner one night when i was in mumbai for, nash mumbai for, and the general manager of the hotel said something like he had 684 rooms, and during the last round of violence he had eight guest in his hotel -- eight guest in his hotel, so he was very attuned to how radically things could change if they are not managed well. tax on the business community has to be collected fairly. already, there are signs the collection rate is dropping, or the compliance rate is dropping. it has to be spent wisely. there are signs that it could be used as a slush fund by key

political operatives. so, these are the kinds of challenges. the business community cannot afford to privatize their entire security operation in a place like honduras, which is effectively what people do, and even when you have privatized operations such as oil compounds, they are not immune from the kinds of disturbances that we see. we have to think about this in a much more sophisticated way, and these people have huge interest in huge investments, and they have not been forward-leaning, taking care of their own so we have to figure out how to engage them more broadly, but we keep that in mind everywhere. >> doug from hudson institute.

your bureau is an outgrowth, or an evolution from the office of the court made her of reconstruction and stabilization. -- coordinator of reconstruction and stabilization. how would you describe any differences between your bureau 's mission and the office of reconstruction and stabilization? >> i have some folks that work with me that could do a better job on the history, but when i was offered this job i secretary clinton, the prior offense -- office had lost the confidence of key officials in the u.s. government. i thought it was a chance to start over, and i think that probably a lot of what we are doing was in the original conception. i am trying not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

nobody has said that since their grandmother died, right? i do not know why that phrase came up. my feeling is that i think the original intent was to be strategic and have a policy influence, and then when it went through its middle stages as a coordinator, it never gained traction in the state department. it then went into a supplier of people, which i thought was too limited. so, we have tried to recapture that we want to be part of the policy conversation. we have been very fortunate to have the dynamic support of secretary clinton for the first year of our existence. now, what we are finding is in the handful of meetings i have had with secretary kerry, is he

has said give me ideas and we have to find a different way of doing some of these things. i am hoping our euro -- bureau can be a very aggressive supplier of ideas and different ways of doing things. that way, if we come up with good ideas, we will have influence on policy, we will be invited to the right meetings and we will be seen as a valuable instrument of change for u.s. foreign-policy. i know that is the case with the embassies that we are working with. i do not know how many of you have worked in the state department. i am probably not speaking a totally foreign language here to you, but you would understand that we have to do it one day at a time, and occasionally with a big idea. this is a digression, but about

two or three months ago, during a relatively stressful time in this job i thought "why am i doing this," and i thought i might have one advantage. i am the youngest of three brothers, which means for the first 12 years of my life i had a losing streak, any time i did anything, i lost. my favorite line was always " let's play again." i have a 50 year winning streak on my middle brother in tennis. that is the way you have to do it, persistence. >> i am from northrop grumman. i like what you were just saying about new ideas, and i think there is the face just a couple of miles from here -- a place just a couple of miles from here with a deadlocked government

that could use ideas that your bureau might provide. just kidding. the question is how will sequestration affect your bureau? >> we have made a lot of administrative changes, actually restructuring 40% of our budget and part of that is to create more liquidity, not just to sit on people. so, i think we are probably better positioned than some, but we are not particularly well-funded. i think secretary kerry mentioned this in a speech today at the university of virginia that he has $60 million for conflict stabilization, which apparently was spent to produce the movie "the avengers

." so he said something about us being superheroes. all of you worked in the state department, so you know that having liquidity -- good ideas are great, but liquidity is important. it is something i spoke to secretary clinton about. i would like to go to any ambassador and say i have a couple of million bucks in my pocket, and it is also important that the bureau that takes to have a credit line from the taxpayer, they are forced to be creative. you have $1 million. if you have a good idea, call. we still need to activate the phone a little more. we have given up that license. >> there is a movie in this -- >> i also want to recognize steve, who was one of the

founders in oti. >> where are you? yes, in the back. >> congratulations on your new position and on the new winning streak. we hope it continues. >> i hope my brother is not watching c-span. [laughter]>> from the beginning you mentioned listening to the silent majority, so president obama and secretary clinton have both rebalance their focus to asia-pacific, and you have worked with burma. my question is for southeast asia, will you share your vision for how to build capacity

for burma and how to build burma up. also, how to work into that the code of conduct and the rule of law in the southeast asia see. would that help to resolve conflicts we are concerned about? >> i think it would for sure. since i have not had a chance to visit burma myself yet, i am probably less conversant with it than the other major cases we are working on a month but clearly there is plenty of opportunity for progress in this space and u s policy really trying to drive that. in terms of the rest of southeast asia, the way we look at future engagements, i think

there probably are a couple of countries we have to be sensitive to, and that we are reviewing, but we have not gotten much beyond that stage. so, sorry not to be better informed to answer your question. >> way in the back row there. >> thank you, claudia. will davis. mr. ambassador, you mentioned it is a clot -- crowded field and post-conflict. how does this fit in for the bilateral -- [indiscernible]>> thank you for the softball. i am hoping that we will be opportunistic in terms of who our partners are. we have two people from our partnership office here today.

raffi l and andrew -- rafael and andrew over here, and their job is to make sure we do not play the entitlement game, but make sure we look at who has the best talent on the ground and the best ideas. on the way over we were talking about calling european colleagues because the canadians called us on the syrian problem but they did not know where to start, and we said how about two of the platforms we have created in turkey, with foreign assistance and a media of. the canadians had jumped in for a couple of million dollars, which is terrific. we already jumped in with the uk on the media idea.

we are putting people into un missions as well because that is the best platform and that is where we can make the most difference. i see fred here. fred and i worked for a couple of years on trying to get better is the patient between undp, the u s government, anyone else that would join in -- the world bank or whatever -- and we had an experience -- experiment in mozambique that seemed, seemed because we realized, do we all have to put the same kind of people on? do we have to read the same good housing? can we not concentrate our efforts and really be more effective? i believe we have to do that in fiscally constrained times as well and furthermore, it is better practice. it is not just about money because it is a better idea. nobody is that smart.

it is hard to get a good leader. if we had a good leader, let's follow that person because getting three good leaders in one place is almost unheard of. there are real implications, and if we are more honest with ourselves we will be more effective and/or partnerships will be richer. >> -- and our partnerships will be more rich. >> in the front here. >> what about tanzania and malibu, the very small state, which at one point was really doing very well, and now it is almost nowhere, just another part of east africa? >> we have not done any work there. we have done some early analysis of zimbabwe. assuming there will be a change when you have an 80-something

old leader, we really tried to go in there and say what should we do if there is a change in government or an opening, but we have not been any work and that's based. sorry -- that space. sorry. >> halfway down there. >> dan smith, american university. i was struck in your initial points to you said more expertise was needed on conflict. under scr s, there was a lot of emphasis put on training. everybody had to go to training , but my sense was others in the state department were not taking advantage of this, and i am wondering whether the training bug on conflict resolution has seeped down at all into the culture of the state department. >> i am sure there is further progress possible.

[laughter]i would say we were helped by maria, our undersecretary for the last few years. she saw the need for a broader civilian security side of the state department now, having put together a number of bureaus, including our own, and that there be kind of a survey course. we took a lot of work and put that into that work. that is a start. there is still plenty of work to do. one way we are trying to do it is to try to set aside maybe two weeks a year for every person for works for us

professional growth and development, so that we logically think about it that way and then customize the training of those people. i am also a big fan of having leaders in the field that actually are pretty seasoned and we can do more field mentoring then, because these places are really difficult. i read an e-mail in the last couple of days about how stressed out one of our teens is in one of these places, and it was pretty troubling, really, because we are pushing them to do a lot, and furthermore it is dangerous where they are. that would naturally put you on edge. so, you have to have special types of people to do this work. it is way too demanding. there are a lot of people that do not want to face the

prospect of physical danger on a regular basis. understandable. we have to start by having better leaders ourselves and identifying other good leaders in the state department and using them more aggressively. we are just getting to that. i would say there is quite a lot to do in that space. >> way in the back there. >> mr. ambassador and using them more aggressively, ii have the prerogative to ask you the tough questions. this is bobby. omb is not here at this event. what are your metrics for success in this bureau given its newness? given the duplication.

i feel like i have the>> that is a good quest. >> that is a good question. first of all, i don't think there is much duplication. i find it as more of a vacuum and that is more of a problem. we are trying to feature real- time evaluation. i do not want to hear from the special inspector general two years later of the various things we could have done better. we are already doing a valuation's on programs that have only been out that -- evaluations on programs that have only been out there three months, and i want people to be honest. i want to know how we can do everything better. one fair measure is how well we play with others, and for example, the euro bureau, we work with a lot. in honduras right now, we are very pleased and up with them -- we are very twined up with them.

we got notice for work in syria and we will do some rule of law training with inl, but that does not mean it will be good or it will work. the best evaluation that you can have is something that says this work and this did not work. when i go to the hill and say everything i did was really and , the to note immediately. when i say this is what we could do better, that has quite a lot of residents -- residents and also has more credibility. we are not just constantly championing ourselves. we got back $30 million of money that have not been obligated.

crisis funds that had set in embassies for two years. nobody in the u s government thinks you can go out and grab the money. we did it in a highly predictable way so that everyone could see it coming and it was not a surprise and we got $30 million out of it. not has not come back to us. if you are an honest poker, that is another way you can show you are more credible. in terms of measures, if the election in kenya is mostly safe, we still will not be able to take credit for it because it is a big thing. these are the elements we will be able to say we contributed. it is mostly violent, we can say with that less violent than where we were? i would rather be measured on what we were trying to do rather

than inputs were fine and my people behaved well. the bigger point is the reason we are there and that is how i would like to be measured. >> thank you. we have time for one more question, and before we take it i want to remind you all this meeting is on the record. [laughter]>> it is too late. >> is it true that you have a lessons learned process to share with yourself and the rest of the government? >> we do, but it is also a work in progress. i do not want to overstate it. we had a lot of people working in afghanistan over the course of the last few years, not so much last year, but in the last

few years. 115 people from our office and the predecessor of this work in afghanistan, so the obvious question was what did you learn. they have come up with a really excellent paper that they have now taken over to the afghan- pakistan office as well and shared it with 30 people there. so, the learning process -- this gets back to how you make the learning process broader than just yourself because ultimately you cannot just play by yourself in this work. so, that is the way we are trying to do things. if we do a tabletop on ali on -- mali on friday, how do we package what we do to get to anyone who thinks they are part of the exercise? even if the six experts that

came to our roundtable are not right, they surely said something that is of interest, and let's make sure it does not end up as the exclusive robbins of a few people. there is a culture of holding stuff to your self, and our culture is expose the knowledge as fast as we can because we need to get smarter, evidenced by our success ratios in these very tough places. so, thank you very much. [applause]>> thank you. thank you, ambassador barton. good luck, may you outdo "the avengers." [laughter] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] thank you. thank you

>> here is a look at our prime time schedule. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, secretary of state john kerry delivers his first speech talking about the obama administration's foreign-policy priorities. then, book tv with supreme court

justice sonia sotomayor or. on c-span3, it is american history tv and the discussion of popular and scholarly presidential history. all of that tonight, at 8:00 p.m., on the c-span networks. extra communism of china is communism in name only and these days and it basically preserved the power of the countries, but they through the ideology aside. communism in china talks about marxism, etc., but it is all about preserving the country's power economically as the country continues to grow because they threw aside most the stages of communism a long time ago. in north korea, it is all about preserving the power of the

military and the dynasty that you have there, and it has nothing to do with what karl marx envisioned. somebody could do a fascinating book on how one communism diverged into asia was something different than what appeared in europe and the eastern european countries. >> former washington post correspondent and harvard fellow keith richburg on 30 years of reporting and insight from around the world sunday on c-span's "q&a." >> if blockades are the strategy of the north states, the principal strategy is economic aid. if you caught a emerging ship, the idea was to put a prize

crew on board, take it to a be adjudicated, sell it at cost and actual auction, and you got to keep the money. because it depends on the buffet motives, -- profit motive, he expects a return on the money, and the crew expected price money. without friendly ports where they can be condemned and sold, you cannot make a profit on privateering, so confederate racketeering died out almost immediately. it lasted about three months. maritime entrepreneurs found out they could make more money blockade running. >> historian craig symonds looks at the civil war at sea saturday

night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> next, remarks from former cia director michael hayden on cyber attacks and their threat on national security. yes it talked about the hacking of 150 american companies that was linked to the chinese government. it's good evening, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the school of media and public affairs. it is my pleasure and honor to be the director of the school of media and public affairs. how many students do we have in the room? we are cohosting with the ellicott school -- elliott school. how many students do we have from the elliott school? we are outgunned. we have two areas of focus. one is journalism and mass communication, and the others political communication. we will explore both this evening.

i would like to start by saying thank you to the faculty, the council and the board of advisors who helped to make this evening possible, especially the national council. for the elliott school, this conversation is part of their security policy forum, part of their web video initiative, so for those of you not watching on c-span this evening, or on c- span reruns, you will be able to see this on the elliott school website. i would also like to acknowledge my student however who volunteered and -- oliver who dug in and volunteered research. researching the former cia director saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern is . now, to tonight's guest. general michael hayden's story

started when he was a college student. he was a bachelor of arts graduate in american history, got his masters of american history from duquesne, and was part of their reserve officer corps training program, through which he was commissioned to the air force, a career he started in 1969 as an analyst and a briefer at the headquarters of strategic air command. from there, he pursued a career in intelligence that taken to postings in guam in the early-19 70s -- early-1970's. 100,000 people were evacuated through guam, so he saw a very traumatic experience early in his career. he was chief of intelligence at the 51st tactical fire -- fighter wing. he served in bulgaria and

germany, and through his career always with distinction up until march of 1999 when he was tapped to serve as director of the national security agency. who knows with the national security agency does? they listen, yes, to everything, and they watch. so, as director of nasa from march of 1999, through april, 2005, and we experienced 9/11, the train bombing in madrid, the anthrax attack here in washington and beyond. from 2005 until may, 2006, he was director of new intelligence, and during that time the world witnessed a terrorist bombing in london. from may, 2006, to february, 2009, he was director of central intelligence, also known as the cia.

he retired from the air force after 39 years in july of 2008. he is currently a principal at the chertoff group, a consulting firm run by former secretary of homeland security michael chertoff. he is also a distinguished visiting professor at george mason university, which if i do not get right i will be ripped off the stage. as you will learn, he brings a great sense of history, owing to his own studies, mission, and purpose to all that he has done in his life. he also brings a sense of humor, and i think you will see that, too. he has had some of the most incredible jobs with access to some of the most credible information on the planet. keep in mind in the modern era of national intelligence, this

great, vast system of intelligence agencies across the government, really was born out of the emergency of the second world war and it was mostly than about breaking codes, figuring out what the enemy was up to, what whether systems were deployed and where they would attack next. the cold war was fought against it time -- an entirely different terrain against the backdrop of nuclear madness. today, it is very -- different. asymmetrical warfare, pilotless drones, people that do not exist, the enemy is different, the weapon is different and the speed of everything is different. we learned today about these new reports. how many have seen the reports in "the new york times" and elsewhere of the new cyber attack information revealed coming from china? so, today in our conversation,

it could not be more timely, or more complicated, because there are very fundamental issues and tensions here. as general michael hayden knows , national security has to be tempered with personal privacy. secrecy, the coin of the round in intelligence, clashes with some basic intervals as a free and open society, transparency and accountability, so this'll be be a fascinating and engaging conversation. what is it like to have a job like this, to have this awesome responsibility? one of mice didn't ask was it ever just too much -- one of my students asked was it ever too much for you? how can we assure privacy and personal liberty in the process, and what is it like to be the top spook in the world?

ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming general michael hayden. [applause] >> thank you for coming. >> no pressure on me. >> i think you can handle it. i was running down what you are not doing these days, hugo chavez, then ghazi, korean nukes -- do you miss it? >> i miss the mission, i miss the people. i am done. >> nice having time on your own? >> i do. >> what is the most misunderstood thing about the cia? ask who works there -- >> who

works there. i get asked what kind of people work at the cia, and i generally say they are like your friends and neighbors, and if you live where i do, they are. my sporting activity now is running, so i will jog and somebody younger will pass me, it is always somebody passing me, and head down, running down, says looking pretty good, mr. director, and keeps on going. it is obviously cia folks. get off of the airplane and they say good seeing you, mr. director. if you are living in this area, whether you know it or not, you are running into people that do espionage. >> when you get these daily briefings and you see all of the stuff coming in, how do you sleep at night? >> you compartmentalize.

it depends a lot on family, and my wife is here tonight. it depends on exercise, just letting loose. my deputy director was a wonderful officer, career cia, and we come from similar backgrounds. he is a browns fan, i am a steelers fan, and we would have meetings, discussing on a covert action, and everyone else would leave the room and steve would look at me and i would look at steve, and one of us would say do you even believe that we just had a meeting on that? >> on what? >> on whatever the sensitive subject was. >> can you tell us more about that? >> no. [laughter] >> there is nothing in life that

you need to study hard the cause you will be -- because you will be in that position. my wife says i over use sports metaphors, but here goes, you have the left-handed pitcher with a streak of wildness, but it is your turn at bat, so you have to find your foot and take your swing. at times, we would be in the intelligence room, and the intel ghetto, me and the director of the intelligence -- national intelligence would sit there, and the president would turn and ask what seemed to be an important question. he appeared to be making eye contact with us, and we are sure he's making -- asking the question to the guy in the back row over our shoulder, except there is no back row. he was asking us, so you do your best. >> i mentioned at the outset

where this intelligence community structure comes from. i want to ask you this, and then we will get into the cyber threat stuff we are here to talk about. we have come a long way since we were breaking german codes to figure out what the enemy was up to, and i just wonder when you look at today's landscape, what you think has changed the most about spy craft, espionage? >> there are two or three things and they are all important. espionage, narrowly defined, stealing other peoples secrets, but that part, if you look 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago, the circle of things you will tell the president in the morning, the proportion of that circle that had to bestow stolen was much larger than it is today -- to be stolen is much larger than

it was today. there is still an important slice that has to be stolen, but the first thing that has changed is we have to have due regard for information that remains valuable even though we did not have to steal it. that is a cultural shift for us. >> translate that. >> nations and opposing operations keep secrets and the purpose of espionage is to learn those things to defend american security and liberty. that is still important, but so much more of what you need to know is just out there. the arab awakening, cairo, terrier square, one million people, three weeks after the

tunisian fruit merchant, there is nothing predicting that in the lower right-hand desk drawer of the chief of the egyptian security service. that is a phenomenon, with whatever indications there may or might not have been, were as available to you as they were to us. they are in the, three weeks afe tunisian fruit merchant public . >> why is that different than the prague spring? >> i would say the prague spring is more like it. hungry, more difficult. there is nobody on facebook in prague or budapest, no global internet service. again, it is more readily available. that is the single biggest change had >> i mentioned -- change. . >> i mentioned the story in the new york times. chinese units linked to hacking in the u.s.. the most significant change in our lives is the information that not only we receive, but that we send.

here we have this incredible story, actually not so incredible story, that it is a relatively elite, highly trained chinese army unit directly tied to sophisticated hacking against the u.s.. does that come to a surprise -- as a surprise to you? >> i wondered what the news was. again, readily available. it is something our government has been hesitant to say because it complicates a bunch of things, and we can talk about whether that is a good or bad idea, but anyone that has done this, you do not have to be on the inside to recognize -- let me tell you what i tell audiences. just as a matter of science as a discipline, i stand back and all at the breath,, sophistication, persistence of the chinese espionage effort

against the united states of america. >> is the espionage effort substantially more pronounced than the russian espionage effort, the iranian espionage effort, anyone else? >> absolutely. >> why? >> scale. they will go after anything of value. >> are the enemies? >> no. >> what are they doing this for? >> for their own benefit. run the tape back. i told you that we spy. we steal secrets, too. >> we are doing this? >> yes, and actually, we are number one. >> so, why should we act shall prized or outraged -- surprised or outraged? >> i was careful with my words. we steal things to protect your liberty and security, not for

your commerce or your profit during the chinese do, and that is a very significant difference -- profit. the chinese do, and that is a significant difference. >> except the chinese do not see it that way. >> they do not. i can imagine the negotiations, we both steal secrets, but you are stealing the wrong stuff. what the article in "the new york times" revealed, this is from an organization that is very professional, what it is saying is that a nationstate is attacking you. a nationstate is attacking american business. it is not a nationstate stealing another nation's date secrets -- .ation state's secrets

it is almost impossible for anyone in the private sector, if you have a dedicated nationstate attacker, they are getting through. >> the story said that the unit is tied to the people's liberation army unit. >> it is that their director at of the chinese army. >> is a highly sophisticated operation, and the story says it is state-sponsored. a gun after togo:. -- they have gone after coca- cola. they have gone after our power grid, our gas lines, one company with access to more than 60% of all the oil and gas pipelines in america. what are they after? >> we need to make a couple of distinctions. it is important. everybody conducts espionage,

and it is an accepted estate practice. i told you about self-limiting, how we do it and some others do it. using the world wide web, and all the information you and i decided we were no longer going to keep it safe, and we would put it out there, and it is not just you and i, but it is institutions that used to keep things that were heavily guarded -- take things that used to be heavily guarded and put them out there. you have other actors out there. states, criminals, anarchists, going out there trying to retrieve some of this information. that is one layer. there is another layer. that is going to another network to try to affect the network. that is going to another network to delay, deny, degrade, disrupt or destroy the information on the network, or the network itself.

what is so troubling about some of the chinese behavior is not just that they are stealing things from private industry, but it is that they are on skater grids, which is the control network for the critical infrastructure in the united states. so, there are no secrets to be stolen from computers that are running gas lines or other sorts of pipelines. >> you could close those valves, though. a gun after. >> well, that is the disturbing part, and let me go a step further. in the physical domain -- i am an intel guy, and intel is what you do before an operation. you do the reconnaissance, then the operation had that sequence is almost unavoidable. you have to know what you are doing before you go to do it. in the physical domain, reconnaissance is almost always easier than the operation.

as an intelligence officer during the cold war, i could tell you where the soviet icbm fields were, but doing something different about it is it -- doing something about it is a different matter. it is now more difficult to penetrate a network, live on it undetected for a long time, and secretly extracted large volumes of information. it is far more difficult to do that then it is to simply, metaphorically, kick in the front door and do harm. so, if somebody is already on the control grid extracting how the grid works, they already have the power to affect the grid, and that is what makes this particularly dangerous. >> so, what do you think the chinese, if that is what we are talking about here, one to do with this power?

>> the real answer is i do not know, but i am an intelligence officer. i will not let that stop me. i will keep talking heard -- keep talking. [laughter] >> that is a little scary to me, by the way. >> one is bureaucracies do what barack is his due. -- bureaucracies do. that is probably an overly benign explanation. every nation has contingency plans, and since the penetration of the network is the more difficult network -- task rather than attacking it, taking much more longer than the attack, it is probably not unreasonable or rational for another nation state that has a contingency plan that fears and extremist, that they might want to go ahead and do some of the reconnaissance early. now, i have already told you, it is very discomforting.

it is very disturbing, because once you have that presence on that kind of gritty, the attack is a lesser included case of what they have done already. as we used our influence to put in a request to propel this -- >> we used our influence to put in a request to propel this conversation to the white house. the president talked about this in his date of the union speech. i have the tape. america must also -- >> america must also face the growing threat from cyber attacks. we know hackers steal people's identities and infiltrate private e-mails. we know foreign companies and countries swipe corporate secrets, and our enemies are seeking the ability to sabotage our power grid, our financial institutions, our air traffic control systems. we cannot look back years from now and wonder why we did

nothing in the face of real threats to our security and our economy. >> ok. our enemies he said. is that china? >> look, i have a standing policy when i talk about china. china is not an enemy of the united states. there are no good reasons for china to become an enemy of the united states. there are non-heroic options to keep the relationship competitive, occasionally, maybe ostentation of, but never having to get to the level of conflict -- maybe, confrontational, i never having to get to the level of conflict. that said, the chinese behavior is very disturbing and it should not be allowed to stand. the president used that taxonomy that you and i just did. there is an espionage danger and then a destructive danger. >> the defense secretary said

we could be facing a cyber pearl harbor. do you believe that? >> i do not choose to use that phrase myself. there are cyber dangers, but cyber pearl harbor is just two easy. wect be facing a cyber pearl harbor. why? because we're defenseless in the cyber demain. >> what are we going to do >> i adopt have a good answer so i don't say cyber pearl harber. there are great dangers out there. it's a matter of great concern. you want to talk about something. what can we do? number one, we can follow the advice my dad gave me home nine years after age after losing a fight, quit whining, act like a man and defend yourself. we can be more robust in

defending our networks. that is one. we can make it much more difficult for others to access things we consider to be of value to us. that's one. secondly, i would suggest and you saw that a bit in the "new york times" piece today that we make chinese cyber behavior part of the overall portfolio of our relationship with the people's republic. i'm not saying they are the enemy which you have a pattern of behavior that is so disturbing for us that if that pattern continues we should make it clear to the chinese that will begin to affect all of this. >> what does that mean? that's a threat you have to be prepared to follow through on. what do you connect it to. they are holding a trillion dollars worth of our debt. >> i don't mean to be blasay about this but that makes them as dependant on us and we are

them. >> you keep doing it, what is the consequence. >> china depends on us as a market. >> what do you do? stop buying their televisions and i phones? >> yeah. that design looks just like that u.s. company that went out of business last year. that looks just like what they used to make. why should we allow chinese who participate in this to come to the united states in we can control who gets visssass. there are lots of ways we can make this relationship less comfort to believe them. if this is important, then you've got to start taking actions. are they pain less for us? no. but you asked my view. >> yes, i did. what do you think is the point of maximum leverage then? >> the trade relationship is one. i think the chinese want to be

treated as a great power. i thisty prerequisite for that is to act like a great power. >> the president as he gave the speech the other night saying the executive order enhances to defend against cyber attack and there is a lot of push back and congress needs to act. part of the push back is how much sharing is there going to be. how much sharing to your data is there going to be? is the government going to be the central repository? do i trust you mr. government? to have all this stuff, to have all of the key strokes that everybody in this room might strike? >> that's excessive and not needed. but the cape sblet there. >> but it is a legitimate question. >> the cape sblet there? >> you get to a sense of scale

and it's not there. it's just too massive. but back to the question. we as a political culture, we as a people have got to decide what it is we want to government to do on and for our networks and what it is we will permit the government to do on and for our networks. let me turn the cranker a couple more times to illustrate the issues out there. the government protects all of us. i'm going to step back. you need to understand for those of us who do this with my background how we think of cyber. we think of cyber as a place. land, sea, air, space, cyber. so it is a medium in which you have asked to us defend you and in which you conduct commerce and personal business not unlike air or sea or land. by the way, these first four

things were made by god. this is actually made by man. i did this at the black hat convention two or three summers ago of semireformed hackers. and i said land, sea, air, space, god did that, you guys did this one and you really messed it up. and it is messed up. it's almost defenseless. there are no natural barriers up here in this demain. we can talk about that later if you like. back to what it is you want the government to do. you've worked out the rules what you want the government to do down here. we've worked out cultural pat terrence and laws and policies and expectations as to what you -- i usually come to these things with a backpack. i didn't but let's just say i

have my backpack tonight and i walk out and the metro police stops me and says open the backpack. being a red blooded american i will probably respond with a two word old english phrase that translates to i think not. but if i get in a cab and go to the national airport and go through the check point and the kid says open the bag, i do. we've worked it out. we have no idea up here. let me give you some models. do you want to be defended up here the way the american military defends you? do you want to be defended up here the way american law enforcement defends you? do you want to be defended up here the way the fire department defends you? think of those last two. before a police women goes through the threshold of your

house he needs a warrant. >> and the firearm -- >> i'm sorry the house is burning down but you weren't here to let me in. you have different standards for firearm. we have different standards the way the military or law enforcement or firearm and center for disease control defends you. they all work in a specific domain. we just haven't figured this one out. >> let me read you this from the "new york times" today. the company watched as chinese hackers stolen technology blue prints, manufacturing processes, clinical trial results, pricing documentings, negotiation strategies, other priority tear information from a hundred of it's clients in the u.s. identified 20 attacks from military contractors to mining companies and satellite and

telecommunications corporations. i'm sitting here talking with the former director of the cia. tell me what you saw and learned when you were doing this job that stopped new your tracks as to what the chinese or any other hackers were up to? >> we knew that. we were aware of that. it wasn't as public knowledge as it is now. but there is this building waive in public consciousness this is going on. and some very correct and brave people, the national counter intelligence executives pointed to the chinese and others have pointed to the chinese. >> i'm asking you when you were there what you learned that stopped you in your tracks? >> how do you mean stopped me in my tracks >> this is a very serious problem. i need to talk to the president. >> the president knew about

this. he talked to the president. he got president bush to accept the cyber initiative. >> did you get a specific incredible threat about a particular cyber attack? >> what we generally saw, what we generally learned about were the results of -- we use cyber attack for anything that unplessthant happens to us on the web. in my business a cyber attack is someone using a weapon comprised of 1's and 0's to effect harm. almost everything we have seen to date has been es pi nadge rather than destruction. secretary of defense had an article on this. secretary lynn said what i just said. almost all the ill behavior we see right now come prices

stealing information. >> one of the big concerns here is to protect against this, is this question of getting information in a timely fashion that might require companies to share information that is proirpt tear in nature. to give it to a central government authority that they are not sure what they would do with that. how do you square that circle? what the president did is easy. he can sign a document but it doesn't get teeth unless it gets legislation. >> we're now at the 22. >> we're back to sports again. >> it's a good thing. we move the ball down the field but not very much. let me step back and ask you a fundamental question. when we go out and do things in the armed forces, we usually play team ball. but in the operation order, the order has got to describe who

is the main force? who is the main movement? we call that the supported command. then everyone else in the ons order is our support team command. got it? main body, supporting. in cyber domain let me ask you a question do i not have a good answer for. who is supported and who is supporting? because almost all of this is in private hand. so is the supported command the government or the private sector? who has the main role and who has the supporting task? again, back to -- >> you don't think it's private sector? >> private sector is what? >> supporting? >> no. >> supported? >> i do. 90% of this thing is privately owned. >> once you decided that then you have to begin to work out the flow of information.

and that does suggest an awful lot of things held by the government since the government i think -- i could be talked out of this but i think right now the government is the support team command, then it should conform it's movements to the needs of the private sector. >> we talked about defense and defending. we do this too. so there are interesting things that have happened for example in the ewe rainian nuclear program where it was ruined. >> i've read about that. >> you've read about it. >> what have you read about it? >> i read that a thousand century fuges crashed. >> and they crashed because? >> according to press accounts someone very bright took over the controlers of the kent

trifunals, sent orders to spin its at self-destructive speeds while telling the control systems of that bank and the operators of that bank nothing here, move along, severing normal and about a thousand of them destroyed themselves. >> if you read that in the press where did that attack come from? >> fwled irresponsible for someone of my background to speculate. >> i've said this let me refrace it and say it in a different way. someone, probably a nation state because this is too complicated to be done from your garage, someone probably a nation state just use a cyber weapon in a time of piece as a legitimate act of and you fill in the blank in for me,

self-defense, counter proliferation, use it to destroy what another nation could only describe as their critical infrastructure. that's a big deal. >> that's a big deal. that's never happened before. >> does it change the nature of war? >> yeah, it does. again, with a fully aware of the high per bowl in the sentence, this is not the same destructive power. but for those of us who have been in the armed forces for this long, this has the whiff of august 1945. it's a new class of weapon. a weapon never before used. >> does it scary you? >> there are powerful implications and remember i told you being really hard to defend. >> are we more vulnerable than we've been? >> we've always been

vulnerable. >> because of the cyber thing? >> yeah. you are the -- you are citizens of the most cyber fairing nation in the world, the greatest concentration of cyber on this planet is at fort meade. >> it's a place you know well. >> yeah it's cyber command. you are also citizens of one of the most vulnerable networks in the world because of our cultural openness, because of our political culture and the questions you asked me a few minutes ago about what do you want the government to do, because we haven't worked that out, your network is less defended than others around the world. >> what assurance do people have that all that power isn't being misused, that it isn't being used for domestic surveillance? that is something you got right in the middle of.

it's post 9/11. the country is traumatized. we need to make sure that doesn't happen again. the heat is off that now but the fundamental question is still as powerful as it was then and what is protecting us to be blunt from you? >> well, i can give easy answers that probably won't satisfy everyone in the room. as i said about the work force at c.i.a., they are your friend and neighbors. these are americans. they come from the same neighbors. don't trust anyone. >> we have plenty of scandles where people have done bad things. >> right. history tells us that story. >> checks and balances. >> checks and balances, oversight, congressional role, perhaps a role for the courts. >> look, this isn't hard for me. this is hard for you. >> is the nsa listening in on

us? >> no. why would they do that? >> we are not interesting to them. we may not be interesting to everyone in the room, i don't know. >> do we still need spice? >> yeah. >> we have this thing called google. i saw an image today of a secret drone base that maybe is flying drones into yes, ma'am minute. i know you want to comment than too. we can get images from virtually any place on the planet. >> back to my point you remember the slice that has to be slole season smaller than it used to be. i'm old enough to remember when we were doing image frs space it was so complicated and so expensive that only two nations could do it and only one could do it really well. now if i'm tired and can't sleep tonight and go home.

i can go downstairs and pull up imagery of north korea and watch the missile being stacked there and to a degree of resolution that allows me to tell you how far away they might be. >> that used to be annual owned by you? >> yeah. i'm lookth ging at the audience, there are some old enough to remember the first call four. if you remember general puts a whole corp out here out beyond a ravine and the day before the land war started where are these guys. there is nothing in front of this corp. there is no opposing force. i said this is going to nepped about 48 hours and we did. that pretty much the way the ground war went. we can't do that today.

our adversaries have access. this is not long ago. this was only 20 years ago. our add versares have access to that kind of imagery. >> that imagery that used to be owned by us. >> let me do a turn of this. i had an advisory board at c.i.a. very good people. out of confidentiality we don't mention them but they are people you would recognize. i gave them three tough tasks. one had to do with this question and it's related to what we were just talking about. can america continue to conduct esnadge in a society that every day demand more transparency and more public accountability from every aspect of national lafe. >> what was the answer? >> we don't know. >> what's the implication?

>> the implication is we'll be less safe depending on how much evil you believe is afoot in the world. >> i'll do whatever the republic tells my to do. i'll -- if you think of this spectrum between license and then liberty and middle of the road and security and atockcrasi. we have treaded way up towards liberty. >> i have a question from the audience here. do you think cyber attacks in the future will be considered acts of war? >> it depends on the attack. we will judge our response to an attack based upon its effects. >> is it an act of war? >> if someone makes america east of the mississippi go dark, that would probably be upsetting. >> what about opening flood gates of a town? >> that backs an act of war?

>> what i said is we will gauge our response based on the effects of an attack. i don't want to prejudge what a president might do. >> i have another question here. what is the extent that cyber attacks can effect a society. is it possible to have cyber weapons of mass destruction? >> we use the phrase w.m.d. but we don't put destruction we call them weapons of mass disruption but the effects on a complex interactive society like us could be very dramatic. >> what would that look like? >> i don't mean to be flip here but if somebody got a worm that propagated between and among all of our cell phones and you and i loss cell phone connectivity. that would be right now very

disruption toif american society given how dependent we are on instant communications. what if a cyber attack -- probably the iranians conducting denial service attacks against american banks. not all at once but one at a time. they are not sophisticated attacks but we've never seen them on this scale before. so they are challenging banks. that slose down online banking. that is an ir rant. if the aattacks were more powerful and collapsed online banking for a period of time, how disruptive would that be? >> very. what was your worst day at c.i.a.? >> the worst day at nsa was

september 11. >> none of them really stand out. if i had been there the loss of seven officers at coast. but i was in the building at the time when the report came in but i wasn't director. >> you knew somebody who was? >> how many in the room have seen dark dark? >> this is the atark that took place at that base and you knew one of them? >> two. if you remember the scene from the movie you had the base chief saying i want to give him a birthday cake first and she looks over her shoulder both those women were killed in the attack and my wife and i knew both those women. >> as the director of central intelligence when something

like that happens killed in the line of duty, you know you are in a dangerous business, but people -- but you are not in uniform, they are not in uniform button front lines. it's not like we were talking about this earlier, the captain will say we have people from the military give them a round of applause. -- if you are a spouse have you support. but you are completely below the line of radar in this work. >> it creates challenges that the agency hasn't experienced since vietnam. c.i.a. is very expedition nare. historically it's acustoed to working in fixed locations here and overseas. we're in places like coast. that's routine and that's been

going on for a decade. we have officers who go in harms way who have weapons and just as a matter of routine. my wife and i come from a military culture. you got to deploy, i know who is going to cut my grass and take my kid to soccer, it's the other squad dron. you do that now and a spouse deemploys, the rest of the community isn't there to provide support because the rest of the community isn't really aware of who they are or what they do. >> what did you think of zero dark 30? >> i liked it. >> was it accurate? >> it was artistically accurate but not historically accurate. >> which ones? >> the seen of investigations

factly wrong. >> for those of you who have not seen the film should plug your ears. you need to see it but we're going to ruin some of it for you. >> they know how it's going to turn out. >> but the first 20 minutes connects interrogation and sometimes nasty interrogation although some say sanitized interrogation. >> no that was not sanltiesed. >> there was no water boarding? >> i did not say that. there was no beating or dog dollars. three or four points about the movie. one is the interrogation scenes were inaccurate. but no one up here is making the claim we were not very hard on 30 detain niece. historically correct not

exactly accurate. there are connections. but they aren't as tight as the movie suggest. a third reality it looked as if mia is fighting against the entire agency. it is a real person. i know who she is. but mia truly is a composite of a lot of people, mostly women over a decade. they just were. most of our ubl cells, the ones hunting bin laden were women. the two killed from coast women. another analyst faum famous throughout the agencies women. over wrought interrogation, too much connective typhoon washi, mia overplayed and the portrayal of jennifer killed at coast. she was played as unserious.

there was not a better officer in the agent sifment so those tr four things. >> but you enjoyed the movie? >> i did. >> you like spy movies? >> yes. >> can you watch spy movies? >> yeah. anybody watch homeland? >> for any of you who don't i have a treat. we have a clip from "homeland". >> the main character is who. >> carrie. >> she's buy polar. her office is being cleared as we speak. >> what are you doing here? >> it's about your dad. he's with the vice president and other innocent people. he's going to kill them if we don't stop them. the world is about to end and we are standing around talking.

>> okay. so does she exist? >> minus the buy polar problem, the drugs and the sex, carrie worked for me. >> wow. >> meaning? >> the focus, the obsession. now carrie is not jennifer matthews but jennifer was in the ubl cell prior to 9/11. everybody in that cell thought what carrie says in the opening of every episode of homeland. >> which is? >> i missed something that day. >> and never let's it government >> and they live that? >> daily. >> they are obsessive like that? >> and focused.

>> obsessive like that? >> and very focused. >> there is an office in c.i.a. a floor or two below mine which is a very operational venue and you walk into that office and you come to a wall and on the wall is one of those dumb government signs like today's date is except when you walk into that office and notice the sign it says today's date is september 12, 2001. >> kind of obsession or focus can be a good thing. but it can also be a difficult thing for people to bare. there are a number of stories of the psychological difficulty, trauma in some cases that people at the agency have, the isolation, the sense of working in this bubble.

is that a problem? >> it requires the leadership of the agency to take special care to provide services. coming from a military background, remember i said she began to transfer into the agency programs we were more familiar with in the armed forces which are well practiced at doing this. it requires a director that is willing to protect its work force. stand by, i'm going to whine for about 90 second here. >> that's all you get. >> very frequently any story about american esnadge, c.i.a. gets a walk to the darkest corner of the room almost immediately in the public discourse. agencies since they are secret have a great deal of difficulty defending themselves when this

happens. so it requires a leader, a head of the agency to take extra pains to defend the people and defend them pub blickically. i tried to do that. i think leon panetta did a wonderful job of that. leon being from the governing party was better positioned to do this than i was. that's what a director needs to do. you go in the c.i.a. and you've got the marble and the shield on the floors and stars to the right. by the way, over 100 so death is not an unknown. >> the stars have no names. >> no names. >> so it's a different kind of sacrifice than in the military where your name is on a wall or monument. >> have you the gospel of john setting you free. you walk up to the top you look left. that's where the museum is.

you've probably not been to the c.i.a. museum. it's the best museum you're never going to get to see. if you look there is the lady of liberty and it says we are the nation's first line of defense, we go where others cannot government that is as true a mission for c.i.a. i have ever seen and it cap chures the space which c.i.a. works. >> has anybody in this room ever thought of being an intelligence analyst of any kind of employee of the intelligence services in this country? >> what do you say to young people who want to do this? >> learn a second language. >> which one? >> the more exotic the better. if they teach anytime high

school it's probably not the right one. >> my last year as director we had 160,000 people apply. >> how many did you take? >> don't ask. >> about how many? >> about what percentage? >> it's really small and i don't mean one click on the website and we got your name. i mean you filled out all the paperwork. >> and you did a little checking. >> deeply. >> and the average entering age was 29 tabbed most distinguishing characteristic of the people who got on board as opposed to those who didn't was language and life experience. >> i want to come back to "homeland" for just a second and ask about those who might end thereupon or how this work gets done. >> focused obsessive, whatever word you want to use, one of the things we saw both in "zero

dark 30" and in homeland this gut feeling that people have living this. do you believe in hunches? >> yeah. hunch is isn't the word i'd grab. intinth might be one. someone who knows the situation so well without being able to create the syllogism knows what the correct course of action should be. >> i'm going to invite you to go to the microphone if you want to ask a question. how do you feel this is from george. how do you feel about the use of drones to kill american citizens without a proper trial by jury? >> i'm okay. >> yure okay? >> yeah, i'm okay legally, i'm okay operationally. but i also know you meafed references to my previous lives and controversial programs.

i know that a narrow base of lawfulness and even effectiveness are not sufficient in the american political system for our democracy to do anything for a long period of time. you can get away with narrow legalness and effectiveness. but if you are going to do it sustained you do need political consensus. i think the administration has been correct. i do think it needs to be a bit more open and it's trying to do that. the president made the promise in the same speech you played the clip from to be more transparent with this so we can have discussion about this and so there is a comfort level. >> will there be a judicial review? >> no. this belongs in the hand of the two political branches. >> then what in >> a commission seven people,

four from the congress, two from each party, three from the executive branch, they review all this activity. they don't preapprove it. they review it and report to both political branch ws their findings. if you pick the right people, prominent americans that people trust. a secretary powell, secretary perry. folks with impeccable credential that is would give you an extra degree of oversight that might give confidence as trouble ling as it might be is needed for now. >> what was your role in the c.i.a.'s drone program? >> the fact it has or does not have a drone program has not been confirmed or denied by our government and i'm not about to start tonight. >> what was your advice to the government's drone program?

>> that we were faced with an unconventional enemy who rejected fell that the states do this and geneva. rejected geneva for us for them saying their inherit mp combatant. we were faced with the citizens of the republic at risk and therefore the targeted killing program that has proceeded over two incredibly different administrations i think fits all the squares of lawful appropriate and effective. >> what was the toughest decision you made as c.i.a. director? >> the honest answer is i can't tell you. >> twhaffs toughest decision you can tell us? >> or the toughest issue? >> toughest issue, that's good.

>> we'll work backwards from that. >> he thinks he is going to entrap me. this is not going to happen. >> >> isn't there something in geneva about this >> when i became director the detention program was about the hottest political issue in town. and what we were to do with that was the first order of importance when i became director. and i spent december of 2006 trying to master the facts of the case. and at the end of the summer, mid august, late august, we needed to empty the c.i.a. black sights. not close them. some journalist say the president decided to close them. he did not. we used them in later years.

but the short summary is we are not the nation's jailors, we are the nation's intelligence service. we held these people for their intelligence value. although the intelligence value of all of the detain niece. none of them gets to zero. at some point the intelligence value ages off to a certain level that other things now become more prom innocent your decision making. and at that point i recommended he move the detiny niece to gaun on the mow and name them and make the fact we had been holding them public. >> should we still have gaun tan month? >> yeah. >> can you defend that to the world? >> i can defend it to me. >> is it consistent with america's values and habeas

corp pus. >> why are you mixing that? these are combatants from enemy force. >> where is geneva. >> gaungaun is totally compliant with geneva. >> where is the war we are fighting? >> it's the war stated by the last two presidents of the united states authorized by congress for the use of military force and sustained by the american court system. we are a nation in armed conflict with al qaeda and its affiliates. >> what due process do they have, none? >> they have the due process that's contained in geneva not the due process you and i enjoy 234 a criminal proceeding as citizens of the united states. >> questions to the microphone. i can't believe this room is that bashful let's get you up there. tell us who you are.

>> i'm casey. i was wondering what is it like for your family having your husband, your father be the director of the c.i.a.? >> i should ask my wife to come up here. it is a family commitment. it's something that you strap on. you live in your own eke system of security. we had security personnel living in our house. i couldn't drive a car by myself. couldn't take a commercial plane. you just have to buy it as a package. >> did you go to safeway and pick up a dozen eggs? >> sure. >> did you have guys with you? >> yeah. okay he's first in line. okay. and that is very hard to get

accustomed to. i must tell you after it was done, it was with a great sense of relief. these guys all became our friend and gallons. but it was with a great sense of relief that you could pass that on and begin to lead a more normal life. >> we were talking about this before we came on, it's unrecognized by the broader american population but it's something that an awful lot of people in government just do as a cost of doing business. and so i'm not talking about me, i'm talking about a whole bunch of folks. you should recognize people do that on your behalf every day. >> thank you. next question. >> i'm danl. my question is actually about modern technology and intelligence analysis and in

particular i'm curious about what role you think there might be in the future or ought to be for on hands computers to sort of find signal in the noise and crowd sourcing obvious in some sanltiesed form. >> crowd sourcing is interesting. it comes back to intinket and what you get out of crowd sourcing is accumulated aggregated which is prove or the wise. if irn in government i'd be interested in that. machines, we are dying in data. we are just being overloaded. you ask an american intelligence office we got a new problem. we launched the star fleet for collection which is only one part of the process. so we overwhelm ourselves. we're a technological society.

it's what we do. you have this avalanche of data coming at you. i think complex machines can be used to sort aggregate and present the data. but the one thing -- i'm in the private sector and i talk to folks about this. the one thing i remember them of at the end of this process though, keep in mind that everything you're doing is designed to facilitate the carbon based machine at the end of the process. that is designed to make the human analyst better. not to replace him. >> i'm a graduate student. thank you for being here tonight. my question is as we all know one of the defining character sticks of the cyber domain is the low barrier to entry. do you foresee the united states becoming potentially

engaged in an arms race with actors that the united states has not typically considered a threat. as a tangent to that, could you foresee in some distant future any sort of international regulatory regime possibly managing the extent of cyber capabilities across the globe? >> there are a lot of questions embedded in there. let me try to be efficient. it's not based on secret data. just on what i know. >> i like that disclaimer periodically. >> iran has no other capacity to hurt america other than through this domain i told you. it's global and defenses are very difficult. so it does empower lower down on the spectrum. what i fear the most is if you look -- i told you cyber since you got the esnadge and attack. let me do sinners. nation states, criminals and

anarchist, activists and so on. their capacity is how i described it. and as tough as it is in the cyber do main and we said how tough it was. nation states have to be careful. they can be held accountable. criminals have to be careful. they don't want to blow up your net wark. even in nature par sites don't destroy hosts. what i'm most worried about are the activist. i don't know what they demand. i'm pretty sure they can't be satisfied and i'm not sure what they would feel guilty about. they are less capable. but as you suggest what is happening the water level in the harbor is going up and all the ships are rising so we will see in a period of time in a few years, this lower group, less deterable, less

controlable, beginning to assume some of the attributes we associate with nation states. that's a scary world. with regards to arms control. this is really hard because it's so easily concealed. i think we'll get to rather than a treaty is an international consensus. there is a biological weapons quenks. i got that. that's not why people don't have them. we all dwrea, you got buy weapons, you're bad. we don't care what your security history is or how strong your neighbor is. we don't care what your security posture. you got them, you're bad. you're an out law. i can imagine a time we get to a time you can do some things and the demrobal community views as bad. there are no good uses for a d dozen attack. there are no legitimate reasons

for a bot net. we could reach a global consensus if you host a bot net your do main isn't going to be able to talk to other doe mains. >> i'm a current student. i recently read a study that determined that america isn't the only country with population that aproves of drone strikes. so it's become pretty clear that drones are the best way to fight the war we are fighting. but do you think it matters that we are the only country far and away that aproves of this combat? >> it's an important question. i'll be efficient with my answer. guy to the germ man embassy. the ambassador has all the

sbors. they are doing a european huddle. that is a sports metaphor. and they have an norne come in and do lunch and entertainment. i do a speech and say hey, i've got friend here. let's talk about retentions, detentions and interrogations. i'm sorry to be flip. i wanted them to understand our thinking. i know they didn't agree but i wanted them to understand it. i had a great speech writing staff but this is one i did a lot of work on my own. page two or three i said to the diplomats let me tell you what i believe, my agency believe and i believe my nation believes. we are a nation at wash. war. we are at war with al quideda. the only way you can fulfill my responsibilities to my citizens is take that wherever it may b.

there wasn't another country in the room who agreed with me. they rejected those four sentences for them. they did not believe in that for us. so this yay or anyway on targeted killings and drone strikes is rooted in the national perception of what is going on here. our national perception again endorsed by two incredibly different president social security that we are at war and that we can use the laws. not the but the laws of conflict to defend our citizens. now that is kind of narly legal. that is focused on effectiveness. there is a broader issue. there is a very important issue of the long term effects of our actions even if they are effective. what example are we setting for the rest of the planet who may not be nearly as careful as we

are in carrying out these kind of operations? i think that's a very legitimate question. i was on cnn about two weeks ago on a sunday morning show. and she asked us about drone strikes. quite surprise demri. stan is the former commander of special operations. we said threrp lawful and effective and appropriate but we are in a safer position as a nation now. the threat of imminence is not quite is same as we perceived it in 2002 or three or four. and therefore the secondary evkets of this kind of activity may now begin to outweigh the sought after primary effects which is to reduce the level of threat. >> the political blow back.

>> the political blow back where it's happening and political blow back with our allies. political blow back to what examples we are giving to the rest of the planet. >> should with be doing less of this? >> my view is this is always a balance and these are individual operational decision that is my sense is the secondary and third effects are beginning to have a lot more throw weight than they did. >> the new secretary of defense, the president's new national security team. >> don't throw this tool away, keep it in your kit and use it wisely. >> use it less? >> unfair question, frank. i'm not in government. i don't have the fine print. >> seems what you are saying. >> i'm saying weigh the immediate tactical advantage which is almost always

unargueable. >> sound like you are saying use it less. next question. >> on what level is american public consciousness or convenience fully aware of the magnitude of how information is shared and how serious are these implications since sibe certificate such a defenseless being? >> when you say shared, between and -- >> i listened to what you said about online banking and i realize that a lot of our information is so -- it's public. it's online, it's available, it's accessible but it's convenient. >> i got it. yeah, me too. i have an iphone i'm going to check my e-mail just like all of you. we are all acustoed to that

convenience and we've allowed it to blind ourselves to some important issues of security. we have rushed to the limitless accessibility. the medias si and given up elements of security. we have. now will we over time change our attitudes? i don't know. after a cyber catastrophe maybe we will. but right now it's hard for people like me or mike or kevin to go around saying this is -- >> what will happen is after the catastrophe people in the press will say why did you wait so long? >> that's right. so you've got -- let me step back and sfrank familiar with this because he and i go back a ways. let me go back to the issue in 1999, 2001 before the attack.

i could not possibly get a privacy advocate or a civil libertarian excited about the prime target of the national security agency during the cold war which comprised of microwave lengths in moscow and the soviet fields at the russian steps. i couldn't find any advocate who didn't think we should be listening to that network for the word launch. by the mid 1990's, those who would do you harm were using communications that co-existed with yours on the same global infrastructure. >> and this agency nsa missed important chatter that could have, should have alerted us

further. >> we actually did 31 alerts that summer so this would have been 32 and 33. >> maybe that would have made the difference. >> separate story but the issue is would you empower n.s.a. enough to be on those networks where you're -- there is no other way around this. there are no longer dedicated communication circuits. it's all out there. so if you want n.s.a. to keep you safe n.s.a. -- i'm talking about there is no such thing as domestic networks anymore decwhrfment that is the problem. >> our last question. >> greetings. my father served with the agency for about 30 years and i myself was a peace corp

volunteer in africa. so i guess my question is about a conversation i had with a fellow volunteer. his biggest fear was his son would be called up to everybody is in mali west aftercafment what is your view of the threats in west africa and given the history of somalia. >> it's a relevant point but a broader point. you asked me about drones. . i mean that is dealing with people who already convinced they want to come do you harm. that is what we would call a close fight question. that's people that are going to come through the door and hurt you and your family and people you care about.

the question you raise in west africa now is a really interesting question because immediately with what is going on in mali the french intervene tactical combat and asked the americans for help and all of that is going on. that's still the close fight. that's way in here. my last conversation with dave petraeus before his confirmation hearings, we were going over different things. as we were leaving i said dave, one more thing, c.i.a. has never looked more like o.s.s., world war ii organization than it does today. and that's a good thing and it's made america safer. but it's not o.s.s. it's the nation's global esnadge service and you're

going to struggle like i did and leon did to keep that in mind and to keep the agency thinking about that too. because if we're obsessed with the close fight, this is are ase fight. this is a fight that we cannot kill our way out of. we cannot succeed by killing alone. we have to worry about far more deeper affects. for example, in west africa in nigeria, a real issue. should we have not seen that coming? a global and espionage service at the top of its game -- >> should we? >> we should have. it comes from inherent travel structure in northern nigeria and other parts. but i am trying to suggest is, and i was part of this -- the

immediate operational tactical performance the becomes so dominant for the last 10 years may have been at the expense of the deeper, more predictive analysis. it might then unable wise policy to preempt these kinds of threats before what happened in mali happened. here is an interesting question. i think that most of what is happening in west africa right now has local roots. it gives them some strutting power in the neighborhood. it certainly gives them a certain panache. here is a good sit -- good question for you good citizens. should we take them on because of the danger that they represent in the local area?

and take what might be for now certainly but maybe forever a local threat and by our actions taken main enemy of the united states of america? that is how complicated this gets. >> we will have to wrap this up. before we do, i want to do a quick lightning round with a couple of things. 5 billion google searches every day, 2.5 billion internet users, 1 billion on facebook, can the national security agency the new head stop the next 9/11 through all that chatter? >> they will have to be on the top of their game. it is separating signals from the background noise. >> are we safer, vastly safer, or about the same? >> significantly safer.

>> why? >> we are taking the fight to the enemy. the difference between then and now is we have taken the fight -- we have kicked the ball downfield and our kicking it in their net. is that another sports metaphor? >> that may be the fourth. >> al qaeda is badly crippled. i do not know if it has the ability to recover. the most comparable franchises in yemen. you have got the group in somalia. and now you have the growing threat, complicated as it is, in west africa. >> iran, how close to a nuclear weapon? >> i think that you get too serious questions late in the year or sometime in 2014. >> is military activity

inevitable? >> there are no good answers. we are headed towards a fork in the road. >> will sanctions work? >> no. >> can we live with a nuclear iran? >> i would rather not. >> what would be the implications of a military strike? >> we would guarantee that which we are attempting to of that -- attempting to prevent, and iran that will stop at nothing. >> many military analysts say that a strike at iran delays. >> whenever you might have thought in libya, it set a bunch of events in motion that were predictable. let me give you the view from tehran. "this is what happens when you give up your wmd program." >> my last question for you this

evening, after your remarkable career of 39 years in the military, listening in on all of these bad actors for all these years, being in the cia and seeing everything from a train blown up in madrid to the towers come down in new york, are you an optimist or a pessimist when it comes to human nature? >> in another venue i described reading the president's daily briefing as being not ready for prime time every morning. we have done that for three years. it is hard to be confident about human nature. that said, as bad as that is -- believe me, there is evil in the world. all right? this german embassy thing, during the speech -- >> we may want to rest to back. >> one of the ambassadors, i think he was criticizing me but

trying to do it nicely. he says -- general, we are all children of enlightenment, don't forget. i remembered my good catholic education with an overdose of philosophy -- i said yes, we are children of the linemen. americans study hobs, and you europeans are fixated on locke. [laughter] that said, all right? martin luther king had it right. a long arc of history bends in the direction of -- he said justice, but i am telling you broadly, virtue. there are bad people in the world. by and large, there is not a clear dividing line between good people and bad people. by and large there is an awful

lot of commonality in our humanity. by and large, given the opportunity, most people bend in a positive direction. >> encouraging. thank you for your time this evening. [applause] for those of you that will join us up -- upstairs [indiscernible] thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> tomorrow morning, washington journal will be live from the blue ridge arsenal gun shop and shooting range as we examine the issue of gun ownership in america. we will be speaking with larry pratt, the executive director of the owners of america, as well as the met -- emily miller, author of "family get your gun."

we will have a look at the effectiveness of the current background check system. live, on c-span, this week over on c-span to on the u.s. senate they are on recess. watch book tv in prime-time, beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern with sonia sotomayor, and then at 9:25 p.m., cynthia holmes. at 10:20 eastern, the life and career of william rusher. both tv in prime time, all this week on c-span 2. -- book tv in prime time, all this week on c-span 2. >> the principal naval strategy of the southern states is commerce. one gun on a pivot between the masts. going after merchant ships? one is all the you need. if you caught a merchant ship,

the idea was to come along side and put a prize crew on board, take it to a court where a judge could adjudicate it, sell it at auction and you got to keep all the money. of course, because private hearing depends on the profit motive, supplying of the food, hiring of the officers, they expect a return on their money. the crew expected prize money. without friendly ports where they could be condemned and sold, you could not make a profit on private peering. therefore, confederate private peering died out almost immediately. lasted three months, slightly longer. mayor chuck -- maritime on sharpeners found out that they could make more money blockade running. >> greg simons looks at the civil war at sea, part of "american history tv."

this weekend on c-span 3. >> secretary of state john kerry spoke to students today at the university of virginia in charlottesville. during his first policy address since being sworn in to office, he highlighted the need to avoid cuts to the foreign aid budget, scheduled to begin as part of sequestration on march 1. this is just over 50 minutes. [applause] >> good morning.

>> i am happy to introduce the secretary to you. as i walked onto the stage i remembered that i stood on the stage with my dear friend, alan, in a debate for lieutenant governor, a primary debates in the february of 2001. so good to have you here, alan. so good to be here with so many friends. good to have the parenthesis close at of the founder of this university being the first secretary of state. the cornerstone was laid not only by thomas jefferson, but two other presidents who were

also secretary of state. james monroe. it is fitting that he would be here. you know the john kerry track record. he started as a decorated combat veteran of the vietnam war. then he served as a call -- as a prosecutor. then he started in local government. state government in massachusetts. the only committee that he served on from the day he became a senator, until its last day in the center of the foreign relations committee. he grew up with a father in the foreign service. it is a family calling. i will count it as a joint but as a bittersweet sadness that my service in the senate, i got to serve with him on the foreign relations committee for one week. [laughter] i am the junior senator on that committee. i sit far out on the wing on that committee. it was the first committee vote

i cast was to confirm him as the new secretary. senator, you are coming to a place that believes deeply in the values that you share, as robert mentioned. president jefferson strongly believed in the connection of this wonderful exemplary nations pooled world community. we have been a global leader. i always like to think about the global leadership that tries to balance military strength. secretary kerry knows the importance and limits of that spirit diplomatic strength, the strength of our economy, the strength of our moral example, after balance those things. this university has been educating and training people to understand that balance since its very beginning. i spoke this morning with a whole group of very talented young rotc students, many who

are getting ready to graduate in commission on the three programs operating on the status. the university has put 1079 people into the peace corps in its 51 year history. numerous people over the course of the university history have gone to work in the state department's. then we can go broader, teach for america, or the students who have trained over generations to get jag program degrees, military law degrees here. this university is so committed to that global role that we are supposed to play as citizens and to keeping those balances of strength and balance. there's really no one today on this stage in our country where exemplifies keeping those invalid better than our speaker. we're so glad to welcome here to the ground and to the commonwealth. please give a warm welcome to secretary john kerry.

[applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. good morning. thank you for an extraordinarily warm welcome, charlotte. i'm honored to be here. senator tim kaine, thank you for generous words of introduction. tim has only been on the foreign relations committee for total of a few weeks now. based on his testimony a moment ago, i can commend him on his voting record. [laughter] he has found himself new job security, because in virginia you have a single term governor for a full your years.

he has traded one single four- year term for a six-year term with potential extension. [laughter] given the fact i traded several extensions for an four-year term and then i'm finished, maybe he knows something i ought to be listening to that i could learn a thing or two. we did not overlap along, but i want to tell everybody we know each other pretty well from service as lieutenant governor and when he was governor of the state. i was lieutenant governor carol my state, so we have that in, and before being senators. a quick story, i don't know what you do in virginia as

lieutenant governor, but massachusetts, once upon a time, calvin coolidge was lieutenant governor. he was at a dinner party and they asked him what you do, he said i'm calvin coolidge, lieutenant governor. he said, tell me all about the job. he said, i just did. [laughter] it's a huge admiration for the path tim kaine has followed. i know his sense of what america means to the world that was forged in the early days that the congressman hurt referred to about his catholic missionary work in honduras, just helping other people to live healthier lives. two weeks after the election, tim called and asked if he could serve on the senate foreign relations committee. you don't always get those

calls in the senate. people stepping forward to volunteer in that way on the committee, it does not have an opportunity to bring bacon back home. so i know that in tim kaine, virginia has a senator who is going to make his mark on that committee and is going to make a mark for your common wealth and our country. and we're grateful for your service, tim. thank you very much. [applause] also, i am particularly grateful for congressman robert hurt being here today. i have left partisan politics. it's wonderful for me to be able to welcome people in the complete spirit of non partisanship, not just bipartisanship. i'm confident you are going to

make your contribution. thank you for your presence here today. [applause] president sullivan, thank you so much for welcoming me here today to this historic, remarkable campus. i feasted on the view as i walked across the lawn with president sullivan. i have to say, you all are very lucky to go to school here. it is an honor to join you hear on the grounds. [laughter] [applause] this very beautiful monument to the potential of the human mind. i have to tell you, to stand here beneath the gaze of the sages of athens, those thinkers who gave us the idea of democracy, which we obviously

still continued to perfect, not only in our nation but around the world, we are grateful for that. also, i was here a long time ago as an undergraduate. i played lacrosse on that field over there against you guys. my first act of diplomacy is literally to forget who won. i have no idea. [laughter] i want to thank the folks in uniform. i want to thank the rotc and all those of you who have served and will continue to serve in some way for our nation. there's no greater declaration of citizenship than that.

some might ask why i am standing here at the university of virginia, why i'm starting here as secretary of state making his first speech in the united states. you might ask, doesn't diplomacy happen over there, overseas, far beyond the boundaries of our backyard? why is it i'm on the foot of the blue ridge instead of the shores of the black sea? why i am here instead of in kabul? the reason is simple. i came here purposely to underscore that in today's global world there is no longer anything foreign about foreign policy. more than ever before, the decisions that we make from the safety of our shores don't just ripped out words, they also creates a current right here in america. how we conduct our foreign policy matters more than ever

before to our everyday lives, to the opportunities of all the students i met standing outside, would every year they are here, thinking about the future. it is important not just in terms of the correct that we face but the products that we buy, the good that we sell, and the opportunities that we provide for economic growth and vitality. it's not just about whether we will be compelled to send our troops to another battle, but whether we will be able to send

our graduates into a thriving workforce. that's what i am here today. i'm here because our lives as americans are more intertwined than ever before with the lives of people in parts of the world that we may have never visited. and the global challenge is of diplomacy, development, economic security, environmental security, you will feel our success or failure just as strongly as those people in those other countries that you will never meet. for all we have gained in the 21st century, we lost the luxury of just looking inward. instead we look out and receive a new field of competitors. i think it gives us much reason to hope, but it also gives us many more rivals determined to create jobs and opportunities for their own people, a veracious marketplace that's sometimes forgets morality and values. i know that some of you and many across the country which that globalization would just go away. or you remember easier times. my friend, no politician, no matter how powerful, can put the genie back in the bottle. our challenge is to obtain the worst impulses of globalization

even as we harness its ability to spread information and possibility, to offer even the most remote place on earth the same choices that have made us strong and free. before i leave this weekend to listen to our allies and partners next week throughout europe and the middle east and in the coming months across asia, africa, and the americas, i wanted to first talk with you about the challenge that we face here at home, because our engagements with the rest of the world begins by making some important choices together, and particularly about our nation's budget. our sense of shared responsibility that we care about something bigger than ourselves is absolutely central to the spirit of this school. it's also central to the spirit of our nation. as you well know and dr.

sullivan reminded you a moment ago, our first secretary of state founded this great university. students in his day could basically only study law or medicine or religion. that was about all. thomas jefferson had a vision. he believed the american people needed a public place to learn the diversity of disciplines, studies of science and at space, 4, form a common philosophy. he built this university in the image of 20 called the illimitable freedom of the human mind. today those of you will study here and teach here along with the taxpayers contributors, and parents who believe in your potential, you are all investing in mr. jefferson's

vision. think for a moment about what that means. why do you spend many days and the dollars it takes to earn an education here or anywhere? why did jefferson what this institution to remain public and accessible, not just to virginians but as a destination from everywhere? i know that he was not thinking just about your getting a degree and a job. it was about something more. jefferson believed we could not be a strong country without investing in the kind of education that empowers us to be good citizens. that is why founding this university is among the few accomplishments that jefferson listed on his epitaph that he wrote for himself. to him, this place and its goal was a bigger part of his legacy ban serving as secretary of state or even as president, neither of which made the cut.

just as jefferson understood, that we need to invest in education in order to produce good citizens, i join president obama today in asserting with urgency that our citizenry deserves a strong foreign policy to protect our interests in the world. a wise investment in foreign policy can yield for a nation the same return that education does for its students. no investment that we may that is as small as this investment put forward such a sizable benefit for ourselves and for our fellow citizens of the world. but on i wanted to have this conversation with you today, which i hope is a conversation that extends well beyond the borders of charlottesville, will be on this university, to all americans. why talk about a small investment in foreign policy in

the united states, i mean it. not so long ago, someone told the american people and asked how big is our international terrorist budget? most said 20% of our national budget. what it ought to be pared back to 10% of our national budget. let me tell you, i would take 10% in a heartbeat, folks. because 10% is exactly 10 times greater than what we do invest in our efforts to protect america around the world. over 1% funds all our civilian and foreign affairs efforts. every embassy, every program that saves a child from dirty drinking water or aids or

reaches out to build a village to bring american values. penniest talking about on the dollar. where do you think this idea comes from that we spend? 25% of spend? it's pretty simple. as a recovery politician, nothing gets a crowd faster in a lot of places than saying i am going to washington to get them to stop spending all that money over there. sometimes they get a lot more. more if you're looking for an applause line, that's about as guaranteed as you can get. it does nothing to guarantee our security. it does not guarantee a stronger country. it does not guarantee a sounder economy or a more stable

we need to say no to the politics of a lowest common denominator and of simplistic slogans and start making real choices that protect the interests of our country. that is imperative. [applause] unfortunately, the state department does not have our own grover norquist pushing a pledge to protect it. we don't have millions of aarp seniors who send in their dues and rallied to protect american investments overseas. the kids lose lives we are helping save from aids, the women we are helping to free from delores of sex trafficking, the students who for the first time can choose to walk into a

school instead of into it a short life with terrorism, their strongest lobbyists are the rare committed americans stand up for them and the resources we need to help them. i hope that includes all of you here and many listening. you understand why every time a tough fiscal choices loom, the easiest place to point fingers is chlorinated. as ronald reagan said, foreign aid suppers for the lack of domestic constituency. that's part of the reason everyone thinks it costs a lot more than it really does. so we need to change that. i reject the excuse that americans just are not interested in what's happening outside their immediate field of vision. i don't believe that about anyone of you sitting here and i don't believe that about americans. the real domestic constituency for what we do, if people could see the dog connected and understand what we are doing, is really large.

is a 314 million americans whose lives are better every day because of and when they have time to stop and pick about it, deep down they know our investment abroad actually makes them and our nation safer. my friends, in this age when a shrinking world clashes with calls for shrinking budgets, we are not alone. it's our job to connect those stocks, to connect them for the american people between what we do over their hands the size of the difference it makes. over here makes won't why the price of abandoning our global efforts would be exorbitant and why the vacuum we will leave by retreating within ourselves will quickly be filled by those whose interests differ dramatically from ours.

we learned that lesson in the deserts of mali recently, in the mountains of a pakistan in 2001, and in the tribal areas of pakistan even today. today's first years at uva we are starting the second grade when a small group of terrorists around the world and shattered our sense of security and our stability, are skylines. so i know that you certainly have always understood that bad things happening over there and threatened us right here. knowing that, the question is this -- how do we together make clear that the opposite is just as true, that if we do the right things, the good things, the smart things over there, it will strengthen us here at home. let me tell you my answer. i believe we do this in two ways. thet, it's about telling story of how we stand up for american jobs to businesses.

pretty practical, straightforward, pretty real on a day-to-day basis. second, it's about how we stand up for our american values, something that has always distinguished america. i agree with president obama that there is nothing in this current budget fight that requires us to make bad decisions, that forces us to retrench or to retreat. this is a time to continue to engage, for the sake of the safety and economic health of our country. this is not optional. it is a necessity. the american people understand this, i believe it. our businesses understand this. it is simple.

the more they sell abroad, the more they will hire here and don't. since 95% of the world's customers live outside our country, we cannot hamstring our own ability to compete in those increasingly growing markets. virginia understands this as well as any state in the union. senator tim kaine, stock tips to make this happen as governor. international trade supports more than 1 million jobs here in virginia. more than one out of five jobs in virginia, which actually today is the story of america. there's a company near dulles airport, with the the help of the persistent advocates of our embassy in bangkok, it beats out the french and russian competitors to build the newest broadcast satellite for thailand. virginia's orbital is now teaming up with a california company called spacex operation technologies that makes satellite equipment. that's a deal that our embassy helped to secure valued at $160 million goes right back into american communities from coast

to coast. that is the difference that our embassies abroad can make here and all. these success stories happen in partnership with countries all over the world because of the resources that we have deployed to bring business and jobs back to america. these investments, my friends, are paying for themselves. we create more than 5000 jobs for every billion dollars of goods and services that we export. so the last thing that we should do is surrender this kind of leverage. these successes are happening in canada, where state department officers there got a local automotive firm to invest tens of millions of dollars in michigan, where the american auto industry is now making a remarkable comeback.

in indonesia, thanks do with the embassy in jakarta, that nations privately owned airline does place an order for commercial aircraft, the largest boeing has ever been asked to fill. the indonesian state railroad is buying its locomotives from general electric. >> more than 600 u.s. companies are doing business in south africa and where opec and the trade and development agency just opened an office to help close more investment deals between american companies and africa's booming energy and transportation sectors. a major south african energy company plans to build a multimillion-dollar plant in louisiana that would put more americans to work.

let me tell you, this is happening. in cameroon and in bosnia and in other surprising places. in the shadows of world war ii, if you told someone that japan and germany would today be our fourth and its largest trading partners, someone would have thought you were crazy. before nixon's old opening with china, no one could imagine that today it would be our second-largest trading partner, but that is exactly what has happened. 11 of our top 16 trading partners used to be the beneficiaries of u.s. foreign assistance. that's because our goal is not to keep a nation dependent on us forever. it is precisely to create these markets, to open these opportunities, to establish rule of law. our goal is to use assistance and development to help nations realize their own potential, develop their own ability to govern, and accomplish our

economic partners. one of america's most incredible realities continues to be that we are a country without any permanent enemies. take vietnam. i will never forget standing next to john mccain in the east room of the white house. each of us on either side of president clinton as he announced the once unthinkable normalization of our relations with vietnam, and efforts that john mccain and i worked on for about 10 years to try do. in the last decade, thanks in large part to the work of usaid, our exports to vietnam increased by more than 700%. every one of those percentage points our jobs here in america. in the last two decades, 1000 vietnamese students and scholars have studied spanish and taught in america through the fulbright program, including

the foreign minister, who i just talked to the other day and who has feelings about america because of that engagement. the list goes on. as the emerging middle class in india, the world's largest democracy, buys our products, that means jobs and incomes for our own middle-class. as our traditional assistance to brazil and decreases, trade there is increasing. brazil is one of the new tigers moving at a double-digit pace. it supports additional jobs here at home, many in the u.s. travel and tourism industry. when jefferson expanded our consular posts, precisely to promote trade, he never could have could the importance today. nor could be a predictable number of americans abroad that we help with passports, visas, with other problems that arise, or that will offer to those who want to grow their families to adoption or who find themselves in legal trouble or distressed far from home, or the role our

diplomats play screening potential security threats and taking them off the radar screen before they ever reach your consciousness potential in the worst ways, or that we create a new american jobs for every 65 visitors that we help bring to our shores. so we have to keep going. we cannot afford the kind of delay and disruption that stance on the horizon in washington. the exciting new trade negotiation that president obama announced last week between the united states and the european union will create the world's biggest bilateral deal with it comes to fruition, a trans- atlantic partnership that will match the scope and ambition of our trans-pacific partnership talks.

but our work is far from over. seven of the 10 fastest-growing countries are on the african continent. and china understanding that, is already investing more than we do there. four of the five biggest oil and gas natural discoveries happened off the coast of mozambique last year. developing economies are the epicenters of brokers and their open for business. and the united states needs to be at that table it. if we want a new list of assistance graduates, countries that used to receive aid from us, we cannot shy away from telling this story to the american people, to your members of congress, and to the world. let me emphasize, jobs and trade are not the whole story and nor should they be.

the good work of the state department and usaid is measured not only in the value of the dollar, it's also measured in our deepest values. we got your security and stability in other parts of the world, knowing that failed states are among our greatest security perhaps and the new partners are our greatest assets. the investments that we make support our efforts to counter terrorism and violent extremism wherever it flourishes. we will continue to help countries provide their own security, use diplomacy when possible, and support those allies and take the fight to terrorists. remember, i cannot emphasize this enough, i'm looking at a soldier in front of me with a ribbon on his chest, deploying diplomats today is much cheaper than deploying troops tomorrow.

[applause] we need to remember that. [applause] as senator lindsey graham said, it's national security that we are buying. it sounds expensive, but it's not. the state department's conflict stabilization budget is about $60 million a year now. that's how much the movie "the avengers" took in on a single sunday last may. [laughter] the difference is the folks we have on the ground doing his job are real super heroes.

we value human rights and we need to tell the story of america's good work there too. we know that the most effective way to promote the universal rights of all people, their rights and religious freedom is not from the podium or from either end of pennsylvania avenue. it is from the front lines, where ever freedom and basic human dignity are denied. that's what tim kaine understood when he went to honduras. the brave employees of state and usaid and diplomatic security personnel who protect civilians serving as overseas work in some of the most dangerous places on merit and they do it is fully cognizant that we share stronger partnerships with countries that share our commitment to democratic values and human rights. despite corruption in nigeria. they support the rule of law in burma. they support democratic institutions in kurdistan and in georgia, mindful from our own experience that it takes a

long time to get democracy right and that it rarely happens right away. in the end, all of those efforts, all that danger and risk that they take makes us more secure and we do value democracy just as you demonstrated here at uva through the presidential program that's training leaders in the emerging democracies. thanks to a decade of intensive diplomatic efforts alongside our partners, a conflict that took more than 2 million lives. the book about the holocaust, 6 million over the course of world war ii. we lost 2 million people in the longest war in africa in our time in the last years. and south sudan was born out of that act as a free nation. securing its future and peace

for all of its citizens will take continued diplomatic efforts alongside partners like the african union. we can develop the capacity of the african union, the less the u.s. will have to worry. i've stood in south sudan. they still face the world's newest country and its government. those challenges threaten to reverse hard-won progress and stability. that's why we are working closely with that nation to help it provide its own citizens with essential services like water and health and education and agriculture practices. we value health and nutrition and the principle of helping people gain strength to help themselves the cornerstone initiatives like feed the future. we help countries not only to plant and harvest better food but we also help them break the cycle of poverty, of poor nutrition, of hunger.

we seek to reduce maternal mortality, eradicate polio, and protect people from malaria, tuberculosis, and pandemic influenza. i will tell you probably that the global milk initiatives and programs i was proud to have an aunt in helping to create like pepfar, we have saved the lives of 5 million people in africa through the efforts of americans. [applause] today, astonishingly, we are standing on the edge of the potential of an aids-free generation, because we know these diseases don't discriminate by nationality. and we believe that relieving preventable suffering does not need justification. i think that part of our values. we valued gender equality.

knowing that countries are more peaceful and prosperous when women and girls are afforded full rights and equal opportunity. [applause] in the last decade, the proportion of african women enrolled in higher education went from nearly zero to 20%. in 2002, there were fewer than 1 million boys in afghan schools and barely any girls. now with america's health, more than one-third of the almost 8 million students going to school in afghanistan are girls. and more than one-quarter of their representatives in parliament are women. we should be proud of that, and it helps make a difference in the long haul.

the fulbright program enables talented citizens to share their devotion to diplomacy and to teach their belief that all the earth's sons and daughters are to have the opportunity to lift themselves up. today these exchanges bring hundreds of thousands of students to america from other countries and vice versa. in the last year alone, more than attend thousand citizens of foreign countries participated in the state department both academic youth professional and cultural exchange programs right here in virginia. virginians also studied abroad through state department programs. senator fulbright, i had a privilege of testifying as a young veteran from vietnam. he knew the value of sharing our proudest values made a difference in the long run.

he said having people understood your thoughts is much greater security than to have been suffering. our assistance is not a giveaway. it is not charity. it is an investment in a strong america and in the free world. foreign assistance lips other people abandon reinforces their willingness to link arms with us in common. when we help others crackdown on corruption, it makes easier for our own compliance against corruption and it makes it easier for our companies to do business. we build partnerships that mean we don't have to fight nuclear battles alone. it means working with our partners around the world and making sure iran never obtained a weapon that could endanger our

allies or our interests. when we help others create the space they need to build stability in their own communities, we are helping brave people build a better more democratic future and making sure that we don't pay more later in american blood and treasure. the stories that we need to tell of standing up for american jobs and businesses and standing up for our american values intersects powerfully to in the opportunity that we have now in this moment of urgency to lead on the climate concerns that we share with our global neighbors. we as a nation must have the foresight and courage to make the investments necessary to safeguard the most sacred trust we keep for our children and our grandchildren. and that is an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate.

president obama is committed to moving forward on that and so am i. so must you be ready to join us in that effort. [applause] can we all say thank you to our signers? [applause] so, think about all these things i've listed. think about the world as you see it today. let's face it, we're all in this one together. no nation can stand alone. we share nothing so completely as our planet. when we work with others to develop and deploy clean technologies that will power a new world -- six trillion

dollar market waiting -- huge amount of jobs, when we do that, we know we are helping create new markets and opportunities for america's second to none innovators and entrepreneurs so that we can succeed in the next great revolution in our marketplace. we need to commit ourselves to doing the smart thing and the right thing and to truly take on this challenge. if we don't rise to meet it, then rising temperatures and rising the levels will surely lead to rising costs down the road. ask any insurance company in america. if we waste this opportunity, it may be the only thing our generations are remembered for. we need to find the courage to leave a far different legacy. we cannot talk about the

unprecedented changes happening on our planet without also talked about the unprecedented changes in its population. another great opportunity at our fingertips. in countries across north africa and the middle east, the majority of people are younger than 30 years old. 60% under 30. 50% under 21. 40% under 18. half of the total under 20. they look for the same opportunities and the same things that you do -- opportunity. we have an interest in helping these young people, to develop the skills they need to defeat mass unemployment that is overwhelming their societies, so they can start contributing to their communities and rebuild their broken economies rather than engaging in some other terrorist caught or other kind of extremist activity. for the first time in human activity, young people around the world act as a global colewort, including many of the

people in this room. we are more open-minded, more proficient with the technology that keep them connected as no generation in history has ever been before. we need to help all of them and us to use this remarkable network in a positive way. some may say not now, not while. we have while. it's too expensive. believe me, my friends, these challenges will not get easier with time. there is no pause button on the future. we cannot choose when we would like to stop and restart our global responsibility or simply wait until the calendar says it is more convenient. it is not easy. but responding is the american thing to do. i will tell you, it is worth it. these programs the vance peace and security around the world,

which help -- advance peace and security around the world, which open markets to american manufacturers, fostering stable societies to save lives by fighting disease and hunger, defended the universal rights of all people, advance freedom and dignity, bringing people together, nations together. addressing problems that transcend the separation of motions, giving hope to a new generation in an interactive world of citizens. in all those things it costs us as scientists mentioned about one penny of every dollar that we invest.

america, you will not find a better deal anywhere. i am particularly aware that in many ways the greatest challenge to america's foreign policy today is in the hands of our diplomats and policy makers in congress. it is often said we cannot be strong at home if we are not strong in the world. but in these days of the budget sequester, which everyone wants to avoid -- or most -- we cannot be strong in the world unless we are strong at home. my credibility as a diplomat, working to help other countries create order is strongest when america at last put its own fiscal house in order. that has to be now. [applause] think about it.

it is hard to tell the leadership of other countries that they have to resolve their economic issues when we do not resolve our own. let's reach a responsible agreement. let's not use this opportunity because of politics. as i have said many times before, america is not exceptional simply because we say we are. we are exceptional because we do exceptional things. both where there are problems as well as where there is promise. both where there is danger as well as red there is democracy. i am optimistic that we will continue to do these exceptional things. i know that is who we are and it is who we have always been. as we ask for our next steps in this path, we would do well to learn a lesson from our own history.

in the aftermath of world war ii, america had a choice, just like we do today, to turn inward. instead the secretary of state, george marshall, sought in both defeated and allied countries the threat of bankruptcy, homes and re -- homes and railways destroyed, economies decimated. instead the secretary of state, george marshall, sought in both defeated and allied countries the threat of bankruptcy, homes and re -- homes and railways destroyed, economies decimated. he had the foresight to know that there could be no political stability, no peace without renewed economic strength. he knew that we had an obligation to partner with europe, help them rebuild, modernize, give the push that it needed to become the powerful and peaceful trading partner it is today. after the war, my friends, we did not spike the football, we created another level playing field. we are stronger for it today. when i was 12 years old i had the privilege of living in germany, where my father, an

officer, was called to duty. one day i visited the eastern side of berlin. the part that had not received any of the help from the united states and its courageous marshall plan. the difference was undeniable, even to my 12-year-old eyes. there were few people on the streets, a few smiles on the faces of those were there. i saw the difference between hope, the spare, freedom, and oppression. people who were given the chance to do something as opposed to the people who were not. as western europe regained its vibrant color, the place i visited was still in black and white. when i went back to west berlin, two things happened.

first, i was summarily grounded for venturing without permission to the other side of the city. [laughter] second, i started to pay special attention to the plaques on the buildings that recommend -- that recognize the united states of america for lending a hand in rebuilding. i was proud. the marshall plan, imf, and other organizations led by the united states are evidence of our ability to make the right decisions at the right time, taking risks today in the interest of tomorrow. we now face a similar crossroads. we can be complacent or competitive as markets bloom in every corner of the world. with or without us. we could be there to help plant the seeds or we can see the power to others. given the chance to lead a second great american century,

we must not just look to the american landscape today. look at the days to come. we must marshal the courage that define the the marshall plan so that we might secure in the future freedom. let's remember the principles of jefferson's time. looking to independence echoing in our time. america's national interest is in leading strongly and it still in doers in this world. let me leave you with a thought. when tragedy and terror visit our neighbors, whether by the hand of man or the hand of god, many nations give of themselves to help. only one is expected to. with the leadership of president obama i will work hard to secure for the congress the continuing of the lead of the separation. not because we view it as a

burden, but because we know it to be a privilege. that is what is special about the united states of america. that is what the special about being an american. that exceptional quality that we share is what i will take with me on my travels on your behalf. the responsibility cannot be reserved for responses to emergencies at home. it has to be exercised in the pursuit of exercising the disaster, of building markets. of standing up for our guidance. over the next four years i asked you to stand with our president and our country to continue to conduct ourselves

with the understanding that what happens over there matters right here. and it matters that we get this thank you. [applause] [applause] >> secretary carey will be planning to visit multiple countries next week on his first trip abroad as secretary of state. earlier today, former rep jesse jackson pleaded guilty to using $750 million in campaign money for personal use. an attorney for the former congressman spoke briefly with reporters out of the district court. here's a look. >> obviously this has been a very difficult morning for all of us who care about jesse jackson. it was a morning that had

become. those in court saw that he did precisely that. he had to come to terms for conduct for the people that care about him. the process that begins now is about explaining that conduct. the way we will do it, it will not be on the courthouse steps. it will not be on over winfrey, no offense to oprah winfrey. it will be with lawyers, court documents, evidence, witnesses, and arguments. i hope you all respect that. there is reason for optimism. a man that talented and devoted to public service, who has done so much for so many, there will be another chapter in the life of jesse jackson. a chapter for the people that

care about us. i will answer a question i have seen many times. the turns out that he had serious health issues. many of you know about them. we will talk about them extensively in the courts. that is not an excuse, it is a fact. there is reason for optimism here as well. he has got great treatment and great doctors. finally, i would say we're hopeful. and for a person that has contributed so much to their community and so many people, finally of course the primary concern, is many concerns,

including being a father -- he has two small children. we are reasonably sure that he will be a wonderful, caring, and devoted father. >> prosecutors are recommending that mr. jackson received a 46 month to 47 month prison sentence. the hearing takes place in june 28. earlier today defense department officials prefer reporters on preparations they're making for the automatic defense cuts their scheduling to make next week'. this is 45 minutes.

>> good afternoon. thank you for error interest in this topic today. -- thank you for coming. thank you for your interest in this topic today. with us today we have our undersecretary, bob hale, and i -- acting undersecretary, just and right. they do have some comments that they would like to start with, [inaudible] furloughs. then they will be available to take your questions. >> ok, good afternoon. today the department of defense faces some enormous budgetary uncertainty unparalleled in my experience. the possibility for

sequestration on march 1. it could mean 9% across all accounts except military personnel, including wartime accounts. we will protect those accounts, but that means larger cuts to the base budget. the continuing resolution, if it stays in effect, has the money in the wrong places, too many dollars in the investment accounts and too few in operation in nantes. the pattern here, there will be pressure on base budget operation and maintenance affecting continuing resolutions. finally, we are spending at a higher than expected rate in our oko budgets. two years ago we did not anticipate and tell operating

tempo. we will meet those costs, the sum of all those effects means we are seriously short on operation and maintenance funds. this will have serious adverse effects on readiness. we have taken short-term actions to slow spending and avoid more draconian cuts later. affecting many of our organizations already, sharp cutbacks in facilities maintenance, cutbacks, with sequestration lasting all year. they will have to have much more far reaching changes. there will be cutbacks and delays in virtually every department. it will mean cutbacks in unit buys, increases in unit costs.

we will have to cut back training, particularly for non- deployed units, leading to actions such as two-thirds of the combat brigades being at unacceptable levels of readiness by the end of the year, including those already deployed in afghanistan. most airports units would be below acceptable levels. we have decided to take one fewer carrier in the gulf. unfortunately along this list of items, with sequestration if it lasts all year, referred for civilian personnel. we feel we have no choice but to impose, the we would prefer not to do it. we are more than 20% short with seven months ago in the army. making up a substantial part of

funding. reductions in support cost us money. firms are really the only way that we have to quickly cut civilian personnel funding. we have established a general approach that we will follow. it is one of the approaches of last resort. we will also insist on consistency across the department so that all of our organizations will do so. about the same for the same number of days. there will be some limited exceptions to this, for example. we will not furlough citizens in, but zones or citizens required to make safety of life or property. 20 policeman on a base, they are

not all automatically exempted from furloughs. they have to exempt some or all of them. exempting employees paid with non-appropriated funds, we will exempt hour for a national employees. how would they work in general? first, there is a whole series of notifications. the first one was started today. it starts a 45 day clock ticking. until that clock has run out, we cannot proceed with furloughs. we will ask components to identify specifics inspections. they will begin required engagements with local unions. they will notify unions with national bargaining rights. at some point in mid march we

will send a notification to furlough before we can take any action. later on in april we will send a decision to employees. they have a one week time period to appeal the protection board. the bottom line is that furloughs would not start until late april. -- late april. we certainly hope that if triggered, that in the interim congress would act to not trigger the sequestration. or take some short-term action while they are dealing with the broader issue. meanwhile, unfortunately we will have to continue our planning for furloughs. this is one of the most distasteful taxed -- tasks i have faced in my four years. we will work it out.

>> thank you, bob. let me first say that our focus is clearly on people. civilians around the world provide invaluable support for national security. everyday they make countless contributions and sacrifices in support of national defence. the effects of sequestration and the continuing resolution will be devastating. on our civilians, it will be catastrophic. these critical members of our workforce maintain and repair tanks, aircraft, ships. they teach our kids and care for our children. they provide medical treatments to all of our beneficiaries. they take care of our wounded warriors. they provide services in programs like sexual assault prevention and suicide

prevention, just to name a few. let me be clear, the first, second, and third order on sequestration will be fell in local command and local communities all over the united states. this is not a beltway phenomenon. more than 80% of our civilians work outside the washington, d.c. metro area. if furloughs are enacted, civilians works -- will experience a decrease in pay. as a result, many families will be forced to make difficult decisions on where their financial obligations live. key benefits like life insurance benefits, health care, and retirement will generally continue. those programs and policies are

mandated by the office of personnel management and applied consistently to all government employees. loss of pay will only be felt by each employee, but it will be felt in the business communities where they serve, where their kids go to school and where their name -- and the neighborhoods they live in. the department will apply these of furloughs if necessary in a consistent and equitable fashion. with only a few exceptions. civilians will experience the impact directly to their wallet. service members, retirees, families, they will clearly feel the effect of these actions. if sequestration is not averted,

associated furloughs will affect war fighters, veterans, and family members in on told ways. let me talk about a couple of those ways. our goal is to preserve the accreditation of our schools. as we continue to work with the department of defense education activity and how they will implement a furloughs, we are committed in mitigating the impact of sequestration on the school year for our kids. regarding health care, about 40% of our medical providers are civilians. this furlough will affect them greatly. our goal is to mitigate the impact and provide quality care.

certainly family members will feel the impact of sequestration. our intent is to ease the impact, but it is clearly possible that operating will be curtailed. while it is our intent to preserve family programs to the greatest extent possible, some programs may be affected if the length of sequestration goes long and hard. we understand that sequestration will be significant. not only to our civilian employees, but to the servicemen and women and their families. it will affect local communities and local businesses. it will affect our dedicated men and women who have lived in the local communities throughout our nation and clearly overseas. we know this. that is why our guiding

principle will be to lessen the impact for every man. we are clearly grateful for the support and clearly grateful for the support of the men and women of our civilian force that worked to help the war fighter protection mission. thank you. >> you mentioned that every state would be affected. which ones have been affected the most? >> we have not done that research, to find out which state will be affected the most. clearly where we have the large bases and depots, they will be affected >> you may not be surprised, as justice said. >> [inaudible] >> maybe both.

i was talking about furloughs specifically. >> is that available? >> we can get to that. >> what do you -- >> [inaudible] cbo and center for strategic budgetary assessment take the defense department back to 2007 roles. why can the department of sort the kind of cut? what is wrong with that picture? >> first of all, there is a timing issue. it will occur five months into the year. particularly in the operating side. we will have to take it within seven months and, without, frankly, time to get ready.

more generally i would say that i am always troubled if we're trying to determine the adequacy of these budgets on real dollar levels in a particular year, we need to look at the threats that we face the remain substantial. we owe it to the public's to figure out the amount that we think needs to be spent to carry out a national defense strategy, and we have done that. >> will this lead to determinations of existing contracts? >> i do not anticipate that we will cancel many of any contracts. it is more that we will not become got chills. mccaw -- pick up options.

i would like to say to reassure them that we will pay you if you have a contract with us. even under sequestration we will find a time to keep it to the vendors on time. >> if the base number of civilians [inaudible] estimated savings would be? >> we do not know the exact number, it will depend on those exceptions. 50,000 of them are foreign nationals. there will be exceptions to make it smaller.

it will depend on the exceptions. that is a process we just started to ask command to identify. >> are there going to be more than 50%? >> i think so. >> temporary term employees that have already been terminated? >> this is an ongoing issue, 60007000 are being laid off or are in the process of being laid off. i think you will see more. for those near term actions, particularly, there were mission critical exceptions.

>> [inaudible] >> by the end of this month we would have a pretty good idea. assuming this goes forward, which i sure hope it does not. >> these exemptions, can you tell us more? which employees are exempt? the you have any estimates on how many people might be exempt? >> we have power down services so that they can review their employees. >> i want to bring you back to our civilian work force. they contribute tons to what we do here in the department and

worldwide. saying that, if we have to do this furlough, like the secretary said, exemptions will be relatively small. we have asked services to come back with a plan. we will review the plan with the criteria outlined for exemptions. we do not yet have a number i can give you on who will be the percentage exempt. >> what will life on military bases look like with these closures and shortened hours? what do you expect to see? >> as i said in the opening comments, i truly believe that our civilians and add such a value to life on a military

base. if furloughed, they will see a reduction in some of the services, like for example commissary hours. life on military base, that will impact those individuals who use the commissary. until we find out how this is going to be applied, i cannot give you a daily routine of what a generic day would be on a military base, should we face such a catastrophic event as furloughing or civilian employees. >> our personnel are committed to carrying out a mission to defend the united states. i think that one thing you are going to see is a great deal of frustration.

they will see that they cannot train as much as they need to. if they are dealing with investments that will see disruption in the programs they are managing. so, there will be some aspects of daily life affected. i think that there's satisfaction with the mission will be adversely affected, which is important to these people, civilian and military. >> does the furlough apply to intelligence employees? as you know, the director of national intelligence [inaudible] >> i do not know that a final decision has been made there. for department of defense employees we will insure consistency, but that is a decision that will have to be made and i do not know if they made it. i think it would be in

conjunction with the office of management and budget. >> can you give us a ballpark figure? >> i want to say 25,000. is that right? all right. i had better get back to you. >> is there any indication on the impact of sequestration for the reported efforts? >> the military processing stations, the testing that is

given. recruiters are all military. they are exempt from furlough. the second and third order of the effect of giving someone in can slow the process. >> by the end of this process you have two-thirds, that would be unacceptable levels. will the slowdown? >> other than those currently employed it would be below acceptable levels. it could affect their ability to deploy to a new contingency of occurred.

or if this goes on long enough to afghanistan. >> entirely because of what is laying around? [inaudible] >> that is a variety -- there are a variety of reasons. two years ago when we put together the budget for this year we underestimated the army and the air force. >> can i just follow up on the readiness question? we have seen a lot of what appears to be scare tactics. on the surface they seem to be pushing out a message of security issue things. what is the reality of readiness here? still at war, the message is the

long-term effect. you might have to keep troops on the ground longer. is this something that will be allowed to be pushed down the road? >> we have seven months ago and are short in the base budget by $45 billion compared to the president's request. it is probably close to twice that in the army. i can hope that several things happened. that is the results of sequestration, but also the current continuing resolution. we might see some action on either one. if neither of them get fixed and it goes through the year in its current form, we will have serious readiness of facts. these are legally binding

limits. we will have to cut back on training significantly. >> when the service chiefs were pushed, they said they could move money around further. is that an option for readiness? >> we could try, but the only means of doing that was reprogramming, using very limited techniques. for every dollar that you add, you have to cut somewhere else. especially in an environment like this one, with sequestration cuts in investment accounts, there are not a lot of good sources. you have to get a member of congress to agree to this, at least all the committees. so, it cannot be anything contentious. it is not realistic to move multiple billions of legal

limits on transfer authority. could some of this change? yes. congress can change the laws in ways that make this easier. we are doing worst-case planning right now, that is a fair statement. but if the cr stays in effect for the whole year, we will see serious attacks. >> if i can follow up and add, if we do follow these civilian employees, they are the ones that maintain our equipment in a lot of our depots. they have a lot of ranges on posts. if furloughed, they will love be there for that training environment. it is the second and third quarter. it is not the training dollars that can be potentially preprogrammed. it is the people for their to utilize and perform the job

they're required to do. >> the measures you are talking about are fairly drastic. why wait until today to make these announcements? do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been warning about these sooner? >> first, we started the slowdown in spending on january 10. a number of the measures that i mentioned went into effect shortly after that. significant efforts were made to slow down spending on more draconian actions later. i know that people felt we should have said more earlier. 15 months ago the secretary sent a letter to the u.s. congress saying that the effects of sequestration would be devastating. after that we testified in

august and again in september, we listed every single major item we're talking about. we said that there would be cutbacks in readiness and a unit buys would go down with unit costs growing up. what we did not do was detailed budget planning. i do not regret that. if we did it 60 months ago, we would have been wrong. we would not know that congress would have changed the size and the date and we would not have incurred the tigre -- we would not have incurred the degradation route. we sounded the alarm in every way that we could. >> what kind of contract are you having with the white house? are you trying to offer up any solutions? sequestration confined to

savings hear, hear, and here? what other things would you be doing right now? >> talking to my wife. [laughter] but the answer the first question. i do not think i am of best person that answer. we were very interested in a closely monitoring the events. a more serious answer than spending time with my wife? when i first took this job, it was the last job that i took. i was told that i would be consumed by the operating side. improving information within the department.

others are getting short shrift right now, others are pretty much totally consumed with the department getting through this. >> if this is going to happen and hurt so bad, what about the option of getting to this goal? would that be a strategy for you guys? let's do this instead? >> i think the president and republicans have made proposals. the implication on bargaining, i am probably not the right guy to be speaking to that, though i am potentially interested in the outcome. >> can you explain the rationale? >> the government enforces

agreements and would require some negotiation and in some cases they are paid almost a entirely by the foreign government. that would not help us much. these are all overseas, japanese employees overseas. >> " one of the more important benefits? medical care. you mentioned that 40% of the folks were provided with care. that is going to cut into the services provided, i would think, like elective surgery is being canceled or postponed. what affect is that going to have? you could have thrown that on to try care. >> everything is going to be affected, if sequestration goes into affect.

that is a guarantee. everyone will be impacted by this action. it is incumbent upon us to try to ease that where we can. so, yes, 40% of our medical providers are civilian employees. a couple of things. the war has changed. there are fewer uniform providers in the war zones. more within the confines of medical treatment facilities. that is one benefit. it is incumbent upon us to review the plan of the doctor, surgeons, and services to decide how we will best provide care and access to care. so, we will do that. i would like to be able to give you more specifics, but until i

see those plans, though -- that would be speculating and that would not be fair. march 1 i will have a better understanding of how we will provide the access and care to our beneficiaries. >> even if sequestration comes in, we are all talking about just going through september 2013. what happens next year? does it get better? they said that there was not enough time left this year to do that. >> i cannot rule it out. the budget control act requires that the caps on discretionary funding be lowered to $55 billion per year. if those come to pass, then we will have to look at a new defense strategy.

that will be the first thing we will do. at that point we will be talking about significant reductions in the size of the military and civilian work force. flexing a new strategy as opposed to these across-the- board cuts that we face right now. >> [inaudible] >> potentially we could hope for some sort of big budget deal. i would devoutly wish for some budget stability right? . i think it would benefit the department and the nation. but absent a deal of that sort, many people continue to face uncertainty into the future. >> what kind of impact will

there be on the contractor working for us? >> there are a lot of private sector agencies that have made job loss numbers. i will let them speak for themselves. for sequestration we need to take $46 billion. there would be some additional savings and i do not know for sure what they would be. but there will be $40 billion or so accommodated by cutbacks and purchases in the private sector. lots of different kinds. there will be very substantial a fax on the private sector as well. i cannot give you a job loss numbers. there are a number of private organizations that have made estimates. >> what specific changes to the law would you like to see congress make to give you more flexibility in managing this

challenge? what kind of cuts are you having to make? >> first off, the change what the u.s. congress to make is to pass a balanced budget deficit reduction package and pass appropriations bills. that is what i would like for christmas. i know that it is late, but i would like it. in terms of flexibility, you know, we are five months into the fiscal year. even if we said you could do it wherever you want, we would have to go after just about every dollar that is not obligated to get the cuts that quickly. i know that there have been suggestions that we could solve this problem by giving flexibility. i do not think it would help that much this far into the fiscal year. i think it is a bad deal, the

flexibility. as far as the future at the moment, the guidance we have is not to plan for these large cuts that could occur under the budget control act. if congress does not make a change that the president can accept, yes, we would have to come are related to the other question, look at a smaller military with a symbol -- smaller civilian workforce. >> what number are you planning for in fiscal year 14? >> i cannot give you that until they release the budget, but it is not too far off from the numbers we were planning one year ago. >> [inaudible] >> i wish that i knew. but they said that in march there would make this decision and i do not have that specific date. >> let me try once more specifically on the service

contractor work force. seems like a pretty solid plan. how they will contribute, there is a similar detailed plan, of course. >> it is managed differently. they of course manage their own work force, so we would not be involved in that. we are developing plans with increasing level of details for " we would buy from the private sector and are in the process of looking at our investment programs. it takes a lot of work to figure out what we would not do to accommodate sequestration cuts. we are moving along well. under the law we have a detailed plan by april 1st that would

give more fidelity on executive changes. in terms of managing work force, that will be done by the private companies. >> [inaudible] >> we expect to rollout the base budget in pieces. >> i think that as possible. we need two decisions the we are getting now from the state of the union. we still have to cut the budget together. they may not come out together. i do not like the timing of the release. they may come out separately. >> [inaudible] exempting military personnel with some civilians, what

percent -- and is not just 20% of the last half year, what is the size of the pie your cutting. >> i see it would mean. the problem is the investment accounts. divide $46 billion by 5/12, but that would not be right. i do not know that i have that number in my head. i would guess that we are one quarter obligated abroad right now? so, we have three quarters left. but do not hold that to me too closely. but it is probably in that ballpark. >> folks, thank you again. thank you for all the questions. [inaudible] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> prime time on the c-span network, john kerry delivers his first major speech since taking his position earlier this month. c-span 2, but tv with sonia sotomayor. c-span 3, american history tv and a discussion between the end -- about the intersection between popular and scholarly presidencies. >> tomorrow we will be -- we will look at the bureau of opera all tobacco and firearms. more on background check issues with the executive member of the

gun owners of america. and then emily miller on her recent series, "family gets sick her gun." -- emily gets her gun." >> jay carney today called on congress to act immediately to prevent automatic spending cuts from going into effect on march 1. this is close to one hour. >> i hope you are as excited to be here as i am. i mean that. always an honor and privilege. we will give special dispensation to build. i do not have anything law at the top. i would note that the issue of the sequester continues to drive a lot of conversation in washington, understandably. the potential implementation of

the sequestered is upon us. you heard the president speak about it yesterday. what is essential to understand is that the effect of the sequester would be severe and go right to middle class american families. people that receive vital health services. there are people working today that will lose their jobs if the sequestered goes into affect. and it is not necessary that the sequestered go into effect. the option for congress is to do what they did a few months ago, come to an agreement i reasonable and balanced package of spending cuts. and revenue increases. to buy down the sequester for enough time to allow congress to do the important work of writing a budget the reduces the deficit

further in a long term. republicans so far have refused to do this. they have refused to go along with the american public on a balanced approach in dealing with this problem. it is important to understand that if they hold that position and the sequestered goes into affect those americans will lose their jobs because republicans made the choice to have that happen. first of all, the wall street journal op-ed from the speaker of the house yesterday, in a piece that i saw not long ago, it began -- wall street journal op-ed wednesday, john boehner discusses the policy that threatens national security, thousands of jobs and more. leading to the question, why would republican support a measure that threatens national

security and thousands of jobs? the effect of his argument is to make the presidency reasonable. after all, the president agrees with boehner that the jobs are threatened, the difference is that obama wants to avoid it. the president believes that it is essential that we of will -- avoid these cuts. the speaker himself said it was bad policy. we, the congress, must act to make sure it does that happen. >> the sequester would hit the government for $85 trillion in the first year. cbo says that the hit this year would be half of that. that the rest would occur in later years. a senator said the bureau

talking about [inaudible] families across the country have had their budgets cut by larger than that as a result of economic downturn. is the lack of urgency to deal with this somewhat justified given those numbers? i mean, even when we were dealing with the debt ceiling and the fiscal cliff, there was a lot more activity coming out of this white house. >> there is a great deal of activity in this white house regarding the sequester, and there will continue to be. you saw the president yesterday urged congress to take the necessary actions to avoid these across the board in the scrimmaged -- in discriminatory cut that would do harm to our national security and cost jobs. these are men and women patrolling our borders.

teachers, first responders. these are real people whose futures hang in the balance depending on a decision that republicans in congress will or will not make. secondly, besides the cbo, they estimate that the sequester, if it takes place in 2013, it will reduce growth 5.6% during 2013. we have already seen impacts from the sequestered. analysts made it clear back in january. it was in large part because the defense sector had anticipation of the sequestered driving down defense spending. we will see only more of that happen if a sequester kicks in.

the cbo number on gdp growth is mirrored by estimates from private sector firms, who said the reduction would be 0.5%. cbo estimates that job losses from the sequestered could reach -- would reach, rather, 750,000 by the fourth quarter of this year. this is real, urgent, and it is important that congress act. the choice is clear. the american people support a balanced approach to deficit reduction. out in the country democrats, republicans, independents, they all support a balanced approach. ask the american people. if the choice is those 70,000 kids get thrown off headstart, border security guards lose

their jobs on the one hand, or we ask corporate jet owners to give up their special tax loophole? what do you think they will overwhelmingly say? this is an indefensible position. republicans are saying preserve these tax breaks for oil and gas companies and corporate jet owners, throw these people out of work to protect these special tax breaks. it makes no sense. it is bad policy and the speaker said that discussion about revenue was closed? again, ask americans around the country if they agree that it is better economic policy for middle-class americans to lose their jobs or for oil and gas companies to have their subsidies reduced? i think we all know what the answer will be.

>> what is the white house doing for negotiations right now? >> we always hear these declared a statement from capitol hill and the press about what can pass and what cannot. we always heard about how revenue would never be allowed. that they would never allow tax rates to go up and never allow them to go up against anyone making less than $1 million. they will never let the top rate of back. all of those things happened. you know why? because the american people supported those decisions the president took. in the end, congress responded to the will of the american people. we hope that that is what will happen again this time. happen again this time. i am