, these groups wanting toeall of meet to try to pressure lawmakers the other way. an election been since newtown but we will remember if you voted for this. everything you said -- that is a test for the nra. didn't voteople who the way the people asking for this wanted. >> the denver post has this headline, "obama to priasaise

colorado lawmakers." he will urge them to act quickly on gun restrictions. >> and he goes to harvard connecticut and they may have stringent gun laws as well. colorado is a purple state, if you will, moving after newtown and aurora to make changes and what happened there may be considered with the size of ammunition and -- the states considering legislation are moving faster than congress. which is known to happen. but there is a lot of frustration. why can the states move so quickly when you look at the

polling suggesting gun trafficking should be a crime and the ammunition magazines --- the headline,d thtford had the governor will endorse the gun legislation. asa hutchinson, who spent a million dollars -- talked about putting armed guards in schools. will that get a vote? >> part of what the democrats and the senate are opposing would reauthorize the provisions for the justice department program to provide money to school districts. this is a barbara boxer-susan collins bill. a grant program that expired,

and used to have 20 million. million and 10$100 they got it to $40 million. republicans may say -- you're trying to spend money. you noticed yesterday, the nra said nothing about federal funding. that would cover republicans by saying the nra with the 100 million study -- why should i vote for this? regardless, the proposal is under serious consideration. let's say they're in a school recognition. the

>> in the house, will they take action? >> not until the city acts. they say -- we are aware of what is going on and are talking about it. you won't see movement on this side until the senate acts. scott rigil -- it will do what the senate bipartisan does -- as the democrats work on a series of proposals. there could be a dozen house republicans supporting this but i think they will watch what is going on carefully before they do anything. the house won't move until the senate does. >> thank you for laying it all out. we appreciate it.

>[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> live to the police academy. president obama will say there doesn't have to be a conflict between keeping citizens safe -- and he says there is no conflict in these realities." he has met with families of the victims of the aurora shootings and the colorado governor as well. eric holder with president obama. we will have the comments, live. dan phifer talked about gun legislation, optimistic congress can work something out but there will be consequences if republicans block legislation. >> the president is in colorado

-- and you will join him on monday talking about guns in connecticut. the air is coming out of the tough parts we thought were no- brainers. >> i read the stories that suggest this. not stories, facts. >> i rarely run into a 90% issue. some people in washington may get cold feet but the president has met with families on this and he met with mothers who mobilized -- the mothers of gun violence victims who were motivated by newtown. i think they are -- there are carnival rules and -- cardinal

rules, don't get on the wrong side of 90%. >> netwowtown may have changed america but not washington. >> they are an indicator on -- a 90% issue, we shouldn't have this conversation. we should haead to a solution. it is important of all issues, people talk about winners and losers. suggest this at politico. this is a life or death issue. are saved,'s lives some are not. >> what will the president do in private for kay hagan and mark

pryor and sen. landrieau, what will he put into getting tough votes? >> for the moment, newtown happened -- the president put a lot on the line for progress. he is making the case for these steps. working with others and -- here is what i do know. whelming democrats suppport it, underwhelming republicans. democrats are trying to do the right thing. the question is, will we get each democrat? we won't.

>> is the president going to twist their arms and go lbj on the issue? >> he is going to make a very aggressive case to anyone that -- >> is it possible the president -- >> we live in a world of divided government where the republicans have the hosue anouse. we have a world where the republicans make 60 fotevotes te treshhold. there will be consequences if they make the decision. >> watch that on our website, cspan.org. and we go live to the denver police academy. colorado instituted new gun control laws, limiting magazines to 15 rounds.

president obama speaking here. and likely beginning debate in the next week or so. we will have the president live when it starts. yesterday in a new nra report, asa hutchinson had the school shield report, that teachers should be allowed to carry firearms with training. >> we presented a model training rcegram for school resourch officers -- an enhancement of what they are required. 4-0-60 hours for school resource officers from weapons retention to coordination with local law enforcement. we also have prepared for the

first time i'm aware of. and designated personnel. this catches everyone's attention. why is this part of the recommendation, that we have this program? there is the incident in pearl high school in 1997, where the shooter went into the school and killed two students and wounded others. ther was no school resource officer. the assistant principal retrieved his .45 semi-automatic firearm, returned to the school and disarmed the assailent, ant, and that is on the assailent and saved lives.

the key is reducing response time. if he had been trained and had access on his person, he may have saved more lives. finding of the team did not have resource officers and they wer eplanninre planning tom school staff. when the inquiry was made, it was insufficient training.s chool schools are going into the program -- what is a model training program? not talking about all teachers. teachers should teach.

if they are willing to go through training of 40-60 hours, then that is an appropriate resource. the second recommendation is -- we have to adopt and consider thenging the law to allow firearm to be carried by school personnel. we attach a model state law to be considered. purpose of the states. >> follow that. back live to denver, waiting to hear from president obama to hear about gun control. yesterday, elijah cumming

traffickings spoke about gun legislation. this is what he had to say. > with 90% of americnaans supporting background checks, aren't there more parents concerned about the lives of their kids that are leaders of the nra and the membership by and large supports these members. what are the politics that allow -- to have these bills being gutted, by the national rifle association. what are the politics that allow that and how can we reverse it, and will we lose the opportunity here unless america figures out

the way to not pay attention to that thing. what can be done and how did you explain this? >> i am confused -- i am so pleased that you will have the opportunity to ask wayne lapierre that question. i cannot answer that question because i can only speak from my own reality. i do believe with all my heart, that when you have 20 children murdered, little children, simply learning how to read "run spot run." getting ready for christmas.

in, andone comes i said in my speech that there are certain transformative moments, and if this does not cause people to step back, and say that we need to look at the way that our country is operating, and do something about that knowledge, i don't know what that is, and i'll be interested to see what they say about this. having lived as long as i have lived and been in politics as long as i have, one of my greatest concerns, the arguments go back and forth and we end up doing nothing. we end up doing absolutely nothing.

have these transformers of moments, they are pregnant with opportunity to make a difference. and if we do not act in those moments, then things will likely only get worse. and i am helping -- you will not on the nra.ing up i want to work with them to bring about meaningful legislation so that we get something done. i want to deal with the bottom line and -- at the end of the session, do we have legislation? the arguments will fade into the universe, and the question is, have we accomplished anything? but wouldestion, handle that one off to lapierre.

>> live in denver, robert white introduces the program where obama will speak. >> a live impact on police agencies and those funds have been critical to the hard work of the men and women of the denver police department, helping us stay focused on preventing crime. as our country has dealt with financial challenges, it is assuring to know the president's administration kept law enforcement a priority and i thank the president for his uncompromising support of law enforcement. it is my privledge to introduce the president of the united

states of america, barack obama. plays]to the chief" ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you, everybody. everybody have a seat. thank you. it is wonderful to be back in colorado and in denver. i want to thank chief white for that introduction. you have some outstanding officials here today. i want to acknowledge them. a wonderful governor, john

hickenlooper. next to him, joe garcia, an outstanding lt. governor. one of the finest young senators, michael bennett is here. ousethe hosuuse,s , ed pearl mutter. and -- and your own mayer, michael hancock is here. [applause] you -- i want to say thank to the denver police for having me here, and for the outstanding work you do each day to serve your communities. out there iicami came

sat down with law enforcement, holder and the leaders i mentioned, the mayor of aurora, sportsmen, parents. loved ones. of the victims of the shootings in columbine and aurora. we talked about how to protect our citizens from gun violence. we've wanted law enforcement to shape the discussion. enforcement lives this every day. sees this --nt with lives lost and lives broken

and communities changed forever. they are often in the line of fire. law enforcement knows what works and what doesn't. wanted that advice. and we hear from mayors like steve hogan because he is on the front line and he is dealing with these issues under sad circumstances. i came to denver because f what isis a model o fwhat i possible. it is 120 days since the murder of 20 children in newtown,

which shocked the country and galvanized parents. toey said, 'we have ot do something.' more than 100 times as many have fallen to gun violence in the 100 days. becauseruck down, often they went around their daily route. anything special. just shopping, going to school. aboutday we do something more than one million

are lost to us a year by gun. the good news is colorado has deterimined to do something about it. [applause] >> this state suffered two of the worst mass shootings. 14 years ago in columbine and last year in aurora. treasures their second ammendment rights, with proud sportsmen and the governor says there is outstanding elk hunting. a strong tradition of gun ownership from generation to generation.

part of the fabric of people's lives. they treat gun ownership with respect. i believe there doesn't have to reconcilingt in these realities. citizens andcting our rights. i have stacks of letters from gun owners who tell me hwow they cherish their rights and don't want them enfringeinfringn but want something to stop the epidemic of gun violence. i appreciate each letter and learned from them. colorado shows practical progress is possible due to gov.

hickenlooper and some of the legislaters. with ais a purple city majority city council that came together to learn something had to make sense. will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people without infringing on gun owners. [applause] in january, a few weeks after newtown, i put forward some proposals along the lines of what happened in colorado to reduce gun violence. in my state of the union address i urged congres ts to give thema

vote. before we asked, i signed numerous orders. could to make sure guns didn't fall into the hands of the wrong people. congress to take the next step. next week, they will be voting. senator will vote on if we should have background checks for anyone wanting to purchase a gun. some say we have background checks. they have kept 200 from buying a gun. the loopholes that exist allow

too many criminals. -- they areo don't allowed to avoid background checks entirely. it is not fair to responsible gunowners who play by the rules. nobody talks about a new system. we talk about sealing the porous system that isn't working. if you want to buy a gun -- you background to pass a check. that is just common sense. [applause]

withg our last session gov. hickenlooper, he was in the midst of a passionate debate and some people said background checks won't stop everybody. but as he pointed out, statistically, a lot of folks have been stopped. law enforcement has stopped people who were convicted of murder, people who were under restraining orders for violent domestic abuse. and he mentioned to me law enforcement has arrested people wh ocame to pick up the gun because they were wanted criminals. this does work.

you want to know that tothe person you're selling won't commit a crime? these background checks won't stop all gun crime but will prevent some. most gun owners agree that 70% of nra readers agree -- and 90% of american people agree, there is no reason we can't do thsis unless politics gets in the way. there's no way we can't do this.

every senter wil have a chance to vote on school safety and help thsoe with mental health problems get what they need. and they will see if we can crack down on those who buy guns for the people who mean harm. r foruld make life safel those behind hme. me. if we should keep weaons of war off our streets. compared with a high- capacity magazine, it has the purpose of pumping out as many bullets as possible, allowing

that gunman to shoot 70 people. don't believe weapons for war have a place in movie theaters. withamericans agree that. [applause] >> most of the ideas are not controversial. americans support background checks that prevent dangerous people from having guns. most gun-owners agree. how often tdo 90% of americans agree? but soeme senators float the idea of obscure stunts to delay any of these reform votes.

won'tren't saying they the but that they will do vote on the proposal that -- the overwhelming majority of american people support. they say your opinion doesn't matter. we knew the change wouldn't be dosy and voices would everything to ignore the american people and collapse under fear and frustration and people would stop paying attention. the only time this is different is thie american people demand, this time it must be different to protect our communities and

our kids. [applause] we need parents, teachers, police officers and pastors, we need hunters and sportsmen. americans of every background to say, we've suffered too much pain to allow this to continue. wait for the next newtown before we act. majority of the americans, that is what they want, progress. a numbere conversation of people talked about -- the trust issue.

part of the reason it is so hard to get done is because both sides may not listen to each other. the people who take absolute theyions on both sides -- won't concede an inch of ground. told the story of two conversations i had, when michelle did some camiagining anpaigning and she had been to a big caoounty with a lot of farmland. she said, if i was at a farm in iowa, i'd want a gun, too. somebody just drives up in your

driveay and you're not home. you don't know how long it will take for them to respond. another conversation a few froms ago with a mome fro chicago, evanston, ill. whose son was killed in a rnadom shooting. she said -- i hate it when they say he was shot in the wrong place in the wrong time. he was in the right place, going to school. he was where he was supposed to be. now, both those things are true.

between ruralded and urban, folks whose hutning is aprt onting is part of theirs and folks whose only experience with guns is street crime and the two sides talk past one another. more than anything, what i want to emphasize is they are good people on both sides. but we have to put ourselves in the other person's shoes. if you're a hunter, a sportsman, if you have a gun in your house -- you have to understand what it feels like for that mom whose son was randomly shot. an urbanu live in

area, you have to understand -- if you were be like on a ranch and your dad took you hunting all your life. all of my experiences have been positive but for others, it may have been negative. we may get listening something done that is constructive. during this conversation, i hope you don't mind me quoting you, joe. he made a point that the opponents of these laws have

caused fear among responsible gun owners with nothing to do with the facts but feeds into the suspicion about government. i need a gun to protect myself from the government, you hear. we can't do background checks because the government will take my gun away. the government is us. [applause] these officials are elected by you. i am elected by you, constrained as they are by a system that our foundrers put in place, a government for the people.

so surely we can have a debate not based on the notion that your elected representatives are trying to do something to you other than potentially prevent another group of families from grieving the way the families of aurora and newtown or columbine have grieved. have to get past some of the rhetoric that is perpetuated and breaks down trust and is so over the top. that it shuts down discussion. it is important to say, "hold

on." if any gun-owners hear someone is taking your guns, get the facts. we don't propose a gun registration, but background checks for criminals. don't listen to what advocates or folks with an intersest rest say. look at the legislation in colorado and if we know the facts and listen, we can move forward. of congress members need to hear. many of the members of congress hold events from therir constituents. find out where your member of congress stands and if they're not part of the 90% of americans

who agree on background checks, ask them why not? why wouldn't you want it to be mroore difficult for criminals to get a gun or close the loopholes that allow them to do this without background checks, and why wouldn't you want it to be easier for law enforcement to do their jobs. many law enforcement members know what it is like to look into the eyes of a spose who has lost a family member to violence. knowlice officers, you there is no magic solution to prevent every bad thing from happening. you put yourself at risk every

day and you try to do the best you can to protect the people you are sworn to protect and serve. how can the rest of us do anything less? if there is one step we can take obligation have the to try? reforms keep -- keep murdering from innocent children or moviegoers, for? it worth fighting [applause] i believe it is.

thta is why i will keep working and giving my best efforts but i will need help. this is not easy and a lot of members of congress, it is tough for them. . those opposing any regulation -- are very well financed. it can be done if enough voices are heard. those police officers here to help every day, i want to thank gov. hickenlooper and all the families here for your courage in being willing to take out of this tragedy something positive and helping those people in

colorado for coming together in sensible ways. thank you, denver, god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. ♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪

>> president obama leaving denver shortly for san francisco. his secreatartary of state visis turkey and israel, working to help improve relations. next week he goes to london, south korea, and china. coming up tonight, a

conversation on protest groups as we look at "code pink," which made its mark interrupting congressional hearings. >> i am pleased to be joined by my brother -- >> i speak for the mothers. >> we will stop again. >> pakistan and somolia -- >> please remove that woman. >> the obama administration won't say which countries we kill children in. >> sen. feinstein. >> could you moveremove -- >> do your job. world peace -- fowe are making more enemies. >> please proceed. all right. i will halt the hearing and

ask the room is cleared and the code pink associates not be allowed back in. they've done this five times and five times is enough. protestors at the confirmation hearing -- we oepn oupen our phone lines and look at facebook for the place of code pink in -- >> that kind of protest is no longer effective, says matthew, but it injures your cause. getting underway at 8:00 pm. >> so she was out there in a way before respectable women did

not do. but this is a new era, when the women's movement is underway and interestingly enough, someone like julia tyler is conservative in some ways but breaking through the traditional way a woman should behave, she is doing it in ways other women are not. >> our conversation on julia tyler, second wife of john tyler, is available on our website. >> we have to take back media. independent media will save us. the media are the most powerful institutions on earth, more than any bomb or missile. the idea theat explodes on the scene but doesn't hapepen if

it's contained by a box, that tv screen we all gaze at. we have to hear people speaking for themselves. outside of the box. status quoeord the anymore. --the host of democracy now taking your comments nad tweet. live on book tv on c-span 2. hagel said the defense department will need across-the- board cuts that may effect morale and said the north korea rhetoric is a real danger to the u.s.

he spoke for nearly an hour. >> thank you very much. i am -- i am very proud. to be here, among all of you. who give so much every day. and continue to contribute to our country and making a better world. for a fancy general to give such an overstated introduction to a retired army sgt, his -- [laughter] >> is something that i rarely get but i am very appreciative of the generous introduction and

to you, general, and your staff, thank you for what you continue to do for our country and this institution, which i think is as important for our country and the development of our leaders but the leaders of other nations represented here today. it is one of the wisest investments our country has made and continues to make in developing leaders and helping other nations develop their leaders, not just on military doctrine but the princples and values of mutual respect and dignity and the rule of law. this facility, this institution, has done that effectively for many years.

and so i thank you all. of our leaders for training and education, they proceed in combat and in their daily lives. day you face decisions with real implications for our troops and our nations. i would urge you to keep three questions in mind before making a decision. first, does this help protect national security? is this in america's strategic interest?

our third, is this were the of the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families? these questions speak to the department of defense's most basic responsibilities, defending the nation, the advance in america's strategic interests, and keeping faith with its quiet heroes. how we fulfill these interim responsibilities at a time of unprecedented ships in the world order, new global challenges, and deep global fiscal uncertainty, is the subject of my remarks today. i want to focus on challenges, choices, and opportunities. the challenges posed by a changing strategic landscape and new budget constraints. the choices we have in responding to these challenges, and the opportunities that exist to fundamentally reshape defense enterprises to better reflect 21st century realities.

ndu is inappropriate venue for this discussion today because the success of these efforts ultimately rests on the abilities and judgments of our military and civilian leaders. those here today will make those decisions and those judgments. as president dwight eisenhower said during a visit to the ground more than 50 years ago, and i quote, the wise and prudent resources required by the the defense calls for extraordinary skill in measuring the military, political, and economic and social machinery of our modern life so that the greatest effective use is made of resources with a minimum of waste and misapplication. as a former army officer who graduated from this campus shortly before the onset of the great depression, eisenhower knew of what he spoke. the security landscape of 2013

is a far different character than the world of 1960, or even the world of a few years ago. but eisenhower's words still ring true today. the united states is emerging from more than a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan but the threat of a violent extremism persists and continues to emanate from week states and and govern spaces in the middle east and north africa. there also stands an array of other security challenges of varying vintage and agreed to risks of the united states. the proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials, the increased availability of advanced military technologies in the hands of state and not state actors, the risk of regional conflicts that could draw in the united states, the debilitating and dangerous curves of human despair and poverty, as well as the uncertain implications of the environmental degradation. cyber attacks barely registered

as a threat to a decade ago, have grown into a defining security challenge with potential adversaries seeking the ability to strike america's security, energy, economic, and critical infrastructure with the benefit of anonymity and distance. the world today is combustible and complex. america's responsibilities are as enormous as they are humbling. these challenges to our security and prosperity demand america's continued global leadership and global engagement, and they require a principled realism that is true to our values. the united states military remains an essential tool of american power, but one that must be used judiciously, with a keen appreciation of its limits. most of the press and security challenges today have important

political, economic, and cultural components and do not necessarily lend themselves to be resolved by conventional military strength. indeed, the most destructive and horrific attack ever on the united states came not from fleets, ships, bombers, or armored divisions, but from 19 fanatical men wielding box cutters and 1-way plane tickets. so our military must continue to adapt. we adapt in order to remain effective and relevant in the face of threats markedly different from those that shaped our defense institution during the cold war. since 9/11, the military has grown more deployable, more expeditious erie, more flexible, more lethal, and certainly more professional. it has also grown significantly older, as measured by the age of our plan -- of our force.

and it has grown enormously more expensive in every way. today, america's defense institutions are emerging, and in some cases, recovering from more than a decade of sustained conflict while confronting new strategic challenges. in doing so would significantly less resources than the department has had in the past. as this audience knows well, this process of change and a realignment is already well underway. it began under secretary gates, who recognized what he called the post-9/11 gusher of defense spending was coming to an end. under his leadership, the farmer were to reduce overhead cost within the military services and cancelled or curtailed in number of major modernization program that were performing poorly, or poorly suited to real world demand. the realignment continued

undersecretary panetta who worked closely with president and the joint chiefs of staff to craft new defense strategic guidelines and a defense budget which reduced the department planned spending by $487 billion over 10 years. even while reshaping the force to become smaller and leaner, this budget made in foreign investments in the new strategy, including rebalancing our defense posture to asia-pacific, and prioritizing critical capabilities, such as cyber, special operations, and unmanned systems. so the department of defense had been preparing for this inevitable downturn in defense budgets and has taken significant steps -- steps to reduce spending and adapt to a new strategic environment. nevertheless, the combination of fiscal pressures and a grid lock political process has led to far more abrupt and deeper

reductions that were planned or expected. now dod is grappling with the serious and immediate challenges of sequester, which is forcing us to take as much as a $41 billion cut in this current fiscal year. if it continues, we are projected to reduce spending by another $500 billion over the next decade. the sequestered cut, because it falls heavily on operations and modernization accounts, is already having a destructive and potentially damaging impact on the readiness of the force. the department has already made many cuts, including cuts to official travel and facility maintenance. we have imposed hiring freezes and halted many important but not essential activities. however, we will have to do more. across-the-board reductions aside we are looking at will demand that we furloughs civilian personnel which could affect morale and may impact

productivity. cuts will fall heavily on maintenance and training which further erodes the readiness of the force, and will be costly to regain in the future. as the service chiefs have said, we are consuming our readiness. meanwhile, our investment accounts in the defense industrial base are not spare damage. as we also take indiscriminate cuts across these areas of the budget. these are the challenges that face us right now and i am determined to help the department get ahead of them. general dempsey has said we need to read through this crisis. i have told our senior leadership, the joint chiefs, the service secretaries and undersecretary of defense, we are all in this together, and we will come out of it together. the task ahead for the

department is to prepare for the future, but not in a way that the collects, or is oblivious to the realities of the present. we are therefore undertaking a process to develop choices, options, and priorities to deal with further reductions in the defense budget that could result from a comprehensive deficit- reduction deal, or the persistence of sequestered. all anchored by the president defends strategic guidance. my goal in directing the strategic choices in management review, which is now being led by deputy secretary carter, who is working with general dempsey, is to ensure that we are realistic the confronting both our strategic and fiscal challenges. it is not to assume or tacitly except deep cuts, such as those imposed by sequester, will endure, or that these cuts can be accommodated without a significant reduction in military capabilities. at the same time, we cannot

simply wish or hope our way to carrying out irresponsible national security strategy for its implementation. the department must understand the challenges and uncertainties plan for the risks, and yes, recognize the opportunities inherent in budget constraints in more efficient restructuring. this exercise is also about matching missions with resources, looking at ends, ways, and means. this effort, by necessity, will consider big choices which could lead to fundamental change and a further prioritization of the use of our resources to retain that involve not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and practices, but where necessary, fashioning entirely new ones that are better suited to 21st century realities and challenges. all this with the goal of insuring that we can better execute the strategic guidance as set out by the president.

in order for this effort to proceed with the to be steely- eyed and clear headed in our analysis and explore the full range of options for implementing our national security strategy. we need to challenge all past assumptions and we need to put everything on the table. for example, is already clear to me that any serious effort to reform or reshape our defense enterprise must confront the principal drivers of growth in the department's budget, namely acquisitions, personnel costs, and overhead. in many respects, the biggest long-term fiscal challenge facing the department is not be flat or declining top line budget. it is the growing unbalance in where that money is being spent internally. if left unchecked, spiraling costs sustain existing structures and institutions provide benefits to personnel

and develop replacement for aging weapons platforms while eventually crushing of spending on procurement, operations, and readiness. the budget category that enable the military to be, and stay prepared. if these trends are not reversed, former chief of naval operations warned that pod could transform from an agency protecting the nation to an agency administering and if it programs capable of buying overpriced equipment. thanks to the efforts of my predecessors and other dod leaders, we have made an effort in this crowding out in this budget and future budgets. much more hard work, difficult decisions and strategic prioritizing remains to be done.

the political and institutional obstacles to necessary reforms need to being gauged and overcome gary i'm -- overcome. i'm concerned that pruning over the last four years that the strategy still require systems that are vastly more expensive and technologically risky than what we are promised are budgeted for. we need to continually move forward with designing an acquisition system that responds more efficiently, effectively and quickly to the need of troops and commanders in the field. once a that rewards-cost and efficiency so our programs don't take longer, cost more and deliver less than initially planned and promised. with full recognition for the great stresses that our troops and our families have and placed under, and been under for nearly

12 years of war and the contributions that civilian employees make to the departments mission, fiscal realities demand another hard look at personnel. how many people we have both military and civilian? how many do we need? what do these people do? and how do we compensate them for their work, their service and their loyalty with pay, benefits, and health care? these are tough questions from a such as what is the right mix of civilian and military personnel across the department and its various components? within the force, what is the right balance between officers and enlisted? without necessarily accepting the off stated claim that there are more than 300,000 service members performing civilian and commercial functions, what is

the appropriate distribution of troops performing combat, support and administrative duties? there will like lace -- there will likewise need to be a scrutiny of the command structure, most of which leads back to the early years of the cold war. the last major defense reorganization was during the major defense bill the been focused on improving dryness and establishing clear operational change of command. cost and efficiency were not major considerations then. goldwater nichols strengthened the joint staff and the combatant commands. it went about doing this by layering joint organizations and processes a top service organizations and the top hospices. the elevation of the former did not automatically lead to the

diminishing of the latter. today, the operational forces measured in battalions, ship's, and aircraft wings have shrunk radically since the cold war. yet our support structure sitting atop these smaller fighting forces have stayed intact. with minor exceptions, and in some cases, they are actually increasing in size and drank. -- size and rank. it is still not clear that every option has been considered to pare back the war office back office. the fourth estate consists of the office of the secretary, the joint staff, the combatant commands, defense agencies and feel that the beauties, the missile defense agency -- the field activities, the missile

defense agency. with respect to the fourth estate, former secretary of defense gates compared the process of looking for savings as going on an easter egg hunt. secretary panetta was more polite. he called the pentagon "a big damn bureaucracy of mine -- a big damn bureaucracy." it does not sound like leon panetta at all. [laughter] the military is not and should never the run like operation. but that does not mean we don't have a good deal to learn from what the private sector has achieved over the past 20-30 years in which reducing layers of upper and middle management not only reduced costs and micromanagement, but also led to

more agile and effective organizations. and more empowered junior leaders. in light of all these trends, we have to examine whether dod a structured and incentivize to ask for more and do more. that entails taking a hard look at requirements. how they are generated and where they are generated from. it could turn out that making dramatic changes in each of these areas could prove unwise, untenable, or politically impossible. yet we have no choice but to take a close look at how we can do all of this better. in order to address acquisition, personnel and overhead costs in smart ways, they have not been done before. we need time, flexibility, and support and partnership of congress during we also need long-term budget certainty. one of the biggest problem's the sequester has brought is that it is requiring immediate, deep and

steep cuts. this means that the department will by necessity have to look at large cuts in operations and modernizations to find savings to be quickly realized. the kinds of reforms the department needs in other areas would take some time to implement and take longer for significant savings to accrue. if we get time and flexibility to implement savings, we could limit the impact of spending reductions on for structure and modernization while still making a significant contribution to deficit reduction. i contrast, the cuts required by sequester afford neither time nor flexibility. these dramatic cuts would certainly require reductions in would have long been considered core military capabilities and changes in the traditional role in missions among the uniformed services. we will have to take a critical look at our military

capabilities and ensure that our core structure and modernization plans are directly and truly aligned with the present strategy. that includes taking a new look at how we define and measure readiness and risk. and factor both into military requirements. it also includes balancing the competing demands of capacity and capability. how much of any given platform we need and how much capability it needs to have to fulfill in real-world missions. the size and shape needs to be constantly reassessed come a mix of conventional and unconventional capabilities, general purpose and social operations units, and the appropriate balance between forward stations, rotation we deployed, and home-based ports. we also need to reassess how

much we can depend on our allies and our partners. what can we anticipate from them in the way of capabilities and capacity? and factor these calculations into both our short and long- term planning. a thorough examination of the way our military is organized and operates will also highlight our inherent strengths. including leadership development, mobility, logistics, special operations, cyberspace and resurgent film and. another course -- and research and development. another core strength is the ability to adapting. in the lean years between world war i and world war ii, during the great depression, a group of farsighted officers with virtually no funding or prospect of promotion -- you will

remember in your history how waare, amphibiousshor abt.ew assault, aircraft carriers, bombers. all of which proved decisive in the second world war. after the korean war, eisenhower looked into defense spending, exceeding 10% of our gross to mr. product while investing in our -- gross and messed it product while investing in our long-range abilities. as the military grappled with challenges to morale and readiness after vietnam, it also made a transition to an all voluntary force and made should

she just investments in stealth and platforms like the f-16 and the abrams tank. even during the 1990s procurement holiday, we invested in satellite guidance, in networking systems and remotely piloted aircraft that had been game changers during the last decade of war. the goal of the senior leadership of this department today is to learn from the miscalculations and mistakes of the past drawdowns and make the right decisions that will sustain our military strength, advance our strategic interest, and protect our nation well into the future. let me now conclude with some comments on america and its role in the world. during this time of budget turmoil and after a financial crisis, in a decade when our

country has grown weary of war and skeptical of foreign entanglements, questions arise about the merits of america's role in the world, america's global leadership. america does not have the luxury of retrenchment. we have too many global interests at stake, including our security, prosperity, and our future. if we refuse to lead, something, someone will fill the vacuum. the next great power may not use its power as responsibly or judiciously as america has used its power over the decades since world war ii. we have made mistakes and miscalculations with our great power. but as history has advanced, america has helped making her world for all people with its power. a world where america does not lead is not a world that i wish

my children to inherit. more than a century ago on this campus, while laying the corner store and -- cornerstone on the building that now bears his name, roosevelt declared that the united states had "the mere trend of events been forced into the position of world power." he went on to say that america "cannot bear these responsibilities are right unless it's a is coded for peace and justice with the assured self-confidence of the just man armed." what distinguishes america is not our power. the world has known great power. it is america's purpose and our commitment to making a better life for all people. we are a wise, thoughtful and steady nation. worthy of our power, generous in spirit and humble in our

purpose. that is the america we will defend together, with the purpose and self-confidence of the just man armed. thank you. [applause] thank you. >> if you have questions that are not too tough, i will take a few. [laughter] and even if a general asks a question, i will answer it.

[laughter] yes, there's one back here. >> hello, thank you for coming. jessica lynch from national war college. i definitely think that you will have the steely eyed vision to lead us through this difficult time. but i do have a difficult question. i do appreciate that you said that civilians are important. but why are we still furloughing? in case your divisors haven't told you, it is affecting morale. >> thank you first for what you do. and your contributions to our security. your question regarding furloughs, i wish i didn't have to answer that question. i wish we had other options. but the reality is that we are dealing with 41 -- dealing with a $41 billion shortfall that was

not planned for. as also noted in my remarks, many of the accounts where we must focus our readiness and our first mission, securing this country, those are a counselor we don't have enough resources. operations, missions, we have had to cut training. many of you in this room are aware of the wings we have had to stand down, other consequences. as we try to be fair and analyze where we take those cuts and we take them because we have no choice, and trying to minimize the hurt and the pain that these cuts are causing across our

entire range of responsibilities and, first of all, people, we have had to look at everything. we have had to look at all of the accounts. we have had to look at where the money goes. we initially thought that we might have to make some difficult decisions on furlough as long as 22 days. because of congress's actions a couple of weeks ago, passing a continuing resolution, we have been able to move some monies around with a little more flexibly. we still don't have a lot of flexibility. no matter how you look at it, we did not get any more money. so now we're looking at the possibility of furloughs up to 14 days. if we can do that better and less, we will, recognizing that morale will be affected.

but the tough decisions i will have to be made and we will have to make them are done on the basis of what we think is the most fair way to do this. but our readiness and our capabilities have to always come first because it is the first mission and responsibility of this institution, the protection and security of this country. so as i began my answer, which i know is not a good answer, i wish i did not have to answer that question. if we can do better, we will do better. and believe me, every person that the pentagon is working very hard to try to continue to minimize this issue for our civilian people. at the same time, i want to be

honest with you and not this lead you about the reason -- and not mislead you about the reality that we find ourselves in. yes. >> thank you, sir. i appreciate your remarks. i appreciate the news this morning that you yourself will be taking a pay cut as we go through this furlough. i very much appreciate the gesture. however, as we look into the future, you mention in your remarks that you are looking at strategic cuts that involve military benefits -- healthcare, retirement, how can station. -- and compensation. are those cuts imminent where they are coming as a result of looking into cuts in the future? >> it is their ability to

sustain the commitments we have made to the men and women who joined the military as well as our civilians. we make promises. this country makes commitments to people here in we will honor those. but i don't think there is anyone here today that has not heard of or aware of the fact that, if you play this out 10-20 years, we won't be able to sustain the current personnel costs and retirement benefits. there will be no money in the budget for anything else. as admiral ruffin said, we will become essentially a transfer agency. how do we do this now to get some lead time on this so we can adjust to the realities that we know are coming? social security is the same

thing. may care is the same thing. you can't sustain those programs, those commitments. we know that. but that is not the question. the question is how do you then respond to it? we have time to get ahead of it if we start planning for it now. that is part of the review. it's not new. there is no one in this institution that has not been aware of the fact that we would have to start adjusting in some way. but what i believe is that your immediate question, as far as immediate cuts to health care and so on, no, i don't see those kinds of things coming this year. we will go forward in budget presentations and ask the congress to explore ways where

it is possible to increase fees on different programs. i think that is fair. and i think that we have to look at everything. as i said, i'm sorry. i wish it was otherwise. but that is a fact of life. and the longer we do for these things, the worse it will be for all of us. so let's be smart. let's try to get ahead of it. that is the whole point of why i directed our leaders to come up with a strategic review. we have resources. we will continue to have resources. but we have to be wise in how we apply those resources. your people are your most important product. without people, systems don't matter. it does not matter how sophisticated your weapons are. your people are everything in any institution.

and you take care of your people. i am committed to do that. i think every leader here is committed or we wouldn't be here. your families, the commitments we have made, we are doing everything we have -- we're doing your thing we can to ensure that. and we will continue to do that. >> good afternoon, sir. as much as i would like to complain about a pay cut, i have a different question. you mentioned the pivot to asia. i am interested in what you think we could do to build a better relationship with china to help work on containing the belligerence we see coming out of north korea. >> i had a long conversation last night with the new chinese minister of defense. general chang. it was very positive. we talked about some pretty tough issues, starting with north korea, touchy issues like taiwan.

as i think all of you know, general dempsey's going to china this month and secretary kerry will be in china this month. as you also know, secretary of treasury lou was in china in the last few weeks. so we are continuing to reach out and strengthen our relationship with china. china is a great power. it will continue to be a great power. we have many common interests. general chang and i talked about those common interests. he have differences. we will always have differences. we have differences with allies. it's not differences that matter. it is how you deal with differences. you build a platform of a relationship based on your common interests, not on your differences. and north korea is a very good example of a common interest. certainly, the chinese don't want a public hated and combustible situation to explode

into a worse situation. it is not in their interest that to happen. it is not in our interest or in our allies interests. like always, relationships are built face to face. they are built around common interests. institutional interests as well as personal interests. and using this institution as an example, 66 nations represented here in this room, this is the way you build understanding with each other. this is the way you start to accept each other as a sovereign people, respect each other's dignity as human beings. then you work out from there. i think we can continue to build a strong relationship with china, with our differences. and there are significant differences. but there are too many common

interests for both our countries. and with why steady leadership, and i think the chinese have shown their leadership to the study, wise, careful, and the more we can exchange at every level, programs, especially military-to-military per grams, i don't know of a single -- military-to-military programs, i don't know of a single impact greater than building military- to-military relationships. the best example is egypt. i'm not sure things would have turned out the same in egypt over the last two years without that. you can't solve all the problems nor should you be expected to, but you can do an awful lot. and as i said in my remarks and

no one in this room has heard this for the first time because you all live it and in your capacities as leaders, military leaders today, as valleys have been, but especially today, they are far more than military leaders. your diplomats. your psychologists in your mentors. your educators. your referees. -- you are educators here and you are referees. you are school board chairman. you have many possibilities. that is real. that is life. that is what makes the difference in people, in understanding people. so i am a bit of far field, but i am a former senator. [laughter] i will hear about this i'm sure at a hearing next week. [laughter]

but i think it's relevant to your question. thank you. yes. >> good afternoon, sir. i am when the joy from the department of navy, he civilian. like you for being here today. what do you believe are some opportunities that we have to partner with the department of state, the department of homeland security, and in order to secure and protect our homeland given the state of our budget? >> i think the interagency relationship is always a key part of any agency institution carrying out its responsibilities. your particular question mentions department of state and homeland security.

many times, secretary gates sounded like the secretary of state. why aren't we rebalancing priorities and the resources at state where some of these programs should reside and used to reside? in my opinion, he was right. state has a very important role to play in our foreign policy, obviously, but also in the interagency relationships that you mentioned, homeland security, which, as you all knew, is a new agency. but they all connect. there is not an interest, not a connection point that doesn't affect all the other connection points that serve our interests,

whether it's homeland interests, economic interest, diplomatic interests, and military interests, energy interest, cyber interest, whatever. they are all connected in. omen security, the way it is structured -- and i was there in the senate when we rolled up agencies and the one -- has authorities in a rather significant for homeland security. we are still working through how we all work together. and that's ok. but i think another part of your question is how do you maximize and add value to each other for the bigger purpose and objective in this country? you are exactly right. you have just identified in my opinion may be the most important dimension of where we will all have to go as government leaders in this

country over the next few years and beyond. we have not been getting a return on investment. the taxpayer has not been getting their return on investment in how we connect our agencies and departments and how we work together. we are getting better. everyday we are getting better better, far better today than five years ago. but we are kind of new at this. so you can continually overload the circuits like i think we have in the last 10 years in the department of defense and say, well, you will do it all and we will give you the money good but you have the resources on the 20's and the management and the people, so on and so on, so you go do it because you can do it faster. and in all most every case get it done better. that distribution of labor and resources has to now be rebalance. because there is a bigger return that can come from all of that. so i think that your question is a very important one. it is central to everything that we will all be doing and

continue to do, especially you young leaders who will be moving into very important positions in your careers. you are here at a special time. you really are. every generation has an opportunity to reshape the world. but some generations really have big opportunities. your generation has a big opportunity to reshape things. and it will be you. this audience. yes. >> secretary, thank you. i am a student at the national war college. i would like to turn back to the

front page. if i scanned correctly the headlines this morning, you make comments related to north korea and nuclear capability. as i understood it, you are saying a specific level, where some level of nuclear capability will not be acceptable. could you elaborate on that ? >> well, i was misquoted again. [laughter] thanks for the question. [laughter] george little is here and he likes that kind of question. he is the assistant of public affairs. so keep your answers short, he says. [laughter] [applause] and deny like hell. [laughter] thank you for your question. i'm not sure i said quite that starkly. here is the point. north korea has been a problem for not just the region for many

years. the responsible powers in the region, starting with national security -- permanent national security council and japan have been part of talks with north korea for number of years. we have been trying to work with the north koreans to persuade them it's not in their interest and certainly in the korean peninsula's interest -- the south koreans have been part of this as well -- to pursue nuclear weapons. they have nuclear capacity now.

they have missile delivery capacity now. and so, has they have ratcheted up her bellicose dangerous rhetoric, and some of the actions they have taken over the last few weeks present a real and clear danger and threat to the interests certainly of our allies, starting with south korea. and japan. and also the threats that the north koreans have leveled directly at the united states regarding our base in guam, threatened hawaii, threatened to the west coast of the united states. as secretary of defense, and beginning with the president of the united states, and all of our leaders, we take those threats seriously. we have to take those threats

seriously. i think we have measured, responsible, serious responses to those threats. as you know, we are undergoing joint exercises with the south koreans now. we are doing everything we can working with the chinese and others to defuse that situation on the peninsula. but, as i said in a news conference last week when asked about this, it only takes being wrong once. and i don't want to be the secretary of defense who was wrong once. so we will continue to take these threats seriously. i hope the north will ratchet this very dangerous rhetoric down. there is a pathway that is responsible for the north to get on a path to peace, working with their neighbors. there are many benefits to their people that could come.

but they have to be a responsible member of the world community. and you don't achieve that responsibility and peace and prosperity by making nuclear threat and taking very provocative actions. one last question here and i will take one -- yes. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i am a kernel of the german army. you mentioned the generation of young leaders, especially foreigners who have the opportunity to stay here in your

country. for sure, me and my family will never forget this opportunity. it has broadened our horizons and deepened our friendship with your country. so my question concerns -- wouldn't it you wiser to have the same opportunity for my american colleagues, budget cuts, the constraints, make them stay here, not allowed to travel, to make the trips overseas and to learn about other countries? [laughter] [applause] so, if i may say so, if i were one of your advisers, mr. secretary, i would say probably delay the delivery of a warship or a tank or f-35 about one year until we have overcome this challenge and let them go. [laughter] [laughter] [applause]

what is your opinion about this, sir? >> kernel, you are well on your way to making general. [laughter] i don't know how i add to that with this crowd. that is a magnificent way to end this. and you all very much. [applause] >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] collects -- >> thank you very much. >> she was out there in a way, that as i indicated before, respectable women to not do. this is a new era.

women'sa time when the movement is underway and interestingly enough, you know, someone like j tyler -- like julia tyler is very conservative to a certain extent, but breaking through the traditional way that a woman should behave. she is doing it in a way that other women are not at that time. >> a conversation with historians about j tyler is now available on our website. ,> people always like to ask me how did you come across this story? people always ask me. what happens is you find a new story while you are supposed to be working on something else which can be a little frustrating at times. what happened to me. i was doing a little internet research one day and look at this photo. this is the photo i came across.

it was on a department of energy website. they had put up a little newsletter for one of the department of energy facilities and to this newsletter was saying this month in oak ridge history. because theree seems to be that beautiful vanishing point at the end of the room. i looked at these machines with these dials and knobs. . was so sucked into it the women just looks so lovely. they have the nice posture and 1940's hairdos. i read the caption and it said, these young women, many of them high school graduates, were enriching uranium for the world 's first atomic bomb. however, they did not know that at the time. >> this weekend, the lives and work of women in atomic city. one of the manhattan project's secret cities. this morning in washington, dan

pfeiffer spoke about the president's upcoming budget proposal. a few minutes of his conversation with mike allen of politico. >> today, the president's budget will come out. we are a little bit behind. there is a ryan budget. what does the president's budget going to tell us? doi think the budget is -- i not think it will be a big surprise to folks. we have seen the president did the state of the union and fiscal studies, he is clear about how he wants to grow jobs and deal with our deficits. what it does do is it provides a detailed roadmap of, you know, how are we going to provide more jobs by bridging brogue -- by building more roads and bridges? policies areal well-known. they have been talked about and posted on the web.

that's will be there. the reason the budget is delayed .s because -- we did not know ours is different than congress. line by line, how you fund every program. in the federal government, prior to very late on new year's eve, new year's day, it was unclear what the revenue budget situation would be. >> what is your budget about? >> our budget will follow the path of bipartisan budget commissions that move us toward putting us in a sustainable place. this idea -- i know this is the new, i read this and politico, the poll tested talking point of republicans. that is not what ryan thought thomas he did not balance the budget -- what to ryan thought, he did not to balance the budget.

slashing everything from economic growth to create jobs. what we are going to do is have a budget that helps the middle class and creates jobs and reduces our deficit. importance of balance? >> it will put us on a path towards the mutually agreed-upon levels that we should have. >> democrats on the hill tell us that they have been assured that a change in how we measure the cost of living to save money -- are they right? >> i will not get ahead of the budget. this is a very big day for reporters in washington. everyone looks at the budget coming off the printers. i would not want to ruin that for folks right here, right now. [laughter] what i can tell you is the president has -- the president 's offer to speaker boehner is on the table. that included, among other things, a change in cpi. fair to expect

that to be included in the budget? lex i will let you determine what is fair to expect or not expect to read what is fair to expect is that offer is on the table. this is not something -- our offer to the speaker is not our ideal position. they came to us and said, here are some things that we would like in a deal. we would like age 67, change the medicare age. we said, we did not agree. they said, we like cpi. >we said, we do not like that, but in the context of a deal, we will have to give something. on one condition, it has to have protection for the most vulnerable. for older seniors, poorer seniors. that is on the table right now. collects another senior white house adviser answered questions in a four of this afternoon. one topic she discussed was the

role of women in politics and the possibility hillary clinton running for president again. >> you were instrumental in helping to elect the first african-american president. hillary clinton is top of our minds in this town. how important is it to you to see the first woman president in your lifetime? >> i sure would like to see it in my lifetime. myay that for as much doctor and my grandchildren because i think we should constantly be trying to make opportunities available that not been historically available. at the beginning of our conversation and my position in the white house, i would hope in the next white house there would be several and that would always continue to grow. >> advising hillary clinton? >> advising her? who knows? i think what is interesting about the question is, my goodness, it is the beginning of 2013. why are we talking about the

next president now? can't we give this president a little more time to be president? >> i know. >> it is like the day after the election you are on to the next. [laughter] let's give everybody a chance to figure out what they want to do. i think the idea of breaking glass ceilings and making sure, as the president has often said, if we had more women in congress, it would be an easier time for women. it is regrettable that more women do not go into elected office and pursue careers in governments for a life -- for a variety of different reasons. i do believe if we can get a critical mass in the elected body then there are bigger things ahead for us. >> the columbia journalism review hosted a discussion on race, sex, and class. one topic they covered was the decision by the associated press to stop using the term

illegal immigrant. >> you wrote about it richard. the move away from a legal immigrant. that was a huge fight that was brought up at the journalism associations. i groups like applied research center. inl us about the shift newsroom policy. >> yeah. yesterday, the associated press announced that it was changing its style on the term immigration. and the reason why the associated press style is important is because that is considered the style -- that is , manyyle used by many newsrooms. the majority in the united states. because it is easier than creating your own style and it is readily available. everyone uses "associated press." they decided they would no longer use the term illegal immigrant or illegal alien or

illegal as a noun. they would consider these people people first. you are talking about people who are in the country illegally and use terms such as that. this has been a fight going on since the 1980s. language is political. it was interesting to see the ap responding after all this time to what these groups have been saying. we see the same thing going on with pro-life and pro-choice and affirmative action versus racial preferences and same-sex marriage versus gay marriage. these are people who are advocates for all of those for theithin the media

preferred term. to the associated press decide that being illegal is not the first foremost thing that you need to know about someone, that you are a human being first is an achievement. i'm protestingon in america. our conversation begins live at 8 p.m.. we will talk with david meyer. right now, a conversation with codepink founder, medea benjamin. >> medea benjamin, what is codepink? >> codepink is an organization that again after the 9/11 attacks with the idea that if we do our jobs as citizens to

mobilize and organize, we can stop something like the invasion of iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11. we created a strong movement of people around the country who did their civic duty of organizing, and yet the government at that time did not listen. we are still to this day trying to shift u.s. policy to focus diplomacy and less on more. >> why did you change your name? time ago.t was a long i was in college. every month i would ask my friends to call me something different. my name was susan and i like the name medea. she was a powerful woman. i thought, aha. i will recover that name.

i think it is a pretty name. >> we have watched you for years on this network at hearings. what you do at hearings? >> well, first the issue is getting into the hearings. i lived in san francisco. i lived in washington, d.c. for years ago. i never knew hearings were public. i do not think a lot of people know the hearings are public. the first is, how do get into them? most of the time it is a question of standing in line. i did a of standing in line. i was really exciting that there were such a thing as c-span that lets us hear these hearings. what is exciting is going to these hearings. many come to washington and get into one of those hearings. it gives you tremendous insight into how our government works and how it does not work. >> let's go back to 2007. we will run a tape showing what your organization does and get you to tell us why and how. here is 2007.

[video clip] >> i think no one really knows what the duration of the presence would be. i suspect the contracts operate under the coalition provisional order 17 that says the non-iraqi contractors are immune from legal processes if there accept pursuant to the terms and conditions of their contract. >> my upbringing tells me that sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman is immoral. that is what i was taught. that is what i believe. >> the hearing is adjourned. [gavel] >> thou shall not kill. thou shall not kill.

>> clear the room. we have had enough of this. clear the room. clear the room. clear the room. [gavel] that is enough of this. i have tolerated all i can. i stopped it before you were ever born. get out of this place. let's go. >> what did you see? were you there? >> yes, i was there. it is a fact that we are really anguished over what our government has been doing. we go to the region and we go to iraq and afghanistan and iran. we go to egypt, gaza, and we see

things for ourselves. we come back and see our government is in a different reality. the american people thought saddam hussein was responsible for the attacks at the world trade center. we went there and we saw people who said there were no weapons of mass destruction. there is no reason to go to war. we try to get into the halls of our government and into their offices. we are trying to tell them we should not go to war against a country that has not attacked us. we tried to go to other venues. some of those venues are congressional hearings. it is one of the few places where we can see our elected officials and get our message across. we get arrested all the time at these hearings. it is not fun. we do not take that lightly. i got arrested in a hearing of a judiciary committee for going

like this -- for holding up a peace sign. we do not do this because we like to. do this because we fill obligated as u.s. citizens. >> how many were in the room? >> about 25 people. >> who are they? your friends? >> many of them are people who have gone on these trips with us to these places and come back with this sense of obligation. others are people we have gone out and talk to over the years and empowered them to make their voices heard. many of them come from places around the country where they go into their congressional offices regularly and try to have meetings and do sittings in the offices. they sometimes get arrested in the congressional offices. they are people who feel as passionate as i do that the government has been doing a lot

of bad things that have led to the deaths of many innocent people. we mourn the lives of everyone who was killed on 9/11. we mourn the lives of innocent people in other countries who have been killed as a result of our actions post-9/11. >> how much in advance do you plan these? >> sometimes we plan than the evening before. often times we do not know what are the hearings that are coming up. sometimes you get advanced notice and we will have a couple of days to plan. they are pretty spontaneous. >> let's look at a hearing on september 18, 2002. this is the secretary of defense. [video clip] >> inspection, not war! inspection, not war! inspection, not war!

>> thank you, ladies. mr. secretary, we will put them down as undecided. [laughter] [applause] >> mr. chairman, as i listened to those comments, it struck me what a wonderful thing free speech is. of course, it is not the united states or the united nations, but iraq that threw the inspectors out. they threw them out and rejected 16 resolutions of the united nations and its stipulations, but of course people like that are not able to go into iraq and make demonstrations like that

because they do not have free speech. >> i'm really glad you found that clip. that was the first hearing i ever went to post it was in san francisco with my colleague who flew in from texas. it was two of us at the time. that was a hearing where he was making the justification for attacking iraq. we had just got back from iraq. the inspectors were not kicked out. they were there. they said there were no weapons of destruction. we were fair years to come back and hear the lies that were being given. what we did not hear the clip which were questions, how much money would they make from this work? how many u.s. soldiers would be killed in this war? i would like those questions answered now.

everyone laughed in the room. it was like we were fools, we were freaks. we were right. many people suffered. my heart breaks for the families for the american soldiers that were killed in that war. my heart breaks for the iraqi people. it is a country with a lot of educated people despite sanctions. yes, saddam hussein was a dictator, but they had free education. iraq is a former shadow of itself now. i feel the american people need to know what state iraq is in and what we did to that country. >> what auspices were you under when you went to iraq? how did you get in? >> we were a group of women.

we put out a call to people around the country saying, who would like to go? we did not know if we would get in or if the u.s. would bomb at the time. it was a scary time to go. we got a group of about 11 or 12 of us. we flew into jordan. we do not know if we would get into iraq. we drove across the desert. i'm jewish. we got to the border and a border guard took my passport and said, benjamin, is that jewish? i started shaking like a leaf. i thought, uh-oh. i'm in trouble. the tensions between iraq and israel were very high.

a half hour i was waiting and waiting and he came back huffing and puffing and said, i brought my notebook. i have been studying hebrew. i was wondering if you could correct my grammar. that was the border guard. i asked, why are you standing here? dying hebrew?ou stu when we were at war with iran, i studied farsi. now that we are at war with israel, i'm studying hebrew. we should learn to communicate with enemies. at was the first iraqi i met. we got into baghdad and we met a woman. she said, i love black women poets. who is your favorite? she started telling me hers. it is an educated country with wonderful people. >> how many on that first trip? >> 12. >> who paid? >> everyone paid for themself. we had people from the jewish community. everyone pays their own expenses on the entire trip.

>> where did you get the name "codepink" and why? >> we were on a retreat and we took a break. we were joking about yellow lines and red. we do not know what we were supposed to do if the alert change from one to another. without we need another code alert. that is how we came up with it. >> these hearing rooms, they see with pink. what did they say to you when you come into the room? >> the guards see us and they speak into their walkie-talkies, codepink is here. it is kind of silly, but they know us and that we are

committed to peace. the thing we do is maybe hold up a little sign. they try sometimes to stop us from getting into hearings. just recently i was in the judiciaries and they try to stop the line. i said, you can't do this. this is a public hearing. when they let me in, they tried to put me in the back room. i said, you cannot do this. this is the united states of america. we had to fight to get our way into the room and often times we get pulled out by doing something as simple as holding up a sign that says, stop funding war, or something like that. >> here is 2004. may 7. secretary of defense again.

[video clip] >> within the constraints imposed upon us, i have a few additional orders. >> fire, rumsfeld! fire, rumsfeld! fire, rumsfeld!

[gavel] >> the committee will resume its hearing, mr. secretary. first, beyond the abuse of -- >> what do you think the impact of that is? >> i think the impact is that it shows people who are watching c- span either in the u.s. or around the world that there are americans who are very passionate about these issues and do not like the government invading other countries that we should not in. at that point we were really trying to get out -- and the u.s. was torturing prisoners.

this was before the scandal broke. we had been to iraq. we had talked to people who had been tortured. we had talked to women who are crying and telling us what happened to their sons. we came back to the united states trying to meet with our congress people and people in the white house and in the pentagon and saying, how could we be doing this? the doors slam on us all the time. this is the one time we get our voices out there. some people see us and say, those stupid women and all bc -- and obviously there are men with us. they pretty see it. people overseas are watching c- span and are seeing that people are willing to speak out and risk arrest doing it. >> when did you get this political feeling in july? -- in your life?

>> growing up during the days of the vietnam war. i was a high school student. my sister is two years older than me. her boyfriend was drafted and went off to war. he was a lovely young man before he was taken off to vietnam. a couple of months after, he sent her back a present. it was an ear of a viet cong and it was a souvenir for her to put around her neck oh stop i was horrified that this nice young men had turned into what i considered at that time a monster. to think that something like the human ear is something that you would wear around your neck. that change me for life. it really made me feel like we have to do everything we can to stop killing each other. we have to avoid wars that are avoidable like the war in vietnam. we have to speak out on behalf

of looking for other ways, non- violent ways, to resolve conflict. >> what did your parents do? >> they were your typical, suburban family. mostly republican. they said, hey, that is the way things are. >> what kind of business were they in? >> my father was in real estate. >> and mom? >> a stay-at-home mom. >> can you remember the first time that you protested? >> before i protested, i do remember that one of the things we would do as a family every year was when it was hanukkah time and christmas time is to look at the needy families and i remember going with my dad to the store to buy presents for people.

you do not give away old stuff. you buy the stuff that you really want and give it to other people. in terms of protest, i formed a peace group in my school. we learned protest songs and we sang them. we organized protests at the high school. >> have a diverse time you -- how about the first time you organized in a professional way. what was the first that you joined or lead? >> i decided i wanted to dedicate my life to people who were poor. i thought if i went to school and studied nutrition, i could do that kind of positive work. i did that and i got a degree in public health nutrition. i went to africa and worked in

some of the poorest villages with people who are really struggling to feed their families. the company nestle was selling powdered milk to women who did not have enough money to buy the milk. children were literally dying in my arms because of the false advertising of a company like nestle. i got involved in the international campaign and it became the first campaign that successfully got international code of conduct against companies that were producing baby formula to stop them from doing such things as false advertising in poor places like africa. >> nestle? >> the swiss company. >> it was was your first protest against a non-american company. >> they would send people into the build is just as doctors and

nurses when they were not. ressed ashe villages d doctors and nurses when they were not. it was a code of conduct of stuff they were not allowed to do that anymore. that affected a number of corporations. >> we have watched you for a number of years on c-span when we see the hearings. how much of the analyzed where we are in the room? the science and some of them are -- signs and some of them are so precise that you seem to know exactly where the cameras will be. >> we did for a while try to position ourselves where we thought the cameras were. we figured it out. we had people who stay at home and watch c-span and say, move a little to the left or move a little to the right. what happens now is that the c- span camera seems to be just a on a close shot on the one person testifying and we do not get those opportunities very much anymore.

>> you think we are manipulating the cameras? >> we feel that the cameras used to give more of a view of what was happening in a room. we thought that was important. we thought that was part of what a public hearing was. if they have a little button that says, war, it would be nice to do a little span of the room. i do not see c-span doing that anymore. >> if you could speak with one of the directors in the room, what would you say? >> i would focus on go is not only testifying, but who is in the room? who cares about this issue? why might they be there? you have seen clips where we have gotten really rowdy. most of the time we are sitting there quietly. we might have a little sign. they might say that you can only hold the sign as shoulder length see you are not blocking the view of anyone else. i think it is nice or c-span to look around the room and see who else is there.

>> how do you know when you vocally protest in the room? >> a lot of the times we want to hear what is happening in the room. if there are good questions and good answers, we might sit there quietly. if they do not ask good questions or the answers are terrible, we might be compelled to get up out of our seats. i go to hearings quite often. most of the time we are sitting there learning in those hearings. >> valerie was testifying. this was in '07. [video clip]

>> i serve the united states loyally as a covert operational officer for the central intelligence agency. i work on behalf a national security of our country and on behalf of the people of the united states until my name entry affiliation were exposed in the national media july 14, 2003, after a leak by administration officials. how then can the president make the most important decision of all about the security of our country? i do feel passionately about that. you have to get the politics out of the policy process. >> i appreciate that. >> do you know the woman who was standing up? >> someone who is in the military was very upset about the invasion of iraq and came to spend some time in washington. she was very upset about george bush taking us into a war that

she considered lies. she wanted to get her message across. >> the t-shirt said? >> impeach bush. she wrote on her shirt. >> when did you learn you could not have any signs? >> somewhere online. >> how much do people on capitol hill, either the police or the staff of the committee or members, talk to you ever? >> we have meetings all the time with people on the hill. even today when i leave here, i will be going to meetings on the hill. we have been doing that regularly. we believe in and inside and outside policy. you do as much as you can inside talking to people and trying to get good pieces of legislation

and senators and congressmen to sign onto good legislation. i think the system is quite broken. you also have to work outside the system. mobilize hundreds of thousands of people in the street. thousands and thousands of phone calls and the petitions. the same thing is happening under president obama as well when we feel we have to do other kinds of outside action. >> you ran for office once? >> i did. i ran against senator feinstein on the green party ticket. >> why? >> i felt like she had become part of the machine. i felt it was an opportunity to get my voice out in a different venue. >> we will show a clip of senator feinstein.

this is a fairly recent one. were you in the room for this? >> i don't know. >> are you usually the room for these demonstrations? >> usually. >> do you meet as a group before you come to the hearing? >> sometimes we meet in line. it depends. >> what determines whether you will stay all night? how often will they allow you to do that? >> there are some things illegal that happens at all hearings. people pay for other people to stand in line for them. that is wrong. if you want to get into the hearing, you get there yourself. >> lobbyists. >> right.

they pay other people to get there the night before and take up all the space. they do not allow us citizens to get into. sometimes we have to go there to be the line standers. we have to get there before they do. >> on a normal day, how early do you get there? >> 7 a.m. when the building opens. >> this is the john brennan hearing for cia director. [video clip] >> i'm very pleased to be joined by my wife and -- -- in yemen, pakistan, somalia >> please remove that woman.

please, if you could please expedite the removal. >> pakistan and yemen -- do your job. world peace depends on it. >> please proceed. i'm going to ask that the room be cleared and that codepink not be permitted to come back in. you have done this five times and five times are enough. >> you had your hand with the sign. >> yes. i would like to explain the two women there. they had just returned. we had a group of 34 people who had gone to pakistan. we went to the tribal areas with

the u.s. drones are killing so many people. one woman came from san francisco to washington, d.c. right after being in pakistan. she wanted to have the chance to say that brennan is the mastermind of this program that is so inhumane. it is killing many innocent people and causing the u.s. to be seen as the enemy for millions of pakistanis. the second woman who got up and spoke was from indianapolis. she had also just got back. she was holding a list of names of children who had been killed with the drone strikes. we feel that we are the voice of conscience of the united states. we wanted to tell the people of pakistan that we do not agree with the drone program where our government plays the judge, jury, and executor.

we are not even acknowledging we are doing that. the women that you saw and the others that went with us to pakistan, i think they should be getting a medal for having spoken out against such an inhumane government program. >> what do you say -- and you know by now that people watching -- they say to you, they harbored osama bin laden. he was responsible for killing 3000 americans plus. this is the price that pakistan of harboring osama bin laden and all the other all qaeda people over there. >> it is a tribal area.

nowhere near where he was. there are constant drone strikes that have been going on mostly since obama came into office. it is killing people that we are calling militant and the u.s. is defining that by any male of military age. that is a lot a people. we are killing families. we met with these families. they tell us there is no one in their family that has to do with al qaeda or the taliban. they also tell us that the drones are circling in the villages, day and night. children are afraid to go to sleep and afraid to go to school. you are terrorizing an entire population. that is called collective punishment. that is not right. the nobel peace prize went to president obama. did he deserve it?

why would he want to kill innocent children? >> you can see that we have been protesting under george bush and now we are protesting under barack obama. we feel he did not deserve the nobel peace prize. he is shrouded in secrecy with this drone program. it is so anti-democratic. we are not allowed to see the memos that allow these drones. it is conducted by the cia. it is not a military organization. it is a civilian organization. it should not be in the hands of the cia. has aama administration kill list that they come up with every tuesday in the white house. they come up with every tuesday in the white house -- they have given the cia the right for strikes for suspicious behavior. you have drone pilots pressing a button and killing people 8000 miles away that they think are suspicious. >> did you go? >> yes.

we met with people who came in to talk to us about what happened to them and to tell us their stories about how they lost their sons and daughters and their wives and their husbands. we took a caravan and try to get up in the tribal areas. we had more meetings of people from the region. we had a rally. we had been told by our government that the taliban would kill us and we should not go into that area. when we got up there, people were waiting for us, thousands of people. we went out onto a stage and we heard them yelling, welcome, welcome. we want peace. we are the first americans may have seen in 10 years. we are the only americans they have been saying that your children are precious as our children. we do not want to kill your children.

we did more for the positive image of the united states than our government has been giving. the people were so happy to see americans who cared about their lives. >> back in 2007, this is another hearing. general petraeus is testifying. do you remember this hearing? >> probably. >> how many hearings do you think you have been in the room over the last 10 years? >> oh, probably about 100. >> why did you move to washington four years ago? >> so i could be here where our government is making these decisions. at that when obama came in, we would have a chance to end the wars and not getting into drone wars in such a big way. i want to have more influence.

>> did you vote for president obama? >> i voted for the green party candidate. 2007.e is a hearing from [video clip] >> all americans should be proud of their sons and daughters serving in iraq today. thank you. [indiscernible shouting] >> please remove them. >> no! no.

>> throughout the remaining of this hearing you will be prosecuted in the district of columbia and will prosecute them under the law. >> who is that woman they were pulling out? >> she had never been in a hearing in her life. she had loved ones in the military. many of the people who come to these hearings are people who have lost children in the iraq or afghanistan. they are very emotional. she was scared to death being pulled out. she has never been arrested in her life.

most of these people have never been arrested in their lives. they're doing this because they have a deep, versatile connection to these issues. often times it is a family member. >> i will read this and ask about it. to allow abusive language or engage in a disorderly or disruptive conduct that any place upon the u.s. capitol grounds are within the capitol buildings, with intent to or disturb the orderly conduct of any session of congress or either house thereof, or the orderly conduct with any such to parade, demonstrate, or picking within any of the capitol buildings. were you prosecuted after that? >> yes. the women who are arrested. >> what happened? >> the often spend the night in jail and have to go before a judge. they are sometimes given a fine of community service.

it depends on the individual cases and if they have a history. it is a lot of expense for people to keep coming back. >> do you support them legally, your organization? >> there is a firm that gives them pro bono help. >> have you been in jail? >> many times. we do not like going to jails. i do not think we should go to jail for this. i think we should be escorted out of the hearing and just be told we cannot be going back in. that would be punishment enough. >> what is your reaction when you see the chairman of the committee reacting the way they do, both conservatives and liberals? >> sometimes they are very nice.

there are many times we are just sitting there with our signs. sometimes they will say, can you lower your signs? you're obstructing the view. that is what happens in most of the hearings. >> do they ever invite you to testify? >> i have testified only once. most of the time they do not invite us to testify. most of the time i must say i do not think they have good witnesses testifying on these issues. on the drones, they have only had one public hearing on that. that was recently. i do not know if i can ask you a question, but do you think it is appropriate waiting from a drone victim at a hearing? >> we would be glad to have anyone like that on any of our shows so they can explain that. we do not tell congress how to do their business.

>> we wanted to get people to tell their stories, but we could not get visas for them. you get a very small range of messages out there. they do not allow people like myself to testify. they do not allow victims themselves to testify. at the hearings that i went to, the drones the first one they had, i could not believe the narrow range of witnesses arranged. i'm very disappointed on how most of these public hearings are conducted. >> condoleezza rice testified in 2007. here is a minute of what happened in that hearing. [video clip] >> that man needs to be removed without delay. and the woman across the aisle.

>> yes, sir. >> yes. >> it is a public hearing. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madame secretary -- >> what did the policeman say to you when they came to get you? >> the capitol police are very nice. in the beginning when we started, there was a lot of friction. they thought we were dangerous. now they understand. they are extremely professional and nice to us. i think they appreciate that

there are people like us who are so passionate about these issues that we go to these hearings and that we are sometimes willing to risk the risks. i must amend them for being extremely professional and not hurting us. they take us out. they respect us. >> here is more from this very same hearing. [video clip] >> war criminal! [woman yelling]

>> you are hurting me. what are you doing? >> how are you? great to see you. >> what do you notice? she was off talking to someone else and not paying attention. >> first, the police behavior, they have been criticized for that. they do not do it like that anymore. they are much more gentle. >> didn't you go limp? >> it is a tactic. they have changed tactic. they try not to hurt us. >> what about the woman charged with the hands?

>> this is a librarian. she is a wonderful and committed activist. very passionate about this issue. she also has people who have been in the military in the family and has been very upset about the invasion of iraq and the needless killings of so many american soldiers. she went to the hearing of condoleezza rice. the pictures that came out of that, those pictures went around the world. to this day when we travel around the world, they say, aha. i remember that picture of the woman who went up with the bloody hand and said, the blood of the iraqi people are on your hands. they appreciate that. they liked that they went to jail for that.

she is proud that she had a chance to speak up and say to someone like condoleezza rice something that we feel very passionately that the blood of the iraqi people are on your hands. >> people on a different thought process from you would say that you are -- anti-american. >> i would say that i am passionate. i love that i can go. there are many things about the constitution that i love. i feel that it is my obligation as a patriotic american to do this kind of work. let's remember people like benjamin franklin. >> what is the global exchange? what is your relationship to that? >> it is another organization that i co-founded. we started it as a way to get americans involved in global issues.

without that there are too few americans who have the opportunity to travel over seas. if you could help facilitate people to get other experiences like going to mexico or someplace like central america or wherever, seeing how other people live and seeing things through the eyes of other people, it is an important opportunity. >> how many years did you live in cuba? >> i went to live in cuba and fell in love with a man from cuba. i love the music and that great spirit of the people and the culture. i had some bad run-ins with the government and ended up getting deported from cuba. >> what did you think of that? >> i thought it was a place that has a lot of positive things

like the free healthcare system and education and the culture, and a lot of negative things like no free speech, no freedom of assembly, things that i treasure highly. when i try to use my free speech in cuba, that is when i got myself in trouble. >> when did you marry and what did he do? >> kevin and i co-founded global exchange. one of the main things we did was to import this label of fair trade label that you see now on coffee and on tea and chocolate to try to improve labor conditions overseas and in the u.s. we worked on a very successful campaign to get companies like nike and adidas and reebok and abercrombie & fitch to increase the ways that they were using

labor in places like vietnam, china. i have been very involved in those kinds of issues and i have kevin to improve conditions. >> did you marry? >> we are separated. >> there is an article from another point of view. i want to get you to respond. "codepink are not pacifists. they are revolutionary." >> we would be speaking with british accents if we were not revolutionary. revolution means -- there are a lot of people who would agree with me that our system is not working well. we could use a little revolution. >> "they are not dedicated to peace.

they are dedicated to turmoil." >> we have a two-party system that got us into wars that we should not have been in. they are using drone strikes. l.at ispo political tourmoi >> "they are not feminists in the ordinary sense of the term." do you remember seeing this? >> we get a lot of criticism. >> "women who have left in the kitchen for the street on behalf of peace. they are political operatives on a radical mission." >> we have a staff of about three people. i do not know how well organized we are.

>> "they are marxists and communists." >> if you want to be codepink, you can do that. you do not have to wear pink. as long as you believe that we need to live in a more peaceful way, you can join us in codepink. >> here is another example of how you protested in a group. this is in december 2012. you'll see what i am talking about. it is a press conference of wayne lapierre. [video clip] >> our children, we as a society, leave them utterly defenseless everyday. the monsters and the predators of the world know it and exploit it.

that must change now. the truth is -- >> nra, stop killing our children. >> the media demonizes gun owners. >> reckless behavior coming from the nra. the nra has a blood on its hands. the nra has blood on its hands. ban assault weapons now. stop killing our children.

stop the reckless behavior of the nra. we need gun control now. >> let us face -- the media has demonized lawful gun owners. >> where did you get that big voice for a little person? [laughter] >> the first person holding that sign up is my partner now. we should not have the kind of violence that is happening to our children and communities. we want to live in peace. >> why interrupt someone else's speech? >> nra is a big bully.

they are powerful lobbyists that are congress has been afraid to stand up to. they put so much money into the system. they take out people who do not vote the way they want to. we think it is important to stand up to big bullies. >> when you look back on the tactics you have used, what works the best for you? we will be there from beginning to end. what works? what did you learn? >> mass movements -- >> you are known around the world as codepink. something has worked. >> this is only a tiny part of a tactic trying to change policy. it can be assault weapons on the street. this is a tiny piece that inspires people to say, yes. i'm glad that someone is standing up to the bully. let's contact our congress person.

or stopping the use of the drone program. we want someone to stand up to say we do not want the government deciding in secret to kill anyone they want. >> i have a book in my hand called "drone warfare: killing by remote control" by medea benjamin. published by or books. who are they? >> a small publishing firm. >> do you feel like you are getting your voice heard? >> i'm going out and speaking at universities and churchgoers and community organizations, and my colleagues are doing that. right now there is a big movement that has been growing against this covert, lethal drone attack.

we are getting the word out. >> do you feel like the government has infiltrated your group? >> i know the government has infiltrated. when we get documents long time afterwards, we find out that the government has infiltrated our group. >> among you with the codepink t-shirts on? >> sometimes they do things that make us look the worst. sometimes there are government infiltrators. i do not really care. what we do is open and non- violent. i do not think the government should be using my taxpayer money to infiltrate my group. >> what do you not like what

your group does from time to time? >> sometimes the language gets negative. i go to a place of anger. sometimes we start singing. that calms us down. i didn't like it when we get too angry. >> which national leader or official in the government has been the nicest to you all? >> well, there are congress people that has been a great ally to us. one that i admire tremendously is congresswoman barbara lee.