i know that i have not resolve any of your perplexities, but my hope is that in the young people of today. i believe they can and they will bring to bear the strength of their idealism to right the wrongs that regretfully have been done or ignored by four generations and particularly my own." susan: earl warren, former chief justice's communication to his son. last word on what was discussed tonight. paul: earl moran's legacy is a mixed one. it is an example of criticizing the courts. once the justices become nothing more than politicians in robes we have bitter confirmation battles and the sort of thing we have seen playing out over the decades. jeffrey: what a beautiful quip. what a great name.

i love the god bless america. >> we heard the chief justice you can do the best job you could in the context of the law. time will affect decisions. you're suggesting it's time for us to rethink the technology >> i think it is. i think miranda could be updated and could be more effective.

there were at the love people thinking about this and hopefully, we can all come together and try to think about things like body cameras, video taping and interrogations. other things that would update miranda. >> thanks to both of you for being here tonight on our 11 of 12 cases in the landmark cases series. we appreciate your insight from the miranda case. thank you so much for being in our audience tonight for your great questions and comments.

>> our includes next week with the roe v. wade. justices ruled that the right is not absolute and states can restrict abortion based on the viability of the fetus. find out more next monday live 9:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span, c-span 3 and c-span radio. you can learn more about c-span's landmark cases series

online by going to c-span.org/landmark cases. from the website you can order the c-span landmark cases books, featuring backgrounds of each case. written by tony mauro and push published by c-span. landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping. >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. this year, our student cam documentary contest asks students to tell us what issues they want to hear from the presidential candidates. follow c-span's road to the white house coverage and get all the details about our student cam contest at c-span.org. >> coming up tonight on c-span, an interview with senator charles grassley on the impact of landmark cases.

after that remarks of joint chief of staff, general joseph dunford. another chance to see landmark cases miranda v. arizona. we spoke to chuck grassley on impact of supreme court decision. this is 40 minutes. it's an important process that we go through. supreme court is a powerful part

of branch of government. it's the least to worry about and the least powerful. they turned out to be more powerful than madison had indicated. in the final analysis i think the role of ours is to make sure that the people that are on the court are qualified. secondly, that they have judicial temperament to leave their only personal views out of cases that they decide. they decide according to the law and the constitution. basically, just to make sure that they do the job of being a fair referee of the constitution. both between the government and the people and within the branches of government. >> do you have a specific set of responsibles as a chair of the committee to view the court? >> i would say to make sure we have a fair hearing. >> what is your relationship like with the chief justice and

the justices in general? >> very seldom do we interring a with them. couple of times a year i'm invited to talk what's called a judicial counsel. i have a presentation with them just like the attorney general did before i did. it's giving them an update what we're up to in the congress of the united states. but it also gives me an opportunity to speak about cameras in the courtroom, which i know some supreme court justices don't like. i've been an advocate for it. i had an opportunity to bring that up once again so they know i'm pursuing something that maybe they disagree with. we will be the final determinant of that. >> that's an interesting thing to explain to people just to understand how the two branches interact and separation of powers. how can the congress be the final determinant of cameras? >> well, if we say that the

supreme court has to have cameras, they have to have cameras. i don't see how they can declare that unconstitutional. not only that, i do it in the spirit of the bill of rights where the cram has to be open to the public. of course, it is open to the public for those that can squeeze into a courtroom. i think that the extent to what certain cases or cases in the courtroom is open to the public on television and everybody has an opportunity to participate in that case. just like everybody has an opportunity to participate in the congress of the united states through the division of the house -- television of the house and senate. i also think that it gives people an opportunity to understand the judicial branch of government. i think what they understand what a president does, what a legislature does and congress does. i don't think there's in much understanding by the people what the courts do particularly what

the supreme court does. i think it gives people an opportunity to appreciate what goes on and in lower courts, i think it tends to make sure judges are more -- have more decorum. >> now there's criticism that judicial confirmation hearing particularly supreme court hearing have become politicized. i want to ask you whether it is more politicized than it may have been in the past. whether or not court appointments have always had politics? >> i think you would say, it becamebecame politicized with rejections. then there was an action with

breyer and ginsburg to be less political. that's why you see them confirmed overwhelming majority. then after bush was elected there tend to be a dramatic turn of events. mostly led by then people that were in the minority and led by senator schumer giving speeches about the fact that ideology ought to play a more important role in the selection of judges. it has become more politicized in that period of time. particularly for the supreme court and circuit court judges. not so much for district court judges >> is this a good or bad thing >> bad. >> why? >> because i think that if you go 200 years without selection of judges and approval by the supreme court being so approval by the congress being so

political, we got along pretty good. >> another question about the selection of supreme court justices throughout history, it has not been necessary for supreme court justices to be lawyer. you yourself, chair this committee and you're not a lawyer. unusual but not exclusive. i'm wondering whether or not these days it's absolutely necessary for a supreme court justice to be a lawyer? >> i think so. >> why is that? >> i know the law doesn't require it. i only think once in our history and it was a supreme court justice who was appointed by either by lincoln or somebody succeeding lincoln. i don't know exactly what year in person served. they considered -- they ended up being considered a lawyer. i think he was a medical doctor. other than that, i think every justice out of the 120 or so

have been lawyers. i think an understanding of the law would be very good. it doesn't maybe -- maybe couldn't do it. i i'm not sure i recommend that at this particular point. >> i want to dive into some of the cases we've selected. starting with mulberry. it is still being debated by sop of on your side of the aisle who believe that the court should not have judicial power. it it takes away the democratic process. what is your police chief? >> -- belief. >> my belief is when you have legislative and judicial u need a referee.

that's what mull bury verse -- malberry versus madison said. i think that as long as that isn't the final answer, the constitution has been amended to overturn supreme court decisions. in a sense, the people or the people representative has the final say if they want it. if would be wrong to say that the supreme court has the final say. in most instances that's right. any time there's an interpretation of law and congress have over turned supreme court cases by amending the law when they felt that supreme court interpreted the

law wrong. >> earlier, you referenced james madison. do you have a word to say about his view in the supreme court? >> i think it has turned out to be what he wanted. the least dangerous from this standpoint. they can't initiate action. like the president of the united states under the constitution or law is in our land. in the case of the legislative branch we can initiate anything we want to. >> next is the dread scott decision. it's viewed about the the chief justice. said it was a bad mark in court's history. what happen do you think about dread scott and what it did to the history? >> it led to the civil war. it was common sense that

african-american could not be citizens of this country. it was an insult. it was such an insult that civil war was fight over that. also becauses it going to spread slavery almost to any place in the country. it led to what turned out to be good. the constitutional amendment is one example of congress moveing ahead then has probably done a great deal of good over a period of time. based on case law which the court interpreting.

in most senses applicable to the states. what happen predictions there are on government and protections for the people. >> when we talked to senator leahy, he described the amendment to the constitution that came out of dread scott as the second founding of the constitution. do you see it in that scope? >> it it did the right thing by giving african-americans the right to vote. which they didn't get in reality until hundred 100 years later. it was in the constitution the right to vote and to be citizens of the country so that's vort

very already important. i think it's important from the standpoint that it for to every citizen a lot of protection against the government that bill of rights give to people of the country. >> ed >> it was difficult to find 12 out of all the cases.

>> that's basic that the revolutionary war fought for and why the constitution was written. not to have the government give rights to the people. the rights belong to the people. certainly those are given up to mutual rail benefit to other people. i don't think the 14th amendment does more than of the original position of the constitutional writesters -- writers. >> in recent years, as this issue has been so prominent in our society, you thought -- you suggested legislative clarification of the 14th minute. i don't want to get into the

mitts of it, but the need to reclarify an amendment. >> if you can do it my legislation to say what's subject of the jurisdiction is. i would try to clarify that. if i said, you got to do it by constitutional amendment you might as well ferc about -- forget about it. >> jump to 1952 youngstown company versus sawyer. you referenced that with regards to president obama and executive action. we found this on your website. you were talking about the guantanamo detainees.

the supreme court set a clear precedence establishing nose. to avoid a strike with the korean war. the court emphasize the exec isn't above >> the most important thing that a president is strongest to exercise his power when he has congress with him. in this instance, the supreme court made a decision that the executive power exerciseed by truman in seizing the tort chore. it's been used to justice cases

sense 10. going to guantanamo. it is frequently cited because it's a landmark case from the standpoint of the supreme court being a true referee between the branches of government and making sure that the president of the united states or in some cases, it could be the congress or leaving within the constitution. in this that particular case the most important thing is not opinions the eight justices the most important thing is the opinion that is so often quoted now. he is frequently quoted

particularly when there's dispute between two bridges of government >> there's an interesting side bar. that president trauma trauma program -- he got assurance that the case would be found in the president's favor. >> we talked about dread scott. james buchanan. i wouldn't think that harry truman would do that. if he did, i don't know whether there was any record of it. obviously, edidn't get right message that he want. >> this is a 1919 decision first

world war. it gave racist to that first -- i like to hear all the discussions about the amendment and our right to communicate especially if the digital age. >> let me give you a short answer to your question. you probably of a -- >> there are very strong rights that the citizens have under the constitution. there talent limits -- you're concerned about what that does in that exercise of free speech to the lives of people in might get trumped as you're running out the theater.

there can be some predictions. i have of -- it's very extraordinary to have any restrictions on the first amendment rights >> as a legislature, where do you begin to draw that line when people in the judicial, are concerned about their need to be able to follow ma people are saying on the internet person. >> what do you is, you got to find a balance. they'res there's unrestricted and freedom. you're trying to find the ambulance between -- find the balance on one hand. that's what you trying to find a balance.

it's difficult to find that balance. i think we eventually do it and i think post recent action bethe congresscongress -- finding that balance. wethere was a concern. you -- >> you had some interest to preserve the flag. people who believe the burning of the flag, for example is an expression of first amendment

right. what is your response to them? >> my response can only be that the first amendment was meant to protect verbal speech. that's an comfortable of -- i have to accept that. we don't. >> i'll move to another case. s miranda decision, 1966. we you -- you've had some. can we talk about how that decision affects the way we treat -- >> when people take up arms against our country, they are

company combatants. they aren't protected by the constitution of the united states. that's been modified that say at least have a rite of -- if it

hadn't been turned down by the voters of the state of iowa and the referendum, it would have been overturned baker versus car. which said both houses of the legislature or in the case of nebraska a single house, it has to be basted purely on one person one vote. that's the way 50 state legislatures now are determined. >> chief justice describes the baker decision as the most significant of the cases during

his tenure. which considering the cases during his tenure, why was it so important? >> it's been a long time since i read baker versus car. i'm not sure this will be pointed out by chief justice warren. this is the way i look at it. there's an obscure part of the constitution that says the federal government has to guarantee a republican form of government in each of the states. that's probably the only immediate control the federal government has over the states. republican form of government doesn't mean a republican party. it means representative government. he'd be justified saying, if you have ballot portion legislature so people aren't properly represented the form of government doesn't exist. in our state we would have polk

county with at that time, 250,000 people. had two representatives. i was a representative of a county of only 17,000. quite frankly the people of polk county were not guaranteed a republican form of government under the state legislature. that's why baker versus car was so essential. the only disagreement i would have had, at that time, i'm not sure i would have had this disagree today, based upon what the federal government done, one house based on geography and the other one based on population if each of the 50 states decided to do it that way, should have had the constitutional requirements. obviously -- nobody argues with baker versus car today. >> justice thomas said further clarification is necessary about

whether or not registered voters -- do you see any validity to that argument? >> no i think total population. i never heard clarence thomas give that argument. i would disagree with it. it's based upon people whether they vote or not vote. >> we have five minutes left. let me get to our final case roe v. wade. why are we still debating 40 years later? >> because big social change are made by the representatives of the people. it's something that started with dread scott decision. the courts were getting involved in social maneuvering.

they were wrong. by declaring that african-americans could never be citizens of the united states. that's a lesson for a lot of social change. just look at the successful social change in america that has been done by legislative body in a bipartisan way. social security, medicare, medicaid civil rights laws. these were bipartisan decisions made. as they've all been fully accepted. one that hasn't is roe v. wade. the division now is greater than it was when roe v. wade was

passed by the courts. another one would be obamacare as an example. done entirely by democrat votes. it argues it's an example whether it's roe v. wade or obamacare. you ought to do thing as elected represents. >> would brown v. board be an argument? >> that has to be accepted by the american people. it didn't take long. here you got to realize now brown has been modified by supreme court cases lately in the last 20 years. that has not originally, it was busing of children from one part of town to another. you had court decisions that said you don't need to go that far. even the court has made modifications of brown v. brown

case. >> we're about 30 seconds out of time. what do you want people watching this sears no know about the supreme court and its history? >> what i want them to know is get the supreme court televised is the entire people can see what's going on and have more respect for the rule of law. >> we hope to learn about the history of the court. thank you senator grassley for your time. >> thank you. >> on the next "washington journal," gene will talk about the debate of muslims in america. then a look the future of the affordable care act by congressional republicans to block funding key provisionses through the omnibus spending bill. our guest is alex wayne. "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 eastern. unjoin the conversation with your calls and comments on

facebook and twitter. >> coming up on c-span remarks by joint chiefs of staff chair joseph done forted. -- dunford. later interview with senate judiciary interview on senator chuck grassley on the impact of landmark cases. joseph dunford spoke out a day long security forum hosted by the center for new america security in partnership with defense one. general dunford discussed the current plan to defeat isis and how he plans to limit -- implement women into military combat roles >> it is hard to believe that it's approaching its ten year anniversary. we have dedicated ourselves to

try to shape and elevate the national security debate and to growing the next generation of national security leaders. hopefully you'll seen evidence of that today. a dominant pillar is to prepare the international capital for the next administration. less than a year from now, there will be president-elect a new commander in chief preparing to take the oath of office. from the fight against isil to the rise of tensions with china the next president will -- the inheritance will be daunting. there will be little time for in-- the next president will inherit the best trained best led, best equipped military force in the world.

there's bunch pressures that we talked about today and the pace of operation will remain incredibly challenging. we are privileged to have the quality of men and women who serve and who volunteer to bare the burden of keeping us safe. we're incredibly lucky to have selfless professional military leaders who have devoted their lives to shaping and sustaining our armed forces. general joe dunford is one of those leaders. he spent decades leading u.s. marines including in combat. he spent 22 months of his life in iraq where he personned the moniker of fighting joe. he served as the nato commander of the forces in afghanistan. he was called back to washington d.c. to become the commandant of

his beloved supreme court. quickly, the nation called him again to become the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he has a reputation as a no nonsense leader, a straight shooter with no ego. if you were to look and the military professional, that term in the dictionary, his picture is what you will see. we are so thankful here that you made it back from the pentagon and meeting with the president this morning to share your thoughts on how the u.s. military is confronting today's exactlies while preparing for a complex future. ladies and gentlemen please join me in welcoming general joe

dunford. [applause] >> thanks michelle. good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. i really am honored to be here and glad to be here. one i appreciate the flexibility on the scheduling. we did have unexpected visitor at the white house this morning. i've been chairman for just about two months now. i had plenty opportunities to excel on the hill and a number of other venues. i'm glad to do this. this actually is the first time that i'm going to share in a venue like this, my thoughts about the current security environment but probably perhaps, more importantly, what i think the implications are for the joint force. i'll share that with you.

thinking through that yesterday in advance of coming here. as i look around, i see a bunch of familiar faces and friends here. i think the process of being introspective and try not to put my thoughts together, probably was usualful useful to me. it was already. i looked a the agenda. i like to commend michelle what you've been talking about here today. i wish i could have been here for the session this morning. the issues that you had been talking about is the issues we're spending a lot of time speaking about on the joint staff. i think i got some plans out here some place. i'll be able to get some feedback.

i expect the current fight, the isil fight against extremism and fighting in afghanistan. shift to a other challenges that we have and really use russia, china, iran and north korea as a lens to look through to say what are the implications from other -- challenges we may have. that's how i will lay out my remark. in the end, i have probably what i think two or three of the major implications when i look at the current fight and i look at those future exactlies -- challenges i laid out major implications which will reflect now in my priorities.

there are many more we can talk about that. let me start with a quick comment. michelle talked about the fact that we have the most well led well trained force in the world. i really do believe that. i just came back from a trip on thursday. i had a chance to go through european command as well as the united states central command. i saw a large number of soldiers and the marines, great spirits. it probably won't surprise you the closer i get to the fight, the more spirited they were. they are pretty focused on what they're doing and pretty proud. i bring that up front, because i don't actually take that for granted. the one thing i'm mindful of, we had been running pretty hard for a long period of time. many of the young men and women that i spoke to are still deploying what we call a one to one performance. they're home and deployed about

an equal amount of time. what i said to them, i actually can't see a time in the near future where that dynamic will change. in other words in requirements to be what i believe they will be and the structure stays what it is today, that's probably a fair assumption, we'll be running pretty hard. egypt readiness is very much -- joint readiness is very much on my time. i would tell you that i do view readiness slightly different than i did at the service team. i look at the traditional metrics associated train organize equipment. then the third element of readiness that i look at is our

pasture of the force. those are the three things i'm paying attention to. michelle and i spoke about the people piece. there are really two parts in terms ready knowing. -- readiness. as we had it discussion about a month ago. whatever we end up calling it actually of first two years, we are reframing readiness a little bit. just to make sure that our dialogue on a day-to-day basis captures the elements. just making sure we have the right inventory and making sure on a day-to-day basis to be ready to respond in a timely manner. all of those thing are there. let me transition to the current fight. the fight against extremism is our prominent challenge.

that includes fight against isis and al qaeda and all the associated movements. with isil our current focus is against core isil and syria and iraq. i suspect most of you in this room are familiar with the nine lines of effort of strategy. it has things in it such as governance intelligence, finance and foreign fighters. i won't spend at the laugh time speaking about those. there is a military dimension. there are two lines of efforts that are focused on the department of defense. that's really what i'll talk about. the first of those we conduct strikes to kill isil leadership and fighters. deny them their sources of revenue. second critical element is to develop and support effective partners to seize and secure isil helped. right now, the military campaign

is designed to put pressure against isil across syria and iraq simultaneously. but there's differences on the ground as we execute. i know you all appreciate that. let me say up front i am not satisfied with our progress to date. i won't be until isil is defeated. i also want to say something because maybe the media would suggest from time to time, i want to make it clear within the frame work of international and domestic law our policies and instate, i don't personally feel all inhibited in terms of making recommendations to the president. we will continue to do that. we just came from a national security council meeting this morning. we had general austin there as well as general -- every meeting we've had on this particular issue has concluded by okay,

what more can we do. what other ideas do you have so we can have a discussion? i can assure you that i will be as aggressive as i can be. that's -- let me shift to -- syria. without a partner on the gowned, it's difficult over the past few years. it has been a challenge. if rares us supporting vetted syrian opposition groups that will take the fight to isil and seize the ground currently held by isil. conduct strikes not only against isil's command of control infrastructure but as well as sources of revenue. you might have seen over the past several weeks, we've a fairly concerted effort over

past several weeks. there are other elements of the revenue that we'll continue to go of a here. we need human intelligence. those guys will take the enemy to the ground. >> in terms of setting ourselves and posturing our ourselves provide better support and fighting against isil, that is our focus here in syria. the political transaction is going to have a lot to do with long term success. we'll focus on getting after isil's military capability. reducing the reigns that they have and disrupting their ability to conduct external

operations. in iraq, we have a pattern on the ground but the relationship is autopsy -- success is will require development capability and kurdish forces and enable their operations with intelligence advisors, logistics and combined arm support. we're doing all of that to some degree. very mindful of the complex challenges that we have. as i mentioned earlier, not satisfied with where we are until we're defeat. we are encouraged by recent operations in may -- we're encouraged by what happened in

ramadi. what we will do be we'll do a large number of things as we procedure isil. what we find, we'll force that success. we have started to see that again in these recent praises praise -- recent operations that have been conduct. we're being aggressive. look for opportunities and more importantly, increase the tempo and the effectiveness of our partners.

i want to get to the implicationses. i did want to frame what we were trying to do in iraq and syria. that will help prompt some questions. the fight against isil dominates the headlines we continue to face an enduring challenge of extremism in south asia as well. the constant pressure that we have put on al qaeda since 9/11 operating from afghanistan is the -- it's one of the most important regions why we haven't had another 9/11. thinkable that the continued threat, we have not eliminated

the threat. the focus has been on al qaeda to date, you all know it it's further complicated now by the shake state core sun -- it's even become more complicated. we also have islamic state there. president's decision to leave 9800 in afghanistan into next year. i think does provide us an opportunity to continue to grow afghan security forces, afghan security defense forces. the administration is very supportive what we're doing. including the conversation i'm having with you. we try to develop.

obviously, from that person -- we have objectives with the gani administration. we certainly still have work to go. in critical part of the came

moveing push. very important this summer that there will be a meeting in poland. on the agenda will be to resource the afghan campaign both from a develop and security forces perspective through 2020. watching that development this summer is going very important if terms of how we move forward. ultimately from my perspective key variables that will effect the campaign the afghan reconciliation process. vice president -- you all have seen in the the media president gani has had some challenges. we are doing all we can to support them. that's the resilience of that government will be one of the atetorstor -- we had a number of

challenges from state threats as well. former secretary of state you secretary of state kissinger said this is the most dynamic and complex security environment that he has seen since world war ii. i would like to describe behaviors and the capability development. they can get into a little bit of discussion. what i look at it, so pa. it has -- -- we're also closely

watching russian developments in space and in cyber space as well. i think you have to -- when you look at russian capability development, you have to look at it in the context what they have done recently. that kind of frames russia from my perspective. moving on to china. we implement our china we closely it's pretty clear -- we do

view their activity as destabilizing now. we exercise freedom navigation routine. in order to spend more time on the implications and question and answers, i will quickly skip through my perspective on iraq iran and north korea. when i look at all of that the aggregate, that is i leak at the

current challenges associated with violent extremism. i look at other challenges. the first implemental from me. we don't have a luxury to have a choice between a force that can fight the current fight against violent trep -- second implication is to how to most effectively. we need to develop more effective methods to billionly.

-- we need to send some time on that particular issue. it's a full range of instruments available to deal with these challenges. i it we have challenges not only to protect. we also needed to develop a framework in which cyber threats --that's the high likelihood

that. continue -- when i look at information operation cyber capabilities space and count space capability, ballistic missile technology. they have affected the characteristic of mod feel. the current fight against extremism is a transregional fight. let me give you another down student cup--no longer could you hope

to isolate a conflict on a peninsula. you look at cyber accounting. it's pretty hard a regional our current planning organizational and command of control is.

that is an issue that actually themes it of what's on top of my inbox, that's an issue that i'm really taking a look at hard. if you believe what i believe and you do look at the nature of the fight today even against violent extremism and look at the nature what the fight might be against pure competitors in the future, i don't think we'll be able to be as responsive. i don't think we'll generate the tempo and the brain. withwe are doing some things now. this will be an issue by the way

that will come up in the senate armed services hearings. he'll see hoar of. this isn't a future exactly. this is now. we need to do some things to if. characterrer and pells. -- i will not suggest a solution today. but to frame the problem. i'll stop there to allow for tame for questions. i was on for about 15 minutes.

what i hope go test. one of the thing that we want to have a mind towards for capability development for the future. if you asked me, what you're --

the adaptation are the things that we doing now. innovation is when you're looking fundamentally different ways to do things in the future. disruptive if you will. get tot to be able those toast -- -- >> i will ask you to join me in the chair. we'll have a few "q&a" back anaphor. thank you again for sharing your insights. i'm very glad you're able to escape from the pentagon and come over and join us. i wanted to pick up where you left off, which is talking about how the nature paper paycheck for hear. >> i don't want to try to push you towards premature answers. can you give us your thinking

about what kinds of alternatives or what kind of questions should we be asking ourselves? what kinds of of av lous? >> the first thing is the planning. today our planning construct, we developed regional plans. when you're the secretary, you aggregated those regional plans. we don't start necessarily, a strategy that take a has been the. if you look at russia, it's in the going to be isolated to whatever old plan would think about. from the very beginning, when you think about challenges, i think old plans need to be born

with view that it will be transregional, it will be a multifunction. the first thing is in terms of strategy development, i think it needs to be informed by the assumption i just made. we need to think about a strategy up front that takes into account. you're got cocom from where they

-- i don't want for a second to leave you thinking that today we can't make all of that work. is it -- from my perspective there is probably an organization. it isn't probably anker. i do. werethat's not currently what the joint staff is designed to do. i do think, this is all about

the secretary of defense. it's all about the national command authority. by the way if you look back at nuclear plan. now, i think you see some of the same complexity that we saw in other fights. we need a better way to get after it. >> very helpful. we saw a lot of this morning talking about the secretary's innovation agenda. i think there's a lot of support and the desire to move forward. we were really wrestling some

>> sometimes the objective becomes what can we all agree on as opposeed to how do we come up with the best options air alternatives to solve the problem. do. >> the worse thing we can to opening innovation. the theming i argued for, you want to incentiveize next. one we to.

doctor needs to be a viewen. some people think the more that we bring the services together that work on this, the better off we'd be. i'm exactly if the opposite place. i think that allowing the services laboratories, the organizations and some of the other even nondepartment think tanks and the universities that

we have relationships with. if we can incentivize innovation and figure out a way to catch the net over so we can live it and income a position done the pack end you try to figure out how to harvest those ideas. >> we heard some ideas this morning about force of the future which i think, people are interested in hearing more about don't fully example what is exactly ma -- if we're going to recruit and develop and develop the leaders and have retention. we need for the fouch. how are you thinking about.

>> one point that i make the current force from my perspective is not broken. when you think about young americans, somewhere between two or three young women in the united states of america qualified for military service. we're getting a good cut of people. when i looked at the cortion. michael it's -- i then i looked

at for 35 mechanics, cyber capabilities, some of the things that really do require years and years. for those of you who read the out liars, i can you it will it -- some of that takes a combination of training, education, and then experience. us to financial -- in my mind it isn't just a future slapped on to the entire department. it is looking at what is it that

we need to have both in the civilian and military force. i said let's look at the force next. let's look at each individual requirement. there are some other things i think we can do. we've always measured physical

fitness and measuring psychological resilience. it's another something we ought to have a discussion with. i guess summarize that, by say, force of the future is about being very specific about the requirements we from the young men and women. identify those. i consider maturation a combination of those three things i poke earlier about. training education and experience equals maturity. the force will be more part parer-- >> another human capital issue that's been in the news is the secretary's decision to open up all specialties in the military

to women. obviously, he has the benefit of hearing wide range of views as he head that decision. without controversy. you stated, sect -- secretary made that decision. can you tell us how that happens in the way that's more productive and constructive? >> what happened over the past couple of years was areas where where-- it wasn't because of the organizations didn't have standards, it was because we trained people and we didn't have to screen them before hand. in -- i have provided some input

to the secretary that he's alluded to for implications. i would frame it among these legs. i do think we need to take a look at the health and welfare of our people. i realize some people including some people in this room dismissive of physical injury. in my mind there is a real issue there. we need to figure it out how we can go back mitt gail ghaithing than had will be irresponsibility not to know now p we've had twice the likelihood saying, that's the price of doing thing. other thing we want to do, make sure back to the thing of the

force of the future, this is a will the more about advantage ended talent. i think the secretary guidance is pretty clear on implementation. he certainly tasked me with sitting with him as we do that. i think doing that in a deliberate responsible way is going to be a way that we can do what he wants to do. >> one of the panels we have this morning spent a lot of times think being to eternities in this-- you talk about posture.

as you think about a posture in the rebalance in awhat -- i asia. are there things you think we need to be looking at? >> some people think that the most effective way thank you deter an adversary that demonstrates his capability and builds up readiness back 8 home. there are others that would argue that wouldn'ting effect. but to ensure partners and

allies u need to have an effect -- in order to advance our natural interest in order to support our economic -- in order to provide the security in which our economic interest can be advancessed, -- advanced, we want to be available in the pacific. i believe a not only do we have to have the capability to respond with whatever. we need to be seen and feed. we need forces. so we have on a day-to-day basis, more physical presence that's there. i think it's really two things.

it's not only deterrence but it's assurance as well. also, clearly making sure back to my team, the reservoir joint capabilities is efficient. >> i'm going to ask one more question and then we'll turn to the audience. please be thinking of your questions for general dunford. one of the issues that come up on the hearings on the hill has been the sort of growth of the staff. i think oversees about 5000 people joins the staff and about 38 agency. there's rot of good and inspector. you're two months in, you spent

most of your career in the field coming back poo -- into the pentagon what's your sense of the headquarters where there's an opportunity for streamlining and adding additional agility? >> i was raised with if you have a problem you should start solving it. i do think about some of the discussions about the egypt staff is probably fair. >> there hasn't been a huge growth of the joint staff. the joint staff over time has begun to do things that i think we can probably walk away from.

by priority is to focusing the -- some of the thing that need to be done, i hesitate to say those right now because there's people sitting in jobs and i want to do this right and probably will do this some time after the first year. i can say this, to date, i have not had meeting with the joint chiefs what i would describe a title 10 issue. i don't intend on done that. for example, pay raise. i provided my input what i thought the pay raise would be. i talked to the chief, if you

thinkout achieve position obvious, -- unless there's an extraordinary reason, woe kef the demands of the egypt chiefs have-- joint chiefs have been driven by others. that requires a staff to help the chairman. those are some of the things that happened over time. despite the fact that people will say the organization isn't capable of making changes itself. in terms of using principle of alignment and divesting ourselves in things that we don't need to do, duplicate it or down to service secretaries

i'm all in favor of doing that. i thy we need to do bail. >> i don't want us to take the last 14 years and project that out for the next 15 or 20 years. we need make sure when we talk about commanders do or don't do, we talk about what do or don't do across the chain of operation. if you think about what i said a minute ago about transregional multifunctional, i don't know how we'll call something at the

four star level that's responsible for geographic command. that doesn't mean we can't make changes in our unified command plan. it doesn't mean all the commanders have to exist in their current fork. it doesn't mean the joint chaff calf has to trim work. -- i i have read what you written michelle, and i read some of your testimony. i do think the numbers are out there. we need to take a hard look at. personal experience a bigger staff isn't always necessarily a better staff. i not growing into the staff that i have. i was much happier as a colonel where i knew everybody on my staff. honestly, you have a personal relationship them and you move at the speed of heat.

when you have a larger staff it's much more difficult to come up with a process in which-- it's got to be alained to the function -- aligned with the functions. like to think now, we're willing to be as innovative as anybody else is. it doesn't mean we'll have all the good ideas. i'm not fighting to hang on to what we have today. i just want to make sure that we spend 80% of our time trying to solve the problem for tomorrow. then 20% developing a wired

diagram and talking about how big we ought to be. that would be my only appeal in this >> on the next "washington journal" gene zogby founded the american institute. look at the future the affordable care act and efforts by congressional republicans to block funding key provisionses through the omnibus spending bill. our guest is alex wayne. "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 eastern. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> today house speaker paul ryan and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell talked to politico about the current congressional term. see it live at 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2.

coming up on c-span, atlanta mark cases miranda v. arizona. after that charles grassley on the impact of landmark cases. >> all persons having business before the united states supreme court are asked to give their attention. >> landmark cases, produced in corroboration with the constitution center, exploring the dramas behind 12 historic supreme court decisions.