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. his fundamental concern was

translating the values of the fifth amendment to the modern age. the fifth amendment, concerned about thought crimes, not exerting psychological pressure. he ended by quoting my hero about how government is the omnipotent teacher and you can see that in his letter -- he thought the court has to be a shining emblem for what human dignity needs. >> 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. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

♪ >> our series concludes 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 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. an interview with senator charles grassley on the impact of landmark cases. >> thank you for giving us an interview. that may start by asking you about your committee's role.

what is your responsibility? we would have everything to do with the approval of judges. it is an important process to go through. the supreme court is a powerful branch of government. according to madison, it is 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. are qualif. secondly, that they have judicial temperament to leave their only personal views out of decide.at they 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 people and within the branches of government. >> do you have a specific set of as a chair of the committee to view the court? make sure wey to have a fair hearing. >> what is your relationship like with the chief justice and the justices in general? we interring ado with them. couple of times a year i'm talk what's called a judicial counsel. a presentation with them attorney general did before i did. it's giving them an update what congress ofin the 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. been an advocate for it. i had an opportunity to bring that up once again so they know pursuing something that maybe they disagree with.

be the final determinant of that. >> that's an interesting thing to explain to people just to how the two branches interact and separation of powers. thecan the congress be final determinant of cameras? >> well, if we say that the haveme court has to cameras, they have to have cameras. i don't see how they can declare that unconstitutional. not only that, i do it in the of the bill of rights where the cram has to be open to the public. of course, it is open to the that canr those squeeze into a courtroom. i think that the extent to what 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.

gives think that it people an opportunity to understand the judicial branch 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 whatourts do particularly the supreme court does. i think it gives people an to appreciate what goes on and in lower courts, i to make sures more -- have more decorum. >> now, there's criticism that hearing,confirmation particularly supreme court hearing have become politicized. to ask you whether it is more politicized than it may past.een in the whether or not court always hads have politics? say, itnk you would

became politicized with rejections. an action with breyer and ginsburg to be less political. that's why you see them confirmed overwhelming majority. bush was elected, dramatic turnbe a of events. mostly led by then people that the minority and led by speecheschumer giving about the fact that ideology ought to play a more important role in the selection of judges. it has become more politicized period of time. particularly for the supreme and circuit court judges. not so much for district court

judges 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 court being so approval by the congress being so got along pretty good. >> another question about the selection of supreme court justices, throughout history, it has not been necessary for 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 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 court was a supreme justice who was appointed by either by lincoln or somebody lincoln.g i don't know exactly what year

served.n ended upidered -- they being considered a lawyer. i think he was a medical doctor. that, i think every or soe out of the 120 have been lawyers. of the an understanding law would be very good. maybesn't maybe -- couldn't do it. i i'm not sure i recommend that particular point. >> i want to dive into some of the cases we've selected. starting with mulberry. being debated by sop side of the aisle who believe that the court should power.e judicial

it it takes away the democratic process. what is your police chief? >> -- belief. >> my belief is when you have legislative and judicial u need referee. verse --at mull bury said.ry versus madison i think that as long as that final answer, the constitution has been amended to overturn supreme court decisions. in a sense, the people or the representative has the final say if they want it. say thatbe wrong to the supreme court has the final say. right. instances that's any time there's an

interpretation of law and over turnede supreme court cases by amending they felt that supreme court interpreted the wrong. >> earlier, you referenced james madison. word to say about his view in the supreme court? think it has turned out to be what he wanted. dangerous from this standpoint. they can't initiate action. like the president of the united under the constitution or land. in our in the case of the legislative we can initiate anything we want to. >> next is the dread scott decision. it's viewed about the the chief justice. mark inwas a bad

court's history. what happen do you think about scott and what it did to the history? the civil war. it was common sense that african-american could not be country.of this it was an insult. such an insult that civil war was fight over that. going to spread almost to any place in the country. it led to what turned out to be good. the constitutional amendment is of congress moving done ahen has probably

great deal of good over a period of time. on case law which the .ourt interpreting applicable to the states. what happen predictions there 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 thesecond founding of constitution. do you see it in that scope? >> it it did the right thing by theng african-americans right to vote. which they didn't get in reality

until hundred 100 years later. in the constitution the citizensvote and to be so that's vort very already important. think it's important from the for to everyat it citizen a lot of protection the government that bill of rights give to people of the country. >> e >> it was difficult to find 12 out of all the cases.

thehat's basic that revolutionary war fought for and why the constitution was written. government give rights to the people. rights belong to the people. up tonly those are given mutual rail benefit to other people. i don't think the 14th than of thees more original position of the constitutional writesters --

writers. >> in recent years, as this been so prominent in our society, you thought -- you suggested legislative clarification of the 14th minute. want to get into the need to it, but the reclarify an amendment. can do it my say what's to subject of the jurisdiction is. that.d try to clarify if i said, you got to do it by constitutional amendment, you --ht as well ferc about forget about it. youngstown1952, company versus sawyer.

that with regards to president obama and executive action. website.this on your about thealking guantanamo detainees. the supreme court set a clear establishing nose. avoid a strike with the korean war. court emphasize the exec above important thing that a president is strongest to exercise his power when he has congress with him. instance, the supreme court made a decision that the exercised byer

seizing the tort chore. justice cases to sense 10. .oing to guantanamo it is frequently cited because it's a landmark case from the of the supreme court being a true referee between the andches of government making sure that the president of the united states or in some the congressld be or leaving within the constitution. particular case, the most important thing is not opinions the eight justices the the important thing is

so often quoted now. quotedrequently particularly when there's dispute between two bridges of government >> there's an interesting side bar. trauma trauma program -- he got assurance that in thee would be found president's favor. about dread scott. .ames buchanan i wouldn't think that harry truman would do that.

he did, i don't know whether there was any record of it. obviously, edidn't get right want.e that he decision first19 world war. to that first -- like to hear all the discussions about the amendment right to communicate especially if the digital age. >> let me give you a short to your question. a --robably of >> there are very strong rights that the citizens have under the constitution.

there talent limits -- you're about what that does in that exercise of free speech, lives of people in might get trumped as you're running theater. predictions.some i have of -- it's very extraordinary to have any restrictions on the first amendment rights >> as a legislature, where do begin to draw that line when people in the judicial, are their need to be able to follow ma people are the internet person. is, you got to find a balance. unrestrictede's and freedom. find theying to

find the balance on one hand. that's what you trying to find a balance. it's difficult to find that balance. it and we eventually do action betherecent congress -- finding that balance. there was a concern. --

interest toome preserve the flag. the burningelieve of the flag, for example is an amendment of first right. what is your response to them? >> my response can only be that the first amendment was meant to protect verbal speech. -- is an comfortable of that.o accept .e don't case.l move to another 1966.nda decision, -- you've had some.

how thatlk about decision affects the way we treat -- >> when people take up arms our country, they are company combatants. they aren't protected by the constitution of the united states. modified that say at if ite of --

hadn't been turned down by the voters of the state of iowa and referendum, it would have been overturned baker versus car. theh said both houses of legislature or in the case of hasaska a single house, it

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 it so his tenure, why was important? >> it's been a long time since i baker versus car. i'm not sure this will be justiceout by chief warren. this is the way i look at it. thee's an obscure part of constitution that says the federal government has to republican form of government in each of the states. the onlyobably immediate control the federal .overnment has over the states republican form of government party. mean a republican it means representative

government. saying, if youed have ballot portion legislature so people aren't properly represented the form of government doesn't exist. state, we would have polk time, with at that 250,000 people. had two representatives. i was a representative of a of only 17,000. quite frankly, the people of were not guaranteed a republican form of government state legislature. that's why baker versus car was essential. the only disagreement i would not had, at that time, i'm sure i would have had this disagree today, based upon what done, onel government house based on geography and the other one based on population, if each of the 50 states decided way, should have

had the constitutional requirements. obviously, -- nobody argues with today.ersus car >> justice thomas said further necessary about whether or not registered voters see any validity to that argument? >> no i think total population. thomas heard clarence give that argument. i would disagree with it. based upon people whether they vote or not vote. >> we have five minutes left. our final case

big social change off to be made by the representatives of the people. decision. the courts were getting involved maneuvering. wrong.re by declaring that african-americans could never be states. of the united lot ofa lesson for a social change. just look at the successful in america that has been done by legislative bipartisan way. social security, medicare, social security, medicare,

these were bipartisan decisions made. as they've all been fully accepted. wade.at hasn't is roe v. the division now is greater than wasas when roe v. wade passed by the courts. another one would be obamacare an example. done entirely by democrat votes. argues it's an example, wade orit's roe v. obamacare. you ought to do thing as elected represents. brown v. board be an argument? >> that has to be accepted by american people. it didn't take long. realize now,to brown has been modified by supreme court cases lately in last 20 years. that has not originally, it was

busing of children from one part another.o you had court decisions that said you don't need to go that far. even the court has made of brown v. brown case. >> we're about 30 seconds out of time. do you want people watching this sears no know about the history?ourt and its >> 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 oftory >> on the next washington journal, the founder and president of the arab-american institute will talk about the debate over muslims in america and u.s. strategy against isis. the we look towards

affordable care act and the effort by republicans to block key provisions. washington journal, live every morning at 7:00 eastern. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on face and twitter. -- on facebook and twitter. >> tuesday, state department --cial envoy for climate that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> abigail fillmore was the first first lady lady to work outside of the home. teaching at a private school. she successfully lobbied congress for funds to greet the first white house labor a great may meet the was marketed as a color and stores sold clip on

banks equal -- two women -- clip on bangs two women eager to mimic her style. the stories and more are featured in c-span's book, first lady: presidential stories on the lives of 45 iconic women. the book gives a great -- makes a great gift for the holidays. stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. share the stories of america's first lady's for the holidays. it is available as a hardcover or an e-book from your favorite bookstore or online bookseller. be sure to order your copy today. courtt week, the supreme

heard oral argument in fisher versus university of texas at austin. the court will decide whether race used in university and college admission policies is constitutional. abigail fisher is arguing she was denied admission because she is white. this is the second time that case is being taken up. it was referred back to the fifth circuit for oral review. this is one hour 35 minutes. >> we will hear arguments this morning in case 14 981, fisher versus the university of texas at austin. before we get started i will advise the lawyers this is our only case this morning so we intend to grant the parties 10

minutes of extra time and the amicus five minutes. so, mr. rein, no need to rush. [laughter] >> mr. chief justice and met please the court, and depreciated extra time. i did not rush up here to start before you invited me this time. in reviewing the fifth circuit's initial decision in what we call fisher 1, 7 members of this court reaffirmed that it clear precondition to the use of race as an admissions factor was the ability to satisfy what was called the demanding burden of strict scrutiny articulated in [indiscernible] she was considered for admission to ut, ms. fisher placed on ut by improving evidence of record that its use of race was first in pursuit of a compelling constitutionally legitimate interest expressed with sufficient clarity and concreteness to allow a reviewing court to determine

first that the use of race was --taking into account reasonably available nonracial alternatives. >> mr. rein, may i ask, if that were out of this case, and all that were left was the plan, would you then recognize if you had no claims. the university of texas has added on to the 10% but wiping it out and we have only the plan. >> i would question the premise of the question because it is not a gruder-like plan.

even in the aapia system it is not a gruder like plan. it is not aimed at a critical mass. it is not a gruder plan in that sense. that is not the case before us. when you look at the satisfaction of a compelling interest you look and ask, does my pre-existing system satisfy that interest, do i have a need to do something else and if i have a need to do something, -- >> assume need was proven. you are putting aside need. what is wrong with this plan if need is put aside? mr. rein: we do not oppose the use of the various pai factors

that was in place before this was added. justice sotomayor: i said put it aside an answer justice ginsburg's question. if they had to use race, how are they using it improperly? mr. rein: if you had to use the model that was created you would need to build profiles of individuals that would allow you to judge them one against another in the context of the class and the educational experience you are trying to create. justice sotomayor: that sounds like you're using race more rather than less. mr. rein: in a situation of the bakke situation when you are looking at every aspect of an individual and you're trying to judge one or another of the individuals -- would most benefit the class, the class as

a whole is a learning entity. then you can as it indicates take account of the fact they may have different backgrounds which would contribute different ideas. those are whole person comparisons. this system does not do anything like bakke. it is different even if you separate it. i am -- they needed to use race, there was no other way to do whatever they were trying to do which is not clear to me either. you have the question of whether that defines a legitimate compelling interest. the question of whether they showed necessity. even if i put this aside whether this is the narrowly tailored vision that came out is a very serious question. it is quite different. justice sotomayor: you have not answered why this is worse than bakke. mr. rein: it is not used to

build the class. it is just used to create a racial plus and to increase the number of minority emissions. justice sotomayer: how is race given a plus? i thought what they were looking for is leaders in diversity, not just of race but of experiences generally. mr. rein: i'm sorry but those factors were in the pai before they added race. leadership, and success out of school, overcoming obstacles and a single-parent family, those were all part of the pai before race was added. race was tacked on, a factor of a factor. it is a minor plus. do not worry. it is contextualized part of the pas which is part of the pai.

justice sotomayor: white people in some situations can show leadership as well as lack of hispanic or asian or native american. any race could then if it from this plus factor. so how is this worse than bakke? mr. rein: we did not concede that and we would not. the other pai factors might benefit anyone of any race. people's circumstances, their leadership, their community efforts, they are universal and they can benefit any candidate but they do not benefit from the race factor. that was designed to benefit -- justice ginsburg: race was a factor. race itself was a factor, that

is why i find it very hard to distinguish what the university is doing apart from the 10% plan. let me ask you about the 10% plan itself because it seems to me that is so obviously driven by one thing only and that thing is race. it is totally dependent upon having racially segregated neighborhoods. racially segregated schools, and this is a disincentive for minority students to step out of that segregated community. an attempt to get an integrated education. >> the top 10 plan does not classify anybody by race. it addresses only standing within the texas education system. you say work it works on a number of fronts.

it creates geographic diversity. it looks all over texas. it does not distinguish between high schools. it creates socioeconomic diversity. it does have a demonstrated effect on race because a number of minorities are admitted under the top 10 program but it is not based on race, it is based on race, it is based on that degree of effort you make relative to the other people with whom you're being -- justice ginsburg: is there any doubt it was created to increase the amount of minority students? mr. rein: it is a democratic recognition that you want to invite people from all over texas regardless of the school they went to. you are looking for those who are trying the hardest, who are doing the best, who excel in their environment.

it was recreated in the wake of hopwood. justice kennedy: defining a neutral framework within which to satisfy the state's and the university's objectives. mr. rein: it was created and in part because certain schools to have minorities. the idea was that would benefit those schools just as it would benefit a rural all-white school which would have very great difficulty placing its students at the university of texas. justice kennedy: schools are -- can you give an example of what in your view would be a concrete criterion or set of criteria to achieve diversity?

mr. rein: the solicitor general has attempted to do so by breaking down the abstract goals into concrete objectives. one goal that -- if you have studied your campus and you believe there is an in adequate exchange of views and minorities feel so isolated they cannot properly bring to bear their perspective on the campus, you can look at measures of how successful are we in this kind of dialogue and try to investigate that and try to say ok, is there a level, when do we reach a level of critical mass which is -- where that exchange is taking place in our campus, that is one measure. justice kennedy: how do you do that? it is not our job to do it. if one wanted to find this kind of concrete level, we are not saying quota. we are saying that if you want to use this forbidden tool, this odious classification, you have

to find a way to do it. you have to explain what your concrete objective is. justice scalia: at what point do you have enough of a mass? what did the university base it on? mr. rein: the university based it one two things. the demographics of the graduating class which is measurable but not legitimate. it claimed it was basing it on this classroom small class study which they had conducted previously, which indicated that minorities were not present to

their satisfaction in a lot of small. justice scalia: what do they base their satisfaction, on what do they base, 15%, 20%, or what? mr. rein: they promised it on good faith. that was accepted and the court said good faith does not suffice. justice sotomayor: i thought the study they showed that in 1986 they had more participation in these smaller classes, i do not know if they were small when they were somewhere between eight and 25 people. that was -- there were more of those classes in 1996 than in 2003 or 2002 when they were looking at that study. it would seem to me that that suggests there is less what they took from it, that there is less exchange of ideas in a classroom rather than more, based on this race-neutral policy. since you have to infer these things, you cannot use a quota. you are saying we -- they cannot

use demographics so they use a study that shows there is less classes, there is less people in classes, they talk to administrators, faculty, and students. they are having racial incidents on campus where students of color are complaining that they feel isolated, that stereotyping is going on on campus. what more do they need? mr. rein: let me start with your first concern which is this classroom study. first thing i would observe about it if i were in their position and i am not is that the second study was done at a time when there were more minorities admitted then the first study and they claimed it went backwards. that might tell me right away that the problem, the necessity

for using race could not be demonstrated for that. justice breyer: it sounds like a cloud of you do not know what they are talking. as i read further in to it, it becomes quite specific. 75% of the students are at this university because they were in the top 10% of their class. it does not take long before students and faculty in particular situations know who is who. 25% of the students in that class are admitted because they are good students, not in the top 10% on the basis of leadership, activities, awards, work experience, family us economic status, school status, family responsibility, single-parent home, languages other than english spoken at home, s.a.t. scores and race occasionally create we're talking about that 25%. it will not take long before students in a class see that in

that 25% which means you're not just in the top 10% of your class, in that 25%, there is hardly anybody who is african-american or hispanic. 25% has occasionally -- is it someone that is a minority. if you have to say why does that -- is that not a diversity related judgment of what is necessary. mr. rein: one thing your question establishes quite clearly is the one assumes premises from those that do not

exist coming you can perhaps draw conclusions that are not valid. people are admitted in here, youe pai -- have the most wonderful pai and never come close to admission because they use the ai independently. every school in the country is like that. a combination of grades, classes, and a lot of other things. i am talking about people who are not admitted solely on the basis of class ranking. mr. rein: then you assume that people can identify them one from the other. does anyoneia: other than the faculty know who this elite 25% is?

admissionthe level of by a aip -- done aaip. totice alito: i would like come back to the issue of classroom diversity. thee there is evidence in record that measures it. i don't know kerry the university knows which students, even if assuming the students do not do -- do not know, the university knows who were admitted from the top 10% and who were not. presumably, they have a record for all of the classes. it would seem to me to be possible to determine whether the students who were admitted under the 10% plan were less likely to choose to enroll in

the classes in which minorities are underrepresented. maybe that is in the record. i have not found it. is there anything in the record to show it? not studythey did that specifically when they did the classroom study. they did not try to distinguish who was in the class. they counted african-american students and hispanic students as well as patients. the i beginedy: with a procedural point. to the object university's request that this case be remanded to the district court? that theeem to me

litigants and this court have been denied the advantage and the perspective that would be gained if there would be additional fact-finding under the instructions that fisher thought to give. we are arguing the same case. nothing has happened. me that this is the kind of thing that we should know but we do not know. mr. rein: let me point out that nameurpose of strict group is not just -- the purpose of strict scrutiny is not just to adjudicate. if you are going to depend on them, you ought to study them and know them. the failure is not because they did not put it in -- they weren'tdy:

given the chance to add additional evidence in order to meet that standard. mr. rein: have they put in all of the evidence -- justice kennedy: to answer the questions like justice alito has. i think it is an important point. mr. rein: they would have to go back and study the conditions at the time they made the decision. i think that the failure to do that kind of thing indicates that the -- justice kennedy: also the failure to put it in. it was their burden to put it in, wasn't it? so we are going to say that they failed to put thin and we should give them another chance that they failed to put it -- they failed to put it in. fairness, they knew they needed to do strict

scrutiny. the evidence we did find in the record indicated that where the most selective schools were concerned, more of the top 10 minorities enrolled in that -- justice alito: the issue in this case is not that the university can have holistic review. race as and additional characteristic. would there be any way of determining if there were a remand, which of the non-top 10 s were admitted solely because of race. they would not have been admitted taking into account leadership, socioeconomic background and hardship. the answer is no according to the university of texas.

they cannot make that determination because in their view, race is contextual. you cannot sort out those who could have made it without race from those who didn't. and in response to justice prior as fact of record, to the indication of race, 50% of the non-top 10 hits -- admits were minorities that later benefited from grace. race.m if you try to measure it, it was very small. i can think of reasons for that. they could not put that in. they denied that you could ever identify those students so it would be a fruitless pursuit. justice roberts: the number of

students who were admitted for race. mr. rein: there is no perfect answer for that. we looked at the historic. --which they were looking using the pai without reference to race. we compared that to the -- it was admitted about a 2.5% difference. a very small. number ofberts: minorities admitted. could measure it either way, by enrollment or admission. it is a very small increment. i can ask your: friend on the other side. judge garza premised it. --

-- ice scalia: mr. rein: what you are trying to measure is to what extent does the use of race boost over the use of pai -- roberts: the benefit of the program turns out not to be worth the very difficult decision to allow race to be considered. day, ite end of the generates a certain number. i'm trying to figure out what that number is. mr. rein: there is no perfect measurement. they are not running simultaneously. toyou tried to look at it -- do it by looking at the results it is under 3%.

justice sotomayer: it went from 11.6 to 16.9. is thatthink that that small of a change. in 2008, 20% of black students and 50% of all hispanic students were offered admission for holistic review. black and hispanic admission and enrollment rates have increased since 2005. this is on holistic review. 2008 at exception was that was because 92% of the class came in under the 10% plan. mr. rein: that incorporates the ones who would have made it

without race. it is not a valid comparative number. it ones who would have made -- those numbers really do not show you anything about the effect of race. if the 2004mayer: number was that much lower than the 2007 number, race has to have some input in that. mr. rein: it has some effect and that is what ut says. justice sotomayer: may i ask you a different question. something. i know there is an educational of a 10% the benefits plan. i don't want to get into that debate but i do have a worry. reading proof of a

compelling need, or proof of a --will any holistic review ever survive? . am reading your answer tailored, schools have to use nonracial means of doing it. the 10% plan is the only thing that achieves a greater number in minorities. every school has to use the 10% plan? where are not trying to dictate that every school use a 10% plan nor is it the only way that you can encourage and increase minority enrollment. i don't accept that premise. strict scrutiny is a heavy burden. the purpose of strict scrutiny is to recognize that -- justice sotomayer: your answer is yes. the only other race controlled way is offering scholarships

which this university did, increasing outreach to minority neighborhoods, they did and continue to do, there is a list of about 6-8 other think that they did that didn't increase the admission of minorities. mr. rein: there are many other things they could do. we are not trying to tell them how to run it. one of the things they could do, even in the pai, a recognized that by emphasizing the two as a scores which are strictly composition, grammar -- that is as culturally biased as you could get. it makes it difficult for those who have gone through an inferior secondary program. they cut that score to three. it could cut it to two. and say we are going to take those further into account

because they apply equally without regard to race. there are many things that they could do -- suppose we do: send it back to the district court. and put in more evidence. suppose we do that. and suppose they start with the basic plan where we want to use race. you have seen the chart and i have seen the church. oner factors that are through 12. at the bottom of the chart, is the word race. race. evidence in your opinion could they or anyone else with any roughly similar plan put in that would show in your view that this is constitutional?

mr. rein: you have -- mr. rein: you have the example of justice powell's opinion. if you are comparing individuals one to another that you take account of the persons race. it is part of the exercise. you don't isolated. he says depending on where the class stands and the overall composition of the learning entity, you may choose letter a, or letter b, or c. -- the bakke system is not at issue. i am saying that you do not have to -- you can achieve this small increment of under 3%.

a number of alternatives would give the same boost. justice breyer: you should look at the two folders and if it is a tiebreaker, use race. is that there are several others. it would be helpful if you can summarize them so i get an idea --what the others are your the others are. mr. rein: -- justice breyer: i want to know which are the things that they can do that would be ok. i am trying to find out. fatal in fact. what are the things in your view that they could do so it is not fatal in fact. mr. rein: they could shape their system or towards the bakke system and move towards individual consideration.

that is not fatal in fact because this court endorsed the view that justice powell took of the harvard system in bakke. expand the top 10. that is another alternative that is available. you says thatyer: -- you said the top 10 does not use race. it was a factor in router. saying that it -- be a factor only if we are not talking about neutral factors. mr. rein: why are you using it? glad to clarify the objective. you have to show the necessity. you have to show that if you live with and accept a very small increment in a very small section of the class, you cannot get it done any other way.

race is not the baseline. justice scalia: the bakke approach comparing two individuals and where they are tied giving the benefit to one for race, that is ok. regardless of whether there are theother means of achieving racial balance that you are looking for. mr. rein: justice powell indicated in bakke that that approach could be used when it is part of a greater function. apparentlyt has accepted that. we are not challenging that. justice scalia: you don't have to apply the question whether it could possibly be done any other way. you are saying that anything beyond this, you have to establish that it could not be done any other way. it does not take into account raise. such as expanding the top 10%. mr. rein: it is not just me.

that is what the court said in the prior opinion. justice scalia: that is what i thought. mr. rein: it has to be shown as necessary. that is true in all strict scrutiny. this is not attached. it is not different. strict scrutiny is a heavy burden. no question about it. justice kennedy: is there any evidence that the holistic approach has been used as a quota? at ut? mr. rein: we have not claimed that. but since so much is mass or hidden --masked or you have to have a basis to review this because you would like to make an endpoint. find yournot objective, you cannot find your endpoint.

they are measuring numbers each year. they want the numbers to go up. that is what they care about. that is what this system does. whether it is the quote it in the strict sense, their target may be equating with the population, the high school population. today, they are a majority minority campus. mr. garre: -- justice ginsburg: there is one preliminary question i would like you to address. what is the grief you are seeking. you have no class. what specific relief are you seeking in this case? mr. rein: the case started with a plea for damages. ginsburg: what should the damages consist of?

mr. rein: a refund of the fee for application. asked for other just really because at that point in the case, we did not know anything for certain. if she were not admitted there would be other damages. we realize that is a separate issue. justice ginsburg: if the university should say that the fee -- wen be -- offer you that. so that this contest would be over. if you offered you the damages your seeking, with the case be moot? mr. rein: the damages we are seeking were broader than that. that was a specific item of damage that was pleaded.

now, miss fisher has not been admitted and she has suffered the consequences of non-admission. she went to an alternative university. she had to travel. there is good information that within the state of texas a degree from the university of texas has consequences and earnings down the road that are measurable. she does not have that benefit. all of those benefits which were not part of the case originally because we were trying to enjoin in a way that would have her admitted. now, she has not been admitted which changed the case. in terms of standing, we have a claim. they have not paid us.

the case continues. garre.e roberts: mr. intel -- in 2009, that the holistic plan was a necessary complement to the states tempers at law. had alistic policy has meaningful impact on the diversity at the university of texas. the record forecloses any claims of the university of texas -- the quota. there are three principal ways in which the record shows that the issue was a necessary complement.

there is a significant portion of the admission pool come all out-of-state students, all students from texas high schools that do not rank, and all students just below the top 10% who are not eligible for admission under the top 10% at all. the fifth circuit found that without the consideration of race and the mix for those students, admission would approach an all-white enterprise. justice scalia: just the admissions of people beyond the top 10%. justice alito: on that point, can you determine -- mr. garre: there are several ways to address this. is look at the increase in african-american and hispanic holistic admissions

after the consideration portion was added. year, the percentage of african-american and hispanic admitted and in role under the holistic plan group. my question was if you look at an individual person can you tell whether that person was admitted solely because of race? given this individualized nature of that inquiry, that would be difficult. at can show marked increase the university under this issue. the record confirms that holistic admissions of african-americans and hispanics increased markedly in each year. student bodyt diversity overall, african-american enrollment increased by two, that it

doubled for 2002-2008. what of theo: things i find troubling about your argument is that there is a suggestion that something is deficient about the african-american and hispanic students who are admitted under the top 10% plan. they are not dynamic, they are not leaders, they are not changemakers. i do not know what the basis of that is. it is based on a terrible stereotype. what is the basis for that? mr. garre: this court has said that you cannot assume that minorities think alike because they have the same skin color. what the university of texas accountit takes into the fact that people who come from different experiences, different backgrounds, will have different contributions to the class. if you have a situation where all of the out-of-state admits were coming predominantly from

western states, then the university of texas would try to get out-of-state admits from other parts of the country -- you're the one: that says race and be relevant. and in answer to justice alito's question, you say that it is stereotyping. essayrre: stereotyping that just because you have a sufficient number of blacks or hispanics under the 10% plan, --, -- justice kennedy: what is the basis for saying that? if -- justice alito: if a student is admitted as part of the top 10% plan, it has to be because that student did not have to compete against their he many whites or asians in the high school class. it is a pernicious. take. -- it is a pernicious

stereotype. law wase: the top 10% enacted in response to hopwood. that the weight the top 10% law admits minority students is by admitting them from low performing racially identifiable schools. , itou look at the analysis specifically says because of the persistence of segregation in this estate, a minority student will be admitted -- justice alito: i don't doubt that is one of the things that it does. i would've thought that would be something you would regard as beneficial. the reason for adopting affirmative action in the first place. have beenpeople who severely disadvantaged through

discrimination and a lack of wealth and they should be given a benefit. does, the things that it but it is not the only thing that it does. the university of texas of applause those students, we want those students. they are admitted through holistic review as well. the university can look at an incoming class and determine that not all of the perspectives in the class are being reflected. a statistic that of theut to me -- african-american and hispanic students who were admitted under the top 10% plan, 21% had parents who had either a bachelor's degree or a four your degree. for the holistic admits, african-americans and hispanics, it is 26%. this was from the class of 2008.

it seems to refute the idea that all of these minority students who were admitted under the tempers and plan, just from these predominantly overwhelmingly black and hispanic schools with poor students. it doesn't seem to be true. mr. garre: we have never claimed that all of them do. that is a strawman argument. if you look at the 2008 profile that we cited in the last brief, you do find that on balance there is a difference in backgrounds of this dudes, african-american students and hispanic students come in through the holistic plan. that is no surprise given the obvious purpose of the top 10% plan. it wants to take into account all situations. justice breyer: the first phrase set this. fisher would want to put together a court that do not all

agree on affirmative action. the decision to pursue the educational benefits that flow from student diversity is insubstantial measures and academic judgement to which judicial deference is proper. number two. the university must provide a reasoned, principled, explanation for the academic decision to pursue diversity. your plan is pursuing diversity among the 25% who are not admitted under the top 10 plan. your principal, reasoned explanation for that academic decision is --

mr. garre: it is set forth in the 2004 proposal. it is elaborated by the deposition testimony. number one, the university made clear we are pursuing the educational benefits of diversity in the broad sense specifically recognized by this court. number two, the university made clear that in its judgment, it was compromising the educational objectives. number three, the university made clear that because of the decrease in student body diversity under the very race neutral policy that our opponents are asking the court to impose, additional measures were necessary to make sure it was achieving its educational

objectives. all of that is laid out in far more detail than it was in grutter. it was amplified by the deposition testimony. look at the testimony of mr. walker. i can elaborate on that if you would like. mr. rein: -- justice roberts: one of the things it said is that you would review that plan every five years. mr. garre: yes. we reviewed it on a five-year basis. justice roberts: how did you measure how it was working under the review that you undertook? what did you look to? mr. garre: we have looked both to student body enrollment. we do look to classroom diversity. we look at feedback from students, faculty. this is an academic judgment. we look to the racial climate including incidents.

justice scalia: the facts are not an academic judgment. if the faculty thinks we are doing great, we must be doing great. the facts are the facts. we do not give the faculty a leg up on what the facts are. mr. garre: in 2002, you had 272 african-american enrollees at of a class of 8000. the university of texas had not achieved its critical mass or educational benefits in 2004. that is not seriously debatable. we should have an opportunity to put in more evidences that is not obvious. justice roberts: grutter said we would not expect this to be in place for 25 years. mr. garre: there are systematic

problems that these policies are attempting to address including the test score gap. the record overwhelmingly shows that without the addition of race, student body diversity suffered particularly among african-americans. justice roberts: it was important in the grutter court that this was temporary because we are talking about giving you the extraordinary power to consider race in making important decisions. it was important in grutter to say that this cannot go on forever. 25 years. when will your program be done? mr. garre: sufficient numbers for the educational benefits of diversity without taking race

into account, we will no longer take race into account. this is searching for alternatives. we are looking back to whether university policies in place for seven years. a record of seven years and trying race neutral alternatives. justice roberts: what percentage of the class is that a legacy for? mr. garre: this is the second reason why it is necessary. it is not debatable that student body diversity suffered at the university of texas under the policies they are asking this court to impose in particular under african americans where you had evidence of glaring racial isolation. certainly in the classroom.

justice alito: you have not mentioned anything that the university has done to increase racial diversity at the classroom level other than this admissions program. i mentioned this during your friend argument. -- first argument. a way that you could determine whether the top 10 admitees are any more likely to enroll in classes where there is a lack of rituals diversity. you have not made any effort as far as i can tell to measure that. mr. garre: doubling the enrollment of african-american students which happened from 2002 until 2008 will increase diversity in the classroom. we looked at that and the past. secondly, with respect to diversity among particular majors, we do take holistic consideration on where students are admitted. what the record does show conclusively is that diversity language at the university of texas in material where we have

the top 10%. the plan at here -- the plan here at issue was necessary to supplement that. justice alito: you could have mr. garre: we have looked at that. >> there is something deficient about the top 10 at the tease. arehave evidence that they less likely to enroll in classes where there is a lack of classroom diversity. mr. rein: there are two dimensions to this diversity issue. one is the glaring racial isolation particularly among african-americans. the second is the effort to admit minorities from different viewpoints, experiences and

perspectives. that gets back to the core of the essence of the diversity embraced i this court. case onook at the bakke page 17, it says if all minority students were coming from depressed social economic welfare. justice alito: that is where i am looking for evidence if that is true. 10% you looked at the top dmittees to see how many are leaders. there are just not very many leaders here. these are students who object to is study. there is no evidence of that. mr. garre: it is debatable, but if we need evidence, let us put it into the record that a class selected by the consideration of numerous factors will be more diverse and the way that promotes the university'.

justice alito: that is not the question. it is whether students selected under the holistic process without giving extra points because of race. minority students will not be selected. it will be seen as in all white enterprise. justice alito: it is not a holistic process if race is not considered? it will not result in any minority students? mr. garre: it is not zero, but take 2002 for example. 270 african-americans out of a class of 8000. the university of texas concluded that was unacceptable. classrooms with zero or one african-american does not achieve our educational goals. justice alito: what unique perspective does a mor inority student bring to a

physics class. i am just wondering what benefits diversity brings? mr. garre: this court has grutter ain bakke and that student body diversity is a compelling interest. we do not ask this court to overrule any aspect of fsicher, grutter, or bakke. idn't saylito: we d it was class by class. caricature of the argument you are making. classroom diversity is what you are focused on. mr. garre: it was one aspect the university looked too. the university is being hit by both sides. on the one hand, we are going to look to prove the way in which diversity was lacking.

objective is the educational benefits of diversity in the very way this court has recognized for decades. justice scalia: what evidence would you put in if you had been successful in your motion? prillaman are two that i am sure the district court would have allow theity to summary judgment to be reopened. mr. garre: the court of appeals wouldn't. justice kennedy: you wanted to expand the summary judgment record? if so, what additional evidence would you find? mr. garre: if there are any ,hortcomings this court finds the unique skills, qualities, talents that those bridge

builders. we can put that evidence in. justice kennedy: you asked for the remand. what evidence did you propose to put and if your motion had been granted? mr. garre: we specifically pointed to evidence. we talked about if the court would like to supplement the evidence. frankly, we would be entitled to a remand. it did not require evidentiary findings. the university of texas can put in additional evidence in the record, showing why these holistic students selected across a broad diversity recognized by bakke contribute meaningfully to the class. justice kennedy: i don't know -- i don't know what that proves. i am sure they have made a wonderful contribution to the university. i don't know if you can

determine that they would have not been admitted if race had not been taken into account. maybe they would have been, maybe all of them. but beyond that, what is this a to say that there are not comparable students who were among the top 10% admitees. i bet they are. mr. garre: you could conclude, your honor. if you had all students from the best schools in texas that do not write. students that fall just below the 10%. if we are not getting adequate diversity out of that special class of student, we're not meeting our educational objectives. if you have doubts about whether or not the record -- justice sotomayer: this is the fundamental problem that justice alito is pointing to. you are talking past each other. maybe i will explain his view. [laughter]

justice alito: i could use the help. justice sotomayer: he seems to think you did not study the 10% admitees enough to see whether that group was diverse in and of itself. whether you have enough people within that group that were change agents, that were not just poor people, but people college-educated parents. diverse factors you viewed. i think he is saying that you did not look to see if the 10% plan did enough. and with deficits, that plan created, that you should have filled in the holistic looking. he thinks it is fatally flawed. because of that. that is his view, i think. so, assuming that view, what is your answer?

justice alito: what is your question? mr. garre: we did look at that. we had seven years under this policy. we found in the supplemental jury panels. justice sotomayer: race blind admittance. a certain number of them were with the 10%. mr. garre: absolutely. as the top 10% plan began to grow, the university was not meeting its educational objectives. that is what it found it specifically, stated on page 31 a of the appendix. the texas legislature found that the holistic planned was a necessary complement. the texas court of appeals judge and his colleague did. all of them recognize the obvious way in which the top 10% plan operates.

justice kennedy: if you did not have the top 10% plan, and you did have the program you are advocating for here, would you have a better or worse chance in achieving the diversity that you seek? mr. garre: the first thing that i would like to say is that it is a different plan. i don't mean to dodge the question. but, if that is a meaningful difference, then this plan is an even stronger one then bakke. the university of texas has this court's message. we are here in debating whether we can complement that policy by taking race into account. it may actually be that the university could achieve more diversity through the fewepure

grutter-bakke style plan. we think, working with the texas legislature, that we have come up with a hybrid plan to address this court's concerns about using race too much in the process and address the university of texas is 'legitimate concerns to compile a class with diversity. if i could read one aspect of the deposition testimony here. 253a in theage joint appendix. she explains why top 10% alone is not sufficient. considering an applicant on just a class rank leaves out circumstantial experiences and life experiences. we need to know how they type of student they are, but what they can contribute to our campus." if you exclude race from that, preventing the

university from rounding out its class, from complementing the single-minded way that the top 10% law achieves its diversity itectives in the weight that is narrowly tailored to its interest, which this court has found compelling. justice kennedy: if you had had a remand, you would not have added more evidence than what we have in the record right now. is that correct? mr. garre: no, it is not, your honor. we feel the record is sufficient. we can certainly put in plenty of additional evidence. there has been no trial here. if our evidence does not cross the bar on strict scrutiny come , at a minimum, we have put in evidence on whether the holistic plan can help and whether the university was achieving its objectives. an environment in which 90% of

297had african-american students in a class of 8000, in an environment in which 90% of the classrooms . justice kennedy: why can't we make those inferences from the record? mr. garre: i think you can make those in the university's favor. the district court and the court of appeals may find -- justice kennedy: you saying that we have a remand only if we lose. mr. garre: i do think there is one thing to say. in this record there are no tribal fax. it is another thing to second-guess. and the court can. it is another thing to overstep the conclusions of the district court and the court of appeals. i think it is particularly relevant here when it comes to the operation of the top 10% law. our friends have challenged the fact that the district court discussed the ways in which it

operated, saying it was outside of the record. if it is, we can put that evidence in the record but they have never disputed the way in which the 10% law operates. what i would like to say too is, if this court rules that the university of texas cannot consider race, we know exactly what is going to happen. experience tells us that. this happened at the university of texas after the hoffert case. the university plummeted. berkeley and ucla after proposition 209. that is exactly what is taking place today at the university of michigan. now is not the time and this is not the case -- justice scalia: there are those that contend that it does not benefit african-americans to get them into the university of texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a slower

track school where they do well. one of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country do not come from schools like the university of texas. they come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they are being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them. i am just not impressed by the fact that the university of texas may have fewer. maybe it ought to have fewer. when you take more, the number of blacks really competent blacks admitted to lesser schools, it turns out to be less. i don't think that it stands to reason that it is a good thing for the university of texas to admit as many blacks is possible. mr. garre: with respect, justice

scalia. if you look at the academic performance of holistic minorities versus top 10% admits over time, they fared better. and frankly, i don't think the solution to the problem of student body diversity be the system in which minorities are going to separate schools and inferior schools. in texas,ience shows california, and michigan is that now is not the time and this is not the case to roll student body diversity in america. justice roberts: thank you cil.uns >> may it please the court, i would like to make a point of a

compelling interest in light of what this court said. i would like to make a point about the process aspect in light of what this court said in fischer. on to whate to move i think this case comes down to, which is whether the university has made a sufficient showing of race in this process. before i make any of those points, i would like to provide some specific detail in response to the question you asked earlier related to the parents involved. here are the numbers with respect to african-american students admitted through the holistic part of the program. in 2004, which was the last race wasr before race expressly considered, that number was 141 admitted. that was the high water mark of the holistic review. the number of moves up to 176

the following year and then to 220. the number of holistic admissions almost doubles. justice roberts: the problem is that how do you tell how many would have been admitted if their race was not considered? mr. verrilli: you do have a pretty good benchmark. you are right that you cannot tell for sure. justice roberts: the next two years you recited, the numbers were going up even when race was considered. you could have said that there was a fluctuation before then, w hen race was not considered. verilli: before they considered race, it went up and down. 141 was the high water mark. alito: at the university

of texas, which may militate against the admission of african-american and hispanic students for an ostensibly race neutral reason. and that is, standardized test scores count pretty heavily in that process. one of the things the university says it is looking for is students with high sat scores. many think that sat scores are nd act scores are culturally biased. if you put less emphasis on that, you might not have the numbers that you just recited. it is rather strange that we construct the process that may disadvantage african-american and hispanic students for an ostensibly race neutral reason. and then we have to add race in as a special factor to counteract that. what iilli: i guess would say about that, your honor is, in grutter what the court held that the university is allowed to make those judgments in trying to pursue an environment of academic

excellence and diversity. lito: higher grade point averages then the holistic students. the sat is supposed to protect how you will do in college. i thought the record showed that the students who had lower sat scores, but did better as measured i high school rank, did better at the university of texas. isn't that the case? mr. verilli: i am not sure what the answer to that is, your honor. timethe court said last around to satisfy the compelling interest inquiry, the university has got to articulate the reasons principal aske explanation for its decision to consider the educational benefits of diversity in the manner that this court has found

to become substantial. the university has met that standard. it has articulated the benefits of diversity at the same level of specificity that this court held constituted a compelling interest in the grutter case. it is exactly the same. the principal argument that my friend mr. rein has made, a lot of that is post hoc rationalization. in particular, the effort to find qualitative diversity. diversity within diversity. that is simply not so. if you look at page one of the supplemental joint appendix, the first page of the 2004 proposal that the universities pacific say they are trying to accomplish is to create the verse of the perspectives are among minority students. it says it throughout. there is just no argument that it is a post hoc rationalization. justice scalia: do you think this will not be necessary in the next 13 years? mr. verilli: i think the court

in grutterdiction that it would hopefully be the case. justice scalia: what is it about this program that is going to change things so that we can stop classifying people by race? mr. verilli: i think universities do make progress on this. you get to a point where you create a virtual cycle. i think it does work and there is ample reason to believe it does work. the key point with respect to compelling interest is that it is in the heartland of what the court has said is the area in which the university's expertise and experience deserves deference. if i could go through the process point -- justice breyer: before, you said , i agree with you. mattero said this is a

to which this court will give some, but not complete, deference to what the university decides. what you are talking about is the need for the progress. in addition to that, and this is what i would like you to focus on because there could be a question of whether to send it back for more evidence or not, in looking to the record so far, i foundspecific point, an affidavit by a person named walker. that person named walker described the seven years of efforts to measure this stuff. described meetings of the faculty, described all kinds of discussions, described conclusions of the faculty members in the admissions officers. t affirmativeme, thae action in the 25% of the holistic part. given that that is there, and i found nothing to the contrary --

i mean, it is a loaded question, but the imperious if you say yes because there may be something you should put in as well. you may think it would help to put something in. you may think it's not necessary, but just to be safe, what do you think? general verrilli: yes. justice breyer: is that affidavit the relevant one? are there others? general verrilli: yeah. i think i believe that's the affidavit from the director of admissions. we argue for affirmance. if there is doubt, i think the additional information that might be developed in this case would be to look at the kinds of questions the chief justice was asking. how has the program work in practice? i think additional information might help make the judgment. if i could get to the process point. in process with what the court case, was that

the court had to ensure itself without deference that the process provided for individualized consideration and that race did not predominate. again, the university of texas' plan has every one of what the court in grutter at page said said were the hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan. no quota. everybody competes against everybody else. and in addition and this goes to your question, justice kennedy, about whether there is an argument here that race is determinate has, -- determinative texas is different from the university of michigan's law school plan in every one of the four ways that your honor identified as as being potentially troublesome and making race determinative. unlike in michigan, in texas the percentage of africanamerican and hispanics admitted does not mirror the percentage who applied. it's different. unlike texas, the number excuse me. unlike michigan, the number in texas of of admissions fluctuates year over year. it is not the same every year. unlike in michigan, the bulk of hispanic and africanamerican students admitted don't come

from a small subset of the pool that's admitted after most are admitted based on grades. and unlike in michigan, the admissions officers don't monitor the process all the way along, which would, as your honor suggested, perhaps trade the risk that race would become determinative in latter states' admissions. none of that is true here. so i think with respect to -- chief justice roberts: at what point does the university know if it has worked? general verrilli: so i think i was trying to address process, and i and i'll go right now to need, which i think is is i really do think that you're right, mr. chief justice. that's what the case comes down to. and i will answer your question directly, but i first want to make a point about how you don't -- how you shouldn't do it. and you shouldn't do it the way the petitioner has suggested you should do it. what the petitioner has said is that in order to assess need,

the only way to meet meet the need portion of the strictscrutiny analysis, is for the university to set a, quote, "demographic goal." that's the petitioner's language. and then test whether or not they've made that goal. chief justice roberts: okay. so how should they do it? general verilli: we think that approach will be fatal because if they don't -- i promise you i will answer it, i just think these points are important. with respect, we think our approach is faithful to fi scher. aat we say is it is not critical analysis. we say that what you do is you start with the university's articulation of the educational benefits it's trying to achieve. you require the university to state in concrete terms what

success will look like. you then evaluate the evidence and analysis that the university relied on in order to make the judgment that it isn't where it needs to be and there and needs consider race. chief justice roberts: i'm trying to get at the -- general verrilli: yes. concrete look for more evidence. well done classroom studies. well-designed surveys of student attitudes and faculty attitudes. graduation and retention rates. are racial incidents going up and down up or down on on campus in frequency? you you know, there could be a whole list of them. but you would look at those. you would look at the university's analysis of those and then you'd make a judgment whether the university has substantiated its case. and the burden, of course, is on the university. they've got to come in and convince you that they've substantiated their case that they need to consider race . justice kennedy: and they they

evidence withs events that occurred after the suit was brought? the interestsi: they rely on is the interest they can tempora sleep identify identify with. if they adopt the system and it improvement,n an that is highly relevant. chief justice roberts: the reason i think it's a matter of concern is what i heard from mr. garre were a lot of numbers. he said, look, this is why it's needed, and and, you know, we will know we're doing better when the numbers look better. and i just wonder whether the idea of surveys -- i looked at one of these surveys. i have to say, it was kind of sophomoric. i mean, do you feel that you've had enough interactions --

this has consideration of race. it is a very serious matter. to pass out some survey i don't think is adequate. general verilli: that would not be adequate on its own. ofsome level, demographics hard evidence as well. when you're talking about the african-american population at the university of texas in austin, you are talking about the population of 300 kids in the class of 6000. i think that the idea that there hance that al c lot of students -- 600 students would make a difference? they would not feel isolated? belief that leaders

it is imperative that we have officer corps that are not only diverse but capable of leading a diverse military, not only for effectiveness but for the very legitimacy of sending our troops into harm's way. justice alito: but do you think that the africanamerican and hispanic students who were admitted under the top 10% plan make inferior officers when compared to those who were admitted under holistic review? justice alito: do you think that the that the rotc graduates from the university of texas make superior officers to those who who graduate from, let's say, texas a&m or texas tech? general verrilli: here's what i think about that, justice alito. i think that we want to make sure and this military example is only one of the important interests here.

but with respect to that, we want to make sure, not just that there are strong africanamerican and hispanic candidates in that rotc program, but that everybody who graduates from the rotc program, university of texas white, black, asian, hispanic everybody knows how to lead effectively in a in a diverse environment in which they're going to be leading diverse troops. that's the interest. justice alito: now, that's certainly important, but to come back to my first question, is there anything to suggest that the top percent students are less likely to enroll in rotc or, when they do, they're not as good as the as the holistic admittees? general verrilli: no. i think with respect to the university of texas in particular. but i'm also you know, what the court is going to say in this case obviously is going to apply to eventually to every university in the country. and this is an important interest for the united states generally, that when you think about what's at stake here, that the the interest in ensuring that we have military officers who can lead a diverse military force is critical. the interest in having law enforcement officers who are not just diverse but who can operate effectively within every racial and ethnic community in highly charged situations is critically important. corporate america has told you that having a a a workforce that -- having a workforce that is

able to function effectively in diverse in diverse situations is critical. and what i would just say in conclusion is that these are the considered judgments of people who actually have the responsibility to ensure that the vital functions of the government protecting the country with the military and with law enforcement and the vital functions of commerce , these are the people who actually have to make sure that those functions are carried out. and this is their considered judgment, and i submit it's it's worth considerable weight in your analysis. thank you. justice breyer: if if i can ask a question. general verrilli: oh, i'm sorry. justice breyer: no. i'm glad you said that. and and i this question will sound very nitpicky and detailed and compared to what you were -- you were talking about. and i agree. i notice that the briefs in this case are like the briefs in grutter. and to me that does suggest that people in the universities and elsewhere are worried that we will, to use your colleague's expression, kill affirmative action through a death by a thousand cuts.

we promised in fisher i that we wouldn't. that opinion by seven people reflected no one's views perfectly. but that's what it says, not fatal in fact. okay. that's what i'm focusing on. it seems to me there are two parts to that, whether we have to send it back for another hearing or not. part one you've dealt with. is there a need? a matter which fisher i says we will give some but not complete deference to the university, and as you say, we have you went through that. there is a second part which i want you to address. the second part in fisher, we said, there is no deference due the university. on this part it's called narrow tailoring. you heard your friend on the other side admit, he said, again. maybe he believes it firmly. why use the word "admit"? he said that, in the plans of

grutter and the plans of bakke, those were okay in respect to narrow tailoring because they did compare the students one after another and use race as a plus factor. now, what is there in this record that will support the view that what texas has done in respect to narrow tailoring is no worse than, perhaps even better than, what happened in grutter or bakke? general verrilli: so i would point your honor specifically to the declaration at pages 8a and -- 483 a and 4084 -- 44 a, and the joint appendix of the admissions director, in which he explains the way race is considered in the university of texas system. and that explanation says expressly, at page 483, that race is considered in exactly the same manner, and given exactly the same consideration as every other special

circumstance's factor that the university considers as part of its holistic review. that i think that shows you that actually you know more about the way this program works than you did about the program that you affirmed in grutter, and you have assurance based on that, and nothing in the record contradicts it that that's the way it operates. chief justice roberts: thank you. thank you, general. five minutes, mr. rein. rein: thank you, chief justice. let me first indicate that one of the questions that's been asked repeatedly, as well, what impact did the use of race actually have? judge garza and this is at appendix 200 tried to make an estimate, because you can only make an estimate, because he -- the university of texas didn't know, and they don't know now. his estimate was that a very

small number, and it it's in his opinion. it's it's not only by percentage, but it's by number, and that number is insignificant relative -- justice sotomayor: do you think that change has to happen overnight? and do you think it's -- justice scalia: excuse me. can i hear what you were about to say? what are those numbers? i was really curious to hear those numbers. rein: he assumed, at the outside, that any of the admits that were actually africanamerican or hispanic outside the top ten, he said let me take that assumption and see what it would add. and he said it would constitute less than 1% of the entire case. justice ginsburg: what are you reading from? rein: can i finish? justice ginsburg: can you just tell may where you're reading from? rein: this is appendix to a. it is judge garza's original dissent. this is this is when and he repeated, essentially, the same point. but he calculated, and he made different assumptions, depending on how many of the admissions in the holistic program one would assume would be different because of race. because no one knows, and that and that's part of this.

and clearly, one and and i can read you these numbers, but you can read them yourselves. it's a very small number. and his most realistic estimate was that it would yield only 15 african american and hispanic students in a class of 6000. so we're talking about a very small effect, even with assumptions that that actually exist. you know, one point is it's small. the second point, equally important, is no one knew because they didn't study it. and then then we get the same point on this complementary, which was the big theme of the fifth circuit, oh, it's a necessary complement. what does that mean? one sense, you've got to have some plan if you're going to cap the top 10 at 75%, so it's necessary to do something. but that doesn't make it a necessary complement. when you really look what the fifth circuit said, they said it's based on two assumptions: one, the top ten are drawn from these minority high schools. where did they come up with that? they never studied the pattern of the top ten admits. how do you know that a hispanic

or an africanamerican student can't be in the top ten at what they call an integrated, highperforming high school? that's a stereotypical assumption. justice sotomayor: what you are saying, basically, is, is this is what the fifth circuit concluded and which the school basically agrees, okay? if you don't consider race, then holistic percentage, whatever it is, is going to be virtually all white. rein: and that is incorrect. justice sotomayor: all white. rein: and that is an assumption that has no basis in this record. justice sotomayor: oh, but there is -- rein: it's a stereotypical justice sotomayor: no, it's not rein: assumption. that is what it is. justice sotomayor: it's not,

because the reality -- rein: with all deference --justice sotomayor: that justice -- chief justice roberts: mr. rein. justice sotomayor: alito wants to rely on. let me finish my point. he's right. for their educational needs, there are competing criteria. they need to keep a certain sat, or whatever that's called, ai index, that has to be high because of the quality they want to keep the school at. that does discriminate against blacks on some levels, because the difference in numbers are high. so if you have something like this, you're what you're saying, basically, is, and what he's proposing, is change your educational needs across the board, and focus in only on race, and make sure that your school is black, hispanic, or whatever on numbers that are going to reduce its educational quality. that's basically what you're arguing, isn't it? rein: no. and and to be fair, i mean, the first thing i was just pointing out is that to get to the conclusion of the fifth circuit, you have to first assume the pattern of admits in the top ten, where they come from, which was never established in the record, never studied. and the second is that you have

to assume that those coming from all students coming from these integrated, highperforming high schools don't include, in their top percent, any minority. justice sotomayor: why? what we know is -- rein: that's what he assumes. justice sotomayor: the school doesn't have enough -- rein: justice sotomayor -- justice sotomayor: no matter what it does, it doesn't have enough numbers of black people. rein: that that comes back to the fundamental point. if we're just talking numbers, then you have to show the compelling need for more numbers, so that one of the reasons for defining your compelling need is that you have to then look at necessity in terms of the need. so as in grutter, what they said was we have insufficient numbers of minorities to provoke the appropriate dialogue. when we look at the class as a whole, we think we can do better if we introduce different points of view. it's very individualized. it's a small class.

so you can then say, increasing numbers which they were certainly after, you know, from three to 14, will meet that compelling need. since they never bothered to administer, you know, to define the needs, it's really hard to say what they were after and why numbers would or would not satisfy, and whether the numbers they were generating, which included 15% of the socalled holistic admits so it wasn't all white enterprise, why that wouldn't work. the key point is, you have to come to the court with the record. you can't make it up later, because that would say do what you want, and when the time comes, make it up. that's not no way to litigate. and in this case they said, we're ready for summary judgment. we've put in everything we need. if you look at their specific proffers and the court of appeals, they said they wanted to take discovery. and even judge higginbotham, their best friend, said, from who? what does ms. fisher know about this? what are you going to take discovery about? and he found no need in this court, all they say is, we'd like to reiterate the benefits of diversity, but those were accepted, and we'd like a few testimonials about students admitted holistically without knowing whether they were the beneficiaries of the race or not. you can't can't litigate that way. thank you, your honor.

chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> on washington journal, the founder and president of the arab-american institute. he talks about the debate over muslims in america and the u.s. strategy against isis. then a look at the future of the affordable care act. efforts by republicans to block key provisions. our guest alex wayne of a bloomberg news. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 eastern. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. president obama met with his national security team at the pentagon to discuss ways to find isis. the president spoke to reporters for a few minutes after that meeting. ♪ >> c-span presents landmark

cases, the book. a guide to our landmark cases series explores 12 historic supreme court decisions, including marbury versus madison. brown versus the board of education. miranda versus arizona. and roe versus wade. landmark cases, the book features highlights and the impact of each case. written by veteran supreme court author, tony mauro. an imprint of sage publications. landmark cases is available for $8.95 plus shipping. get your copy at c-span.org/landmark that cases -- landmark cases. >> president obama met with his national security team at the pentagon to discuss ways to find isis. the president spoke to reporters

for a few minutes after that meeting. president obama: good morning, everybody. today, the united states and our armed forces continue to lead the global coalition in our mission to destroy the terrorist group isil. as i outlined in my speech to the nation last weekend, our strategy is moving forward with a great sense of urgency on four fronts -- hunting down and taking out these terrorists, training and equipping iraqi and syrian forces to fight isil on the ground, stopping isil's operations by disrupting their recruiting, financing and propaganda, and, finally, persistent diplomacy to end the syrian civil war so that everyone can focus on destroying isil. i just had a chance to meet with my national security council as

part of our regular effort to review and constantly strengthen our efforts. i want to thank secretary carter, chairman dunford, and vice chairman selva for hosting us and for their leadership of our men and women in uniform. we heard from general austin, who is leading the military campaign in the region, as well as general votel, whose special operations forces are playing a vital role in this fight. i want to provide all of you a brief update on our progress against the isil core in syria and iraq, because as we squeeze its heart, we'll make it harder for isil to pump its terror and propaganda to the rest of the world. this fall, even before the revolting attacks in paris and san bernardino, i ordered new actions to intensify our war against isil. these actions, including more firepower and special operations forces, are well underway. this -- well underway. this continues to be a difficult fight. as i said before, isil is dug in, including in urban areas,

and they hide behind civilians, using defenseless men, women and children as human shields. so even as we're relentless, we have to be smart, targeting isil surgically with decision. -- with precision. at the same time, our partners on the ground are rooting isil out, town by town, neighborhood by neighborhood, block by block. that is what this campaign is doing. we are hitting isil harder than ever. coalition aircraft -- our fighters, bombers and drones -- have been increasing the pace of airstrikes, nearly 9,000 as of today. last month, in november, we dropped more bombs on isil targets than any other month since this campaign started. we're also taking out isil leaders, commanders and killers, one by one. since this spring, we've removed abu sayyaf, one of their top leaders. haji mutazz, isil's second-in command. junaid hussain, a top online recruiter. mohamed emwazi, who brutally

murdered americans and others, and in recent weeks, finance chief abu saleh, senior extortionist abu maryam, and weapons trafficker abu rahman al-tunisi. the list goes on. we're going after isil from their stronghold right down -- right in downtown raqqa, to libya, where we took out abu nabil, the isil leader there. the point is, isil leaders cannot hide. and our next message to them is simple. you are next. every day, we destroy as well more of isil's forces -- their fighting positions, bunkers and staging areas, their heavy weapons, bomb-making factories, compounds and training camps. in many places, isil has lost its freedom of maneuver, because they know if they mass their forces, we will wipe them out. in fact, since the summer, isil has not had a single successful major offensive operation on the ground in either syria or iraq. in recent weeks, we've unleashed

a new wave of strikes on their lifeline, their oil infrastructure, destroying hundreds of their tanker trucks, wells and refineries. and we're going to keep on hammering those. isil also continues to lose territory in iraq. isil had already lost across kirkuk province and at tikrit. more recently, isil lost at sinjar, losing a strategic highway. isil lost at baiji, with its oil refinery. we saw the daring raid supported by our special forces, which rescued dozens of prisoners from isil, and in which master sergeant joshua wheeler made the ultimate sacrifice. so far, isil has lost about 40% of the populated areas it once controlled in iraq. and it will lose more. iraqi forces are now fighting their way deeper into ramadi. they're working to encircle fallujah and cut off isil supply routes into mosul. again, these are urban areas where isil is entrenched.

our partners on the ground face a very tough fight ahead, and we're going to continue to back them up with the support that they need to ultimately clear isil from iraq. isil also continues to lose territory in syria. we continue to step up our air support and supplies to local forces -- syrian kurds, arabs, christians, turkmen -- and they're having success. after --er routing isil at kobani after routing isil at kobani and tal abyad, they've pushed isil back from almost across the entire border region with turkey, and we're working with turkey to seal the rest. isil has lost thousands of square miles of territory it syria and ited in , will lose more. the special -- will lose more. the special forces that i ordered to syria have begun supporting local forces as they push south, cut off supply lines and tighten the squeeze on

raqqa. meanwhile, more people are seeing isil for the thugs and the thieves and the killers that they are. we've seen instances of isil fighters defecting. others who've tried to escape has been executed. and isil's reign of brutality and extortion continues to repel local populations and help fuel the refugee crisis. "so many people are migrating," said one syrian refugee. isil, -- syrian refugee. isil, she said, will "end up all alone." all this said, we recognize that progress needs to keep coming faster. no one knows that more than the countless syrians and iraqis living every day under isil's terror, as well as the families in san bernardino and paris and elsewhere who are grieving the loss of their loved ones. just as the united states is doing more in this fight -- just as our allies france, germany, and the united kingdom, australia and italy are doing more -- so must others. and that's why i've asked secretary carter to go to the middle east -- he'll depart right after this press briefing -- to work with our coalition partners on securing more military contributions to this fight. on the diplomatic front,

secretary kerry will be in russia tomorrow as we continue to work, as part of the vienna process, to end the syrian civil war. meanwhile, here at home, the department of homeland security is updating its alert system to help the american people stay vigilant and safe. and as always, our extraordinary men and women in uniform continue to put their lives on the line in this campaign and , around the world to keep the rest of us safe. this holiday season, many of our troops are once again far from their families. and as your commander-in-chief, on behalf of the american people, we want to say thank you. we are grateful, and we are proud for everything that you do. because of you, the america that we know and love and cherish is leading the world in this fight. because of you, i am confident that we are going to prevail. thank you very much, everybody.

>> president obama speaks in a naturalization ceremony today at the natural archives here in washington. we have it here at 11:25 on c-span3. democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton speaks about homeland security and fighting terrorism today at the university of minnesota in minneapolis. our live coverage against at 3:45 p.m. eastern on c-span3. ♪ >> next week is office week on the washington journal. it featured nonfiction author monday through friday and a one-hour conversation. starting monday, december 21 at 9:00 eastern. smith goes tor. prison. what my year behind bars taught me about america's is in crisis.

tuesday september -- tuesday, december 22. john whitehead on his book battlefield america, the war on the american people. university of georgia law professor is our guest on wednesday, the cymer 23rd at 8:00 a.m. eastern talking about her book, how the other half thinks. exclusion and the threat to democracy. eastern, matthew green joins us to talk about underdog politics, the minority house ofthe u.s. representatives. and friday, december 25, author and historian, craig shirley ,alks about his book last act the final years and emerging legacy of ronald reagan. be sure to watch during office week. week.ing authors

spoke to-moon reporters about the international climate agreement reached between one and 295 countries. the agreement, the results of two weeks of negotiations in paris. this is about 10 minutes. >> the secretary-general will have some opening remarks. as you know, he will be back on wednesday. sir? speak mind letting him first. secretary-general ban ki-moon: good morning everyone, ladies and gentlemen. it is a great pleasure to see you. what a great two weeks in paris. now i understand why people say "we will always have paris."

yesterday, i returned from paris, where governments reached a landmark new climate change further agreement which can benefit all of humanity for generations to come. the countries of the world have made a historic choice. they have unanimously decided to work as one to rise to the defining challenge of our times. the paris agreement is a victory for people, for the common good, and for multilateralism. it is a health insurance policy for the planet. it is the most significant action in years to uphold our charter mandate to "save succeeding generations". for the first time, every country in the world has pledged

to curb emissions, strengthen resilience and to act internationally and domestically to address climate change. the paris agreement is the result of years of hard work. it embodies a successful new approach to global cooperation on climate change. countries have acknowledged that the national interest is best served by acting for the common good. the paris agreement sends a clear signal that the transformation of the global economy to low-emission, climate-resilient growth is inevitable, beneficial and already under way. it marks a decisive turning point in the global quest for a safer, more sustainable and prosperous future. the agreement will help us achieve the sustainable development goals.

it will save lives, improve human well-being and promote more peaceful, stable societies. reaching this agreement has been one of my top priorities since the day i became secretary-general in 2007. for nine years, i have spoken repeatedly with nearly every world leaders about how the growing human imprint on the planet threatens our lives, our economies, our security and our survival. i have visited virtually all the places, the frontlines of climate change, where i could see for myself the impact of climate change. i said the alarming bells consistently and repeatedly to world leaders. i have mobilized also business and engaged civil society. i have never lost faith that the international community could rise to the climate challenge.

now i count on governments, and all sectors of our society, to turn these commitments into urgent and decisive action. i thank you very much. >> thank you, secretary-general. you've got 195 countries and the eu to agree to this. does this represent a certain goodwill to the un and will it extend to other things? people have asked if this is a legacy issue. and also, have you heard from industry on how they're going to convert to all of these clean-energy methods? thank you. secretary general ban ki-moon: i was extremely encouraged and happy to see that all these 196 parties whether they even have their own domestic local challenges, they were united as one, believing that the global

solutions willal benefit local solutions. this is what they have delivered. this is a great success and triumph of multilateralism. i know that. i am very conscious of criticism and concerns from the international community about the effectiveness and efficiencies of multilateralism. but this time, they have shown their strong commitment for the common good of people and the planet. now, actions should begin from today. it has already begun. and the business communities, they have already expressed their strong commitment, as was shown during last year's climate summit meeting. several hundred business leaders came to new york. in paris, despite all the security concerns, all big and

small business leaders came, and they reaffirmed that, and they confirmed that, low-carbon economy is the solution in addressing all the difficult economic growth issues. and civil society, they have also shown their strong commitment. and i'm deeply grateful to all these business leaders and civil society, who have shown such a strong commitment and willingness to work with the united nations and their own respective governments. >> secretary-general, there's critics that say this agreement, it is not strong enough, it is weak. how do you address those critics? thank you. secretary general ban ki-moon: this is ambitious -- strong.

in terms of ambition, it has agreed, people have agreed to contain the global temperature rise well below 2 degrees, and we will continue to strive to beat this -- even 1.5 degrees celsius. this is a very ambitious target at this time. and it has also very strong accountability and transparency. they have agreed to have a five-year cycle review. this will help. the parties to this convention and paris agreement will be monitored regularly. even before this agreement will become effective by 2020, they have already agreed to have such a review session in 2018. then from thereon, five years.

the first one official review session will come on 2023. therefore, it is quite strong and ambitious. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary-general. you said in your speech, when the agreement was adopted, basically, that now the hard work begins. what do you expect governments, industry, civil society to start doing from today, tomorrow, next week, what specific things? secretary general ban ki-moon: over a period of several years, the world leaders, particularly government leaders, and business leaders, they have been listening from the people and from our nature that we must take action.

the very fact that 150 heads of state and government gathered on november 30 for the opening meeting of this climate summit meeting means that the whole world is united. as the secretary-general, during the last nine years, this may be limited experience, but i have never seen that in one place, in one day, at one time, 150 leaders gathered like this way. of course, the united nations brings that many a number of leaders, but not in one day. they come over a period of seven to ten days. in that regard, the mood and excitement and solidarity, global solidarity, shown and demonstrated at that time was enormous. i thought that with that kind of

a political strength and energy, political energy shown there, i thought that we would have a good result after two weeks of very hard negotiation. and, anyway, the business leaders have heard and they now realize that the low-carbon economy is the answer and solution, and those countries who have been expressing their concerns, particularly fossil-fuel based economies, they're now moving toward a very quick transition. this is what we're seeing a very encouraging one. as a first step in implementing this agreement, i'll convene, as requested by the agreement and by the convention on april 22 next year, a signing ceremony, a high-level signing ceremony.

i'll invite as soon as possible to world leaders to come to the united nations to sign this one, because this will be the first day of a universal climate change agreement. then, in may, early may, we are now planning to have a big gathering of government, business and civil society action summit. 6.t will be on may 5 and we are now trying to organize how this can be done. >> think you very much. -- thank you very much. does he have any response? secretary general ban ki-moon: i'm going to brief the general assembly tomorrow at 11:00, so you'll be able to listen and you'll be able to know what the united nations is going to do. thank you very much. thank you.

>> coming up, several panels from center for new american security and defense one summit. first we hear from deputy defense secretary bob work. it general mark milley. after that, remarks from general joseph dunford. today's state department special envoy for climate change tom stern speaks for the american test the center for american progress on the international climate agreement. we have it live it in :00 -- livehere on c-span at 10:00 eastern here on c-span. >> abigail was the first first lady to work outside of the home, teaching at a school. she lobbied congress for funds to create the first white house library. hair --enhower's jacqueline kennedy was

responsible for the creation of the white house historical association. nancy reagan as a young actress saw her name on the blacklist of suspected black -- suspected communist sympathizers. she appealed to ronald reagan. she later became his wife. these stories are featured in the book first ladies. the book makes a great gift for the holidays. giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first american history. how their stories resonate today. share the stories for the holidays. it is available as a hardcover or any book from your favorite bookstore. be sure to order your copy today. >> the defense secretary bob work spoke about the militaristic rise of russia and china at the center for new

american security. his remarks are about an hour. >> hello everyone. i am sean, i am the executive president. it is great to see so many friends and colleagues. there are plenty of chairs available. we are here for our economic growth national security forum, designed to bring together a high-level audience. forum, werst national decided to focus on defense. the set of issues that should drive the defense agenda today

and tomorrow. with ongoing operations, rising threats and tight budgets, this is an era of challenges and tough choices. we have put together an agenda. i think it does the topic justice. i would like to think our corporate -- our conference airbus, l3 tong, medications. thank you very much. -- l3 communications. thank you very much. we cannot think of a better weight to kick off this day been with our keynote speaker. i took as many classes as they could from bob whose excitement was infectious for all of us. several years later i watched his work. we were privileged to have him eriod in ourtant p history. we were sorry to lose him at the pentagon gained an extra day

leader. -- an extraordinary leader. carter, --f second a today he will share his views on the pentagon's initiative. secretary works remarks, i will ask a few questions before opening to the audience. anyone familiar with u.s. defense knows the secretary work is a scholar and a leader. but those of less who have been lucky enough to work for and and himhas unmasked honesty -- i am proud to call him a colleague, mentor and friend. latest xoma, help me in joining -- ladies and gentlemen, help me in welcoming secretary bob work. -- bob work.

[applause] we are a unique family. it is great to be back here this morning. to be a part of this conference. this reminds me of a story that is told of a traveling preacher who wanders around the pacific northwest and through idaho and montana. he visits different towns and giving sermons. he walked into one small town in , and he found himself on the pulpit. there was just one person there in the church. he said my son, i am here and prepared to give a full sermon. and to attend to your spiritual needs but you are only one person. what would you like me to do yet he said i am a cattle former so thettle farmer --

preacher said all right and he launches into a full up sermon. fire and brimstone. he gave it his all. he really was proud of himself afterwards. when he did, the cowboy stood up and started to walk out and the priest goes i've got to find out what happens. he hurries up to the cowboy insist my son, did i meet your spiritual needs. he says well padre, if i went up -- i would not dump the whole load of them. to try to do is dump the whole load on you. i look forward to your questions. what i want to talk about is something important and that is a pressing need for us to make corrections in our defense program to meet evolving threats.

talk to you specifically on why the civilian and military leadership of the department is pursuing a significant and hopefully enduring effort to extend our military, technology go and best technological -- technological edge. we are in a pivotal moment in the post-cold war. i believe that historians will look back on the last 25 years -- i snapped that 25 years between may 12, 1999 when president bush says containment will no longer be the lens through which the defense program will be built. that was the end of the cold war . it took a couple of years before the soviet union to implode. december, 2012. that is when china started to disband reclamation project and the south china sea.

in march, 2014, russia legally annexed crimea and started to send its troops and support separatists in east ukraine. period isar remarkable. od, the unitedri states reign supreme as the world's only great power. it gave us enormous freedom of action. the inter-polar world is starting to change. we'll have a multipolar world in which leadership will be challenged. among the most significant challenges in this to five years, one in my view promises to be the most distressing is the reemerging of competition.

for the purposes of building a defense program which is focused on adversary capabilities, not necessarily intentions. i will borrow the definition of great power. the state having sufficient military assets put up a serious fight against the dominant power, that would be the united states and possessing a deterrent. by that narrow definition, getting away from where there is economic peers or what is the attractiveness of their power and stickiness. from a defense program perspective, if russia and china are not yet greater -- are not yet great powers, they are well on their way. are tryingt, russia to establish a sphere of

influence which is typical behavior of a great power. they come on the heels of a failed effort. we have been trying for 25 years to include russia and the european community. we want to partner with them on a wide variety of global issues. we still seek both of those outcomes. nucleardernizing its forces. sharpening its war fighting dark doctrines,fighting pitifully aimed towards nato. doctrines, aimed towards nato. we consider russia a resurgent great power. its long-term prospects are very

challenging. may make them more aggressive and the next 25 years rather than less aggressive. china, arresting power with impressive militaristic capabilities, probably embodies a more during strategic challenge as its ambitions and ,bjectives expand in asia africa, latin america and elsewhere. china has been about the peaceful rise and defense. its actions will be the true testament in the current international order. pursue military to military cooperation with china. as well as a wide range of confidence building measures to make sure we never come to blows. while we do so, we cannot overlook the competitive aspects of our relationship. especially in the round of military capabilities. that is the bottom line.

d.o.t. focuses on the capability for potential challengers in both russia and china. unique and increasing stressing military capabilities and operational challenges. while we understand the importance of engaging with -- which to --es and tell them that we will be there if necessary in the time of need. to protect u.s. forces and our allies from direct attack.

should deterrence fail, make sure we are able to roll back any aggression that occurs. we are in the competition business and we build war plans. before i explain how we're going to do this, the department is not forgetting one bit about the threat of violent extremism. how could we? we have thousands of servicemen and women in uniform out of uniform, contractors and civilians, who are battling the terrorist every day across the globe. with a focus on iraq and syria with the islamic state, a particularly savage and dangerous opponent, is operating. as secretary carter has said, we are expanding our offensive against them across iraq and syria and ultimately we will defeat them. as stressing as this fight is,

it is not my intent to talk about that. nothing can match the destructive potential of conventional war between great powers. nothing can up end or disrupt the global world order more than a potential collision between great powers. we have to strengthen our conventional deterrent. to make sure it's such a collision never happens. the best way to prevent great power competition from becoming great power conflict is to maintain a safe nuclear arsenal for as long as those weapons exist coupled with strong , conventional deterrent capabilities. to buildyou are trying a strong deterrent posture, you strive to do three things. the first is to try to achieve a technological overmatch against potential adversaries. the robert m. gates fellow here calls technology the elixir of military strength.

he could not be more correct. what we want to do is develop successive generations of war fighting capability. technology is never the final answer. you have to be able to incorporate those technologies into new organizational constructs. it might be a new unit that does something in a new way. a new doctrine such as air land battle was completely changes the focus of the entire army and really undermines our adversaries confidence that if blows come to pass, they would not prevail. unique new technological capability. operationalhave new constructs to make them real. third, you have to demonstrate

these capabilities to suggest that any attempt to achieve operational success in a campaign is likely to fail. even if they were to achieve an initial advantage in time and space. this is the very essence of what deterrent theorists call deterrence by denial. it is the most effective type of conventional deterrence. as lawrence friedman said, a force developed for deterrence by denial is also best posture for victory if deterrence fails. i want to start off that when this talk is all about conventional deterrence. we seek cooperative engagement and a cooperative relationship with both russia and china over the long term.

we know there will be competitive aspects and we want to make sure that we can assure our national leaders that we are ready. we talk about offset strategies. in terms of great power competition, the united states generally pursues insurance by denial,es deterrence by not by trying to match every tank for tank and missile for missile. we try to do things smarter. we try to strengthen our conventional deterrence by offsetting technological capabilities. they offset the strengths of our potential adversaries. we've done this twice before. we know it works. in the 1950's, besought to blunt

soviet numerical and geographical advantage along the german border by demonstrating the constructs to employ battlefield nuclear weapons. this proved very effective as a conventional deterrent using auto filled nuclear weapons to offset the conventional superiority of the soviets. it was a little counterintuitive, but it worked. up until the 1970's, the soviets achieved strategic nuclear parity. the threat of trying to go up tryingimo tory latter -- to go up the escalatory ladder that might end in a nuclear exchange was sickly to greater

risk for our national leaders to tolerate. we didn't believe our deterrent was effective. it just wasn't believable. the soviets, because they believed we were going to employ battlefield nuclear weapons, change their entire battlefield art. they didn't care if the first echelon was entirely annihilated. they didn't care if the second echelon was entirely annihilated. they just wanted to punch a hole like a jack hammer into nato's defense to get soldiers and deep into nato's rear and they thought probably rightly that if they did that we would be deterred from trying to employ battlefield nuclear weapons. senior leaders said we have to do something different. in 1973 they launch the long-range research and development program. you have two choices, you can make nuclear weapons more

usable. micro nukes. neutron bombs. our senior leaders said we cannot risk going up the e scalatory ladder. or you could go after conventional weapons with near zero mess what we know today as precision guided munitions. that's what our national leaders decided to do. the soviets called these reconnaissance strike complexes. we really got their attention. we did a big demonstration in 1977. the soviets had a big exercise based on what they thought had happened. it really shook them up. within five years, the head of

the soviet general staff concluded that conventional guided munitions would be as effective as tactical nuclear weapons in keeping the soviet union from achieving their operational aims. forover. led to the end of the cold war. the soviet union imploded just as the united states was culminating this second strategy. that allowed us to dominate guided munitions for the next 25 years. it was used in great effect and conventional campaigns. i underlined conventional campaigns. yeah, but it didn't solve all of the problems. it was continually refined. our global manhunt in campaign is completely consistent with

second offset technologies. we can find terrorists more effectively than we ever have . doubt, this 25 year period is coming to an end. it results from two factors. two large states are putting a lot of money into becoming rough guided munitions parity with the united states. they say they are doing it, they are budgeting to doing it. they are doing it. of that first one is the second offset technologies proliferating drop the world. proliferating throughout the world.

iran can use these technologies hezbollah, as can isolate if they choose to do so. isil if they choose to do so. for the last 14 years we've been focused down on this problem in the middle east. our program has been slow to adapt as these high-end threats have started to reemerge. we have been slow to adapt in the program, we are not surprised by what is happening. in 1993 andrew marshall said i project a day where our avid adversaries will have guided munitions parity with us and it will change the game. the area expressed as denial challenge. it is not that we are totally surprised that this is happening. now we sayferent is we can no longer wait to respond

in our program. should we have a third offset strategy because of these conditions? it? , how best to go about our conventional deterrent posture is based on the thought that we can project overwhelming power across the ocean and exert our will on any opponents. the first problem is breaking into a theater where someone has parity and can throw long-range missile strikes as accurate as our own.

the third thing is doing all of this while under intense cyber attack. the way that they are forming their forces to conduct what they call counter intervention operations. look at what was happening

in the eastern ukraine this has emerged as a laboratory for 21st century warfare. they introduce new levels of battlefield transparency which really started to catch the attention of senior u.s. army leadership. ukrainian commanders reported to us that within minutes of coming up on the radio net they were targeted by concentrated artillery strikes that included cluster munitions, thermal warheads and more. they jammed gps signals. they jammed proximity fuses turning them into duds. the operations in ukraine

highlighted the new speed of war. network attacks weren't moving at cyber speed. intense electronic warfare battles to dominate the information terrain along the border. this trend is only going to continue. advanced militaries experiment with these technologies as well as others like sonics. we will see directed energy weapons on the battlefield. they operate at the speed of light. sean brimley is going to publish a monograph about this competition. the entire axis challenge that he talks about, the denial challenge, or the challenge of closing the last tactical mile, while operating

under intense attacks. we are going to have to have technical solutions to these problems. it is the identification and prioritization of these capabilities, the elixir of modern military strength, that is the first step in going after a third offset strategy. over the last 18 months the department has been considering these operational problems. exploring the direction of technological trends. where we determine might be able to exploit technology and create new operational advantage. we commenced our own long-range research and development planning program. it was led by steve welby. we asked the defense science board to assess key technological trends.

we reviewed work by darpa on what they were doing. we conducted the strategic portfolio review to look at our program and say where are we missing these capabilities. when you consider the whole body of work. and you have been diagrams there was remarkable consistency. that gives us the confidence that we know the first step to take. this is not about certainty, it is about testing and moving forward. the theme is human machine collaboration and combat teaming. the miniaturization of nuclear weapons components was the key driver of the first offset. look at fat boy and you say how

do you get that down to a football sized munition called the davy crockett. we were going to give it to our battalion commanders and give them nuclear release capability in 1956. the technology allowed us to do it if we were so disposed. the key drivers in the second offset first appeared in 1972. sensors and combat capabilities onboard platforms as well as information technologies. what is going to make this a reality?

advances in intelligence and autonomy that we see around us every day. they believe we are at an inflection point on the power of an autonomy. the commercial world has already made this sleep. the department of defense is a follower. a recent study by the bank of america on robotics and artificial intelligence said that the rise of intelligent machines will define the next industrial revolution. the adoption of this disruptive technology in the private sector is no foregone conclusion. smart machines will be performing 45% of all manufacturing tasks by 2025

compared to 10% today. self driving cars to voice recognition software. all you have to do is look and see where this is going. this is the advice to the business community. early adoption will be a key comparative advantage. while those that lagging investment will see their competitiveness slip. we believe this conclusion applies directly to the military competition we are in. artificial intelligence and autonomy will allow entirely new levels of man machine symbiosis. our adversaries are already contemplating this move. china is investing heavily in robotics. the russian chief of general staff said russia is preparing to fight on a robot is sized battlefield and

that it is possible a completely robot unit will be created. the study said we are already in this competition. let me tell you the five building blocks that we've identified. these are broad, technological building blocks that will continue to the offset strategy. the first is the autonomous and deep learning machine. these systems are already changing the way we analyze data in the financial community and in the intelligence community. we are going to go after them to improve indication and warning. the ai guys say what is happening in the gray zone with the little green men is a big data analytics problem. they are convinced we can create learning machines that will give

us indications and warning that something is happening in the gray zone. queuehelp intelligence systems. the national geospatial agency has a program called coherence out of chaos. all the data that is coming down from overhead and making it into sense. analysts to take a look at things. we believe strongly that humans should be the only ones to decide to use lethal force. when you're under attack, especially at machine speeds, we want to have a machine that can protect us. an example is their defense systems where the engagement windows are steadily shrinking.

israel's iron dome takes over test takes a look at all the shots of the incoming missiles and says this is going to land on dirt, don't fire at. the machine makes his decisions. the same thing on cyber defense. you can't have a human operator operating at human speed fighting back a determined to cyber attack. the machine that does that. --re are darpa programs now what would happen is if you itld send out your ea 18 g, would find a new wave form. the pilot would come back and talk about it, replicate it, it and sometime down the

road, you have a response. right now we know that these machines are going to be able to figure out how to take care of that waveform in the mission. hithat is one component. the second component is human machine collaboration. decision-making. 1997, a computer beats gary kasparov. a royal champion in chess. 2005, 2 amateurs defeated the field of chess champions and the machines themselves. combinede machines, tactical acuity of a computer. this is a human machine

collaboration. 360 degrees of information is being crunched by the machine and being portrayed on the display of a helmet. fogs designed to reduce friction. it will never reduce chance. he can simplify -- it can simplify the speed of operations by allowing humans to make better decisions faster. the third component is assisted human operations. not enhanced human operations. we will have a much broader debate on whether to go after enhanced human operations. when we say assisted human operations, think of your car. think of the lane departure warning, or when you are backing up. you're getting closer to something.

using wearable electronics and heads-up displays and perhaps exoskeletons can assist humans to be better in combat. we're going to have to make a big decision on whether we are comfortable going that way. we are comfortable going after assisted human operations. right now there is a program in darpa, it is a system designed specifically to have enough automation to allow you to reduce the number of crew in the cockpit. it will not be long before our

combat infantrymen are using wearable electronics. the fourth ingredient is what we call advanced human machine combat teaming. a human machine combat teaming is where a human working with unmanned systems can make cooperative operations. you see this now. the apache helicopter is designed to operate together. we are looking at a large number of very very advanced things. right now, we are looking at v's.e capacity ua

we are looking at different electronic warfare networks. by integratingat 's, you're going to see more motherships, whose offspring work to execute the mission. we are developing new types of network enabled semi-autonomous weapons. they are hardened to operate in a cyber environment. every weapon and system is going to have to be hardened for

cyber. we are modifying existing systems. we are looking to all sorts of new horizons of over the horizon targeting and jamming. this is a wonderful time to be a scientist in the department of defense. those of the five components. learning machines, human machine collaboration, assisted human operations, human machine combat teaming, and autonomous weapons. those are the five components that will ride on the back of a learning network. if we launch seven missiles, one goes high and is looking at what the battle group is doing to defend itself and it

sees something new not in its library, it will immediately report back on the learning network. it will pass it over to human machine collaborations so the mission commander can make adjustments. make a command change inside the software of the missile so that the next seven missiles will be that much more effective. there's a lot of skepticism within the department that we will be able to perfect and protect such a network. if you do the smart to sign up front. we believe it is not only possible it is a requirement. thing where wer are talking about technology. that is why human-machine is what we talk about. the way we will approach this is that this is designed to make the human more effective in combat.

remember what garasov said. i will make a hypothesis that authoritarian regimes who believe that humans are weakness in the machine, that they will naturally gravitate to automated solutions. sovietshe way the conceived their complex. it was going to be completely automated. we believe the advantage we have as we start the competition is our people. the tech savvy people who have will up in a democracy kick the krapp out of the people i-world under the authoritarian regime. if this changes the

authoritarian regime, to where they have their people have more initiative, that will help us. to a moread democratic approach inside their armed forces. when we were going into the well, we arer, going to have a lot of casualties here. i have talked to long. the me get through this. the second thing is that it is a competitive strategy. we have to deal with two great powers not one. a lot of things we would do have maritime characteristics in one theater and continental characteristics in another. there is a lot of overlap. we have to worry about nuclear regional powers. north korea.

this completely covers them. we have to worry about iran with advanced capabilities. completely covers them. we know we have more competitors than we did in the cold war. the advances in autonomy are driven by the commercial world. that means they will be available to everybody. second offset technologies are widely proliferated. environment, if we went after something based on high-end information technologies, we knew that the soviets couldn't follow us and we were right. we can't make that assumption now. this is much more like the interwar. where everything was available and all you have to do is put the components together. we have to have a vibrant global

scouting in our icy community. community. we should not count on a lasting advantage. you have to be able to do this from a very competitive aspect. strong top-down governance. it is going to rely on wargaming and experimentation and demonstration. don't expect the budget to see $30 billion in this. you will see $12 billion to $15 billion on wargame experimentation to verify our hypothesis is sound. under any circumstances, we have to focus on agility and cost. we have to reduce cycle times. this is the last point before we go to questions. there will be a lot of fast followers. i am ok with that. as long as we are assessed -- as long as we are a fast leader. if people are chasing our

exhaust, that is ok with me. the way will do this is through information management. we will reveal to to turn and conceal for war fighting advantage. i want our competitors to wonder what is behind the black curtain and we will make specific where, how wehen, reveal items so that we underline conventional deterrence. that is what this is about. collaboration and cooperation with congress is key. a successful strategy will go from administration to administration. year, we are focused on the intellectual underpinning and doing as much of the demonstration work as we possibly can so that congress will help us keep this going and maintain a lasting advantage. i have spoken too long. i look forward to questions. thank you. [applause]

>> that was a great speech. we have time for a few questions. i think i will ask you one question i have. sydney, i see you in the office -- and the audience. i will point to you for the second question. i have been a little bit surprised by some of the skepticism that seems to argue that advocates of investing in emerging technologies are somehow misunderstanding the human nature of war. it forgets about other important strategic pillars, readiness, global posture. how do you respond to these arguments, that you are putting

the technological cart before the strategic course? secretary work: you will see cases where there was a technology pull. the whole purpose of the third offset is to make humans more effective in combat. as a student of clausewitz, no he has to convince me that war is primarily a human endeavor. if you look at the interwar period, it was not like you say becauseans were dumb they looked at what was happening with mechanization, airplanes, and said if we put this together into an operational construct called blitzkrieg humans will be more , effective on the battlefield. we have to train the humans in this.

mission command. it is a virtual cycle. if you take a look at the second offset, it took off when the air force in the army said let us use this in a way to have air land battles. nato used it for follow-up force attacks. it frustrates me when people say that we are forgetting people. people are central to the whole way we're going about this. >> the proliferation of guided munitions, that is essentially what is happening, the essential question is how does the future joint force operate when guided systems are fully polar for it -- fully proliferate? i am looking at the ground forces and thinking wow that is a particularly horrifying battlefield when you have guided 50 caliber rounds, bullet rounds.

how will ground warfare changes given the proliferation of guided munitions? one scenario has received a lot of attention. question, how will they operate in a world facing guided munitions? secretary work: we have not spent as much time studying the last tactical mile as we have into a theater and operating in a general sense. we have been here before, the 1950's. the army completely reorganized its divisional structure going from its wartime triangular formation to battle groups. they dispersed on the battlefield to avoid atomic attack. they would react the gate to

achieve a facts and -- three regate to -- reagg achieve effects. they tried this for six years, five years from 1956 to 1961. they concluded they could not execute that operational concept. so they went back to the triangular approach when we adopted the flexible response strategy. you have the same problem with guided munitions. the next part is looking at this problem right now. we will have a strategic portfolio that reviews this. my intent is to have a program set up in the next administration so they will be able to pick and choose. we are tightly linked to the army and the marines on this. i spoke with general perkins. as far as keeping the humans completely central in our

there.g, we are a linlign you will see advances in electronic warfare systems. we will try to decide whether we want to re-aggregate our forces. there's still a lot more for us to describe. 10 years from now, if the first thing going through the door of a breach, is not an unmanned system, then shame on us. if there are not more unmanned systems, shame on us. there's a lot of stuff we can do to help them win this last tactical mile. >> sydni, last question. sydney: is there any source of

enduring advantage of you always have this red queen's race, is there something that the military had institutionally and culturally that china and russia can't duplicate the way they duplicate the technology. bob: i am not willing to say that we will have an enduring cap advantage in the competition although we do have an advantage as we start. everybody says there is this huge brain drain. actually, after wars a lot of people who join and learned that they had this mission, a lot of those people say i don't want to

stay around in a peacetime military. there are leaving because of that as people who are saying i'm surrounded by a bunch of idiots and i am the smartest guy in the room. all they have to do is work with the people in the field every day and you realize that you will come up with solutions. in the early days of the cold war, the submarines would go after 90 days. what could you do? they took big banks of candy and the candy said individual little things like marshmallows and peanut butter. the peanut butter ones were the ones that everybody loved.

what they did is they created a machine to check the electronic resistance of the candy and they found out which ones were the peanut butter candies. they had a problem and they fixed it. that is just one little example. i will put the innovation of this department up against any other force on the planet and we will ride that over a long. of time. if they start to really say we want to empower our junior leaders and we are willing to let them make mistakes and really going to let them try innovation, if they can do that better than us that will be a problem.

right now we are absolutely confident in our people. i would bet on our folks before any others. >> you've got some budget pressure. the death star. you talked about the difficulty of the department in the technology refresh compared to the private sector. is there an escape valve for you to reach out and take advantage of things in the commercial world that makes your job easier. bob: absolutely. if you look at what happened in the interwar. look at what happened in the first and second offset. all of those things occurred

when defense budgeting was at its low ebb. what the wargaming allowed you to do, is that when defense spending started to go up you would be well prepared to put your money into things that you thought would provide you with an advantage. you are not to see some big giant ship in the 2017 budget. when you look back, there were a lot of technological bets that allowed us to get down this trail. as far as bringing in the commercial side, that is one of secretary carter's most important jobs. we copied deq tell model.

it is essentially a venture capitalist firm that puts money into companies that are pursuing some technology that is really interesting to one of our partners. we're following that. it is designed to make matches between the commercial sector and the department of defense. these are early days. in the pentagon, we are making progress and trying to gain more approaches with the commercial sector. we're trying to make smart bets. so the next administration can have a wide variety of options to go forward. i know we're out of time, i just want to say that forums like this are absolutely critical. the department listens very carefully to things that are happening at think tanks.

it is important for you to prod us along. god bless you. [applause] >> on today's of google zogbygton journal," james talks about the debate over muslims in america in the debate over isis. then, the affordable care act and efforts by congressional republicans to block the funding scheme provisions. our guest, of bloomberg news. "washington journal" is one of

every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, and you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> today, paul ryan and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell talks to "politico" about the current congressional term and what is ahead in 2016. see it live at it :00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. military milley on readines. this summit is 40 minutes.

>> i was just getting my report. here?do you want me to -- thanks for being with us here today. -- weght we would start have some time to have a dialogue about where we are it where we are going, then we will open it up to audience q&a. we need to talk about the operating environment and future challenges. we are coming out of a decade plus of insurgency wars. we have troops in afghanistan, but smaller numbers. a range of different challenges from russia to north africa, china. when you look at these, what are the highest problems for you in readiness and how you think about this challenges?

>> a couple things. i've made speeches where i talked about the world according -- in my view, and i see several challenges. you can go by region, by country, by function, but i isilk russia in china and eiff l ur or five. ou i still think russia remains a number one threat to the united states because they are the only country, only entity on earth that has the capability to destroy the united states. a few things that have changed since the

turn-of-the-century, you have significant military adernization, and you have foreign policy that seems to 1990'sifted from the shifted into an aggressive stance. georgia seizure of the crimea, several other things. i think there is a very aggressive stance now. president putin and the russian senior leaders have their own national security interests. they are behaving in accordance with what they think is right for russia, but they have violated quite a few international norms that have them long-standing for centuries. the first time in europe we have seen sovereign boundaries violated since world war ii. hungary, invasion of

or the invasion of czechoslovakia. they were part of the warsaw pact and were already in place. this is a qualitatively different set of circumstances that unfolded in europe. you match the capability and the reformed conventional capability, then you add attempt , judge intent based on recent behavior. i think that makes for a potentially very dangerous mix. isis is equally dangerous, but in a different way. they don't have the capability, conventional or otherwise. but they clearly have intent, aspirations, and they have demonstrated a reach into europe, into the united states. you have those two at the top.

if you look at the middle east at large, there is a broader challenge facing the united states. that's the challenge of radicals within the muslim dilemma, from rocco to indonesia, from the caucuses. that entire area of the world which has got one billion plus muslims in it, the vast majority hard-working, folk who just want to make a better living. but there has been a movement out there for going on 100 years now that posit an alternative way to organize your society, and that fundamentally is what we think of as radical islam or militant islam. the current manifestation of that, the most violent one, is

isis and al qaeda. but there is a whole string of organizations out there, some are small in some are big, that are all part of this broader movement. it is ait a street -- de facto government in many ways. and controlled territory they have expanded significantly to other parts of the world. we know they are operating in , soh africa, in nigeria that is a threat that is very real. they have either been inspired or directed attacks in europe in the united states and elsewhere. they are an exit stencil threat -- and nexus stencil threat -- they are an existential

threat. to destroynt said isis and we are working through that now. that is a worthy objective that i sign up to. that organization needs to be destroyed. but even when they are as destroyed, the broader threat has to be addressed by the muslim people. it has to be addressed through good governance and a wide range of other things. those two i put at the top of my list. the middle east. you've also got an issue with hat heatt i think t turned off a little bit with the signing of the agreement. you will see. time will tell on whether iran breaks the deal or not. if they do, appropriate things will kick into place, but i think the temperature has been lowered. having said that, iran is still

in the line actor in the region. -- a malign actor in the region. they are very much interested in destabilizing. have agoing to asia, you whole different geopolitical situation. revolutionary group with isis, an apocalyptic revolutionary group. asia, you have to serious security issues to work through. what is north korea. , the armisticeon -- they are one ethnolinguistic group. the parallel is very much a artificial boundary full at some point -- no one can tell us where it will happen, but they

elected to be one people. the question is will it happen violently or peacefully. we don't know. we want it to happen peacefully, but that situation has a sign and north korea is noted for a variety of provocations. it is probably the most armed border in the world. you have troops on either side and that can get quite dangerous. -- that wouldust be a different set of challenges in the middle east and russia. then you have the rise of china. the rise of china is interesting. a lot of people talk about the rise of china as if they are an

enemy. they are not an enemy. a competitor, sure. i would argue that they have -- they are clearly building islands in the south china sea, trying to assert what they perceived to be sovereignty. aggressive in the sense of crossing international boundaries, we don't see that you. the challenge with china is the trap that people talk about. you have got a rising power, china. the rules of the international order were written at the end of world war ii. so china has benefited from those rules. sinceave grown immensely 1979. economict a huge

growth in china that has bt thatd, and is no dou the global economy has shifted from a north atlantic-based economy to now a north pacific-based economy. we are in the middle of that transition. it's not yet in the history books. we are in the middle of that transition, and historically when you see an economic powershift like that, you also see military power follow. we are seein g that. we are seeing the significant rise in chinese military capabilities across the board. closely, butng it i think with china playing the long game, you look at the china dream that they probably talk of the chineseh communist party, the revolution of 1949. they are looking at it in the

2050 time frame. the long gameay with china. there is nothing inevitable about china becoming an enemy. history is not optimistic about it. harvard did a great study. i think they came out with 15 of 18 cases of a rising power. the other three were significant military tension. it depends on how it is managed over time. a lot of diplomatic actions. that's a different security challenge. aat bothers me about asia is couple of things. a series of unresolved territorial disputes that date back to world war ii. a quietot -- which is arms race. if the data i saw was correct, we have about 40%+ of worldwide military sales in northeast asia. you've got the rising

nationalism, which is fairly perceptible, but it is there. you have some other factors at play. there's a set of factors that should call our attention and continue to be vigilant. on the flipside, you don't have the collective security agreements and robust alliances you have in europe with nato. you do have alliances, but you don't have this collective regime in asia that would help stabilize the situation. northeast asia bears close watching and will be a significant security challenge as time goes on, but the immediate is isis, and i would argue the eastern european situation. >> looking at these challenges, there is a general weariness following experiences in iraq and afghanistan in the public at large of committing large

numbers of ground troops. obviously we have people committed around the world in training and advising. what is the rationale for the ability, to deploy larger numbers of boots on the ground? we have seen army strength come down significantly. there are ongoing discussions. how should we think about this piece of the joint force as a tool in terms of furthering u.s. interests? >> a couple things. if the -- the united states is a global power. if the united states wants to remain a global power and affect outcomes internationally, there is the military side and the president needs options. we have to have capabilities. the low-end, humanitarian assistance, to counterterrorism and counter insurgents, all the

way up to capabilities to deal with state nonstate conflict. -- estate on state conflict. we don't have one typology of conflict because of who we are as a nation. we have to have that capability. we also have to have capacity. numbers do matter. it is not true that smaller is necessarily better. it might be, in some circumstances, but in others it might not be. specifically to the army, there are a lot of myths that there about warfare. an awful lot of people buy into them. for example wars will be short. , but history tells us something different. there are no short wars in speaking,ut typically

wars tend to cost more and go on longer than the initiators thought when they began. yth is aliver m and well. another myth is that you can win wars from a distance. that is very american. we like it because we are very high-tech and innovative, and there's a perception that you can win a war with precision munitions, aircraft's, etc.. it depends on what you are in. iswhat you want to do punish, then you can do that from a distance. prepare,nt to shape, you can do all that.

but if you are defining yourself what you if that is are defining yourself in, and war has a certain logic to itself. at the end of the day, it is an extension of politics. it is politics by violent means to impose your political will. if that is true, politics is all about people. , tohe end of the day actually impose your political law, you have to do it on the ground. whether it is you or someone on the force, that can be debated. but strategically, if you are defining yourself at war, then at some point in time, you have got to do then on the ground. started on the air or sea that ended with a rifle shot on the ground. i would say -- and i don't know

an historical example -- where wars were one from the distance. , and mymyth out there own service propagates it as that single service can win. that is nonsense. is thens wars synergistic effect of all these forces -- the army, navy, air cia, a national effort. it takes all of those capabilities to prevail. the current flavor of the day is soft can do it all. that is not true. there is a limited amount of soft to begin with. soft can do a lot, but winning

wars takes a nation, and it takes the effects of the entire joint force, combined with your allies. are a unique thing. another myth that there is that armies are easy to regenerate, aircraft carriers take 50 years to build, and it takes a long time to train a pilot, and that is true. of for the army, a lot people think that all you have to do is have basic training and then you have an army unit. to build a platoon sergeant could take 15 years and lots of experience and to build units you are talking about three to four years to get them to a level of combat readiness. there are a lot of myths about the size of the force, that you can bring an army down.

circle thecrisis, wagons, stir it up, have an army. it is not that simple. you're talking about something that can enable an army to rapidly reconstitute in you need toed, but be more top-heavy, right? in terms of thickening the middle ranks of ngos, creative ways to use the reserve component, how are you thinking about that challenge? >> i have what i would like and i have reality. [laughter] --to deal with the reality again, it is very american. idea that you will save money by reducing the cost of labor. that is one way of looking at it.

i prefer to do as much as i can for as long as i can, but as you noted, we are already reducing. troops, so we,000 have reduced a significant amount. the question is how do you regenerate. -- ithings i am looking at will lean heavily on the guard. the guard is a capability, the u.s. army national guard, is a -- we are in which one army. what i need to do is not only maintain the regiments, that i have got to increase the readiness of the national guard. we have this policy of 39 days as an example of training per year for the guard. that has been in place since

1915, 100 years. i go, what isd magic about 39 days? maybe we need to change that. that will cost money, but maybe i should take some of the guard in significantly increase the number of training days in a given year. maybe six days or 100 days per year so that it reduces the response time on the backend. probability of conflict today, given communications, i suspect that future conflicts will unfold more rapidly than it has in the past. it may not, but i think it probably will. we all it to the president in the american people to have forces of sufficient capacity and capability to respond quickly.

if the regular army is a certain size, it will be consumed pretty quickly. we have to lean on the guard. but that means that i have to get their readiness levels up to a level that is combat capable in the shortest amount of time post mobilization stop right now , you're looking at 120 days. before i can say they're ready to go, i don't want to send where theyo combat will get slaughtered against some of these opponents. i have a moral obligation to make sure they are ready and the only way i know to do that in order to assure their readiness is to increase the amount of training days the national guard on the front-end. they used to have around out concept and that worked pretty well. we should have got away with it.

to exploringback the roundup brigades. look ato taking a hard the proponent of the guard. i don't see any problems with an active unit. they wear that patch -- so have it go both ways. at and are looking already executing partnership programs with the guard in foreign countries. we have been doing that for years. it is a very effective program. we have also lined up all the active units to participate with the guard. there are a wide variety of other issues, but we are increasing readiness, reducing response time. abouther piece you talked

ofo maintain a higher number leaders on active duty so that if you have to expand rapidly, you have leaders that can take over. i have folks looking at a variety of concepts. one of them is to build training units for overseas deployment. the units would look like the chains of command of regular army brigades are battalions, but they wouldn't have the soldiers. the fact out is what we do anyway right now, so we are sending teams to afghanistan and iraq and we have been doing this for years. those teams are the leadership of brigades and battalions, sending them over. the negative of that is that we are destroying the structure of those units and reducing their readiness.

a couple months ago i said i wanted to take a look at creating units that are literally chains of command, that they can be used for train, advise, and assist. in times of national emergency you have a coherent chain of command that could bring soldiers in, match them up with leaders, put them through a few months a significant training, then it would be a reasonably decent capability. a bunch of initiatives we are looking at to regenerate. the regeneration of force significant enough to fight a war is not that easy. there is no magic bullet out there. >> you have had a real experience with this. it takes time. >> it takes time, yeah. >> i am getting -- >> are we don't already question

? >> know, we have time. let's open the floor. >> anyone want to talk about the patriots? [laughter] >> please stand up, introduce yourself. >> hi. sidney friedberg. "breaking defense." having just come on the heels of the conversation over there, we hear about the offset -- lots of images of laser weapons and unmanned teams, the army struggling just to modernize its own major platforms incrementally. , fromhe ground standpoint

the standpoint of facing the whole range from potentially specific to irregular to nationstates, what are the --ential third technologies perhaps shore-based antiship missiles or surface to surface looktional missiles that like they could be potential areas of interest for the army? >> ok. my number one priority is readiness, second his future force, and then i have is a constant troops and their families. these, --ure force

future force peace, i break that into chunks of time. operation is for five years from now. that is where the laser focus has to be, because realistically the army structure, equipment, weapons will chains only -- will marginsnly at the based on the budget cycle and so on. ago to 25,ive years that decade, i have an interim period of time, then a deeper 2050, thatto about 25 year. period. much of the strategy is toward that third window, that deeper ,uture than what we have today

and there are a lot of potential technologies that have potential military applications. many of which are not ready today. some of which are literally .deas in labs there are some things out there that do exist, and we could use them even in the near term. there are things being done today in robotics, for example, that has great promise to be used on battlefields. we could accelerate some of that. there are some things being done today -- you mentioned the unmanned teaming and we will expand on that -- but there are some things in protection, both that we knowr, exist in the real world today. the technologies are there and we need to bring them forward and rapidly accelerate them in order to increase the

survivability. there are some things in lethality that are being tested probably a little bit early for ground use, but there are things the airport in navy are doing with lasers and so on that have potential. i don't know if they will have application in the next couple years, but perhaps that second time. could have some pretty good application. there is a whole series of things being done in the medical systems thatdier we can bring forward. there are technologies that are being looked at as part of a third offset that clearly can be brought forward and celebrated. it's not just the spider that you mentioned, although that is a major focus.

the problem with the modernization piece is not so much the technologies or idea, the problem is money. x amount of dollars and you are currently engaged in conflicts around the world, we have 190,000 soldiers today. 150 different countries, all kinds of things of only way up to advising and assisting in combat operations. there is a significant day-to-day commitment. i can't give on readiness, because in my view, that is fundamentally negligent. soldier who was not well-equipped, then shame on all of us. readiness has got to consume most of your dollars.

compensation takes 50% right off the bat. the s and t over the last many years for the army has been , whichnded significantly led us to a strategy of spiraling existing technology to improve systems that exist. i don't see any sort of breakthrough technology for brown systems yet, but i do anticipate some in the next 3, 4, 5 years. there are some promising leads thathere in technology have some significant, game changing potential for ground combat. they are just not realistic to field today. but there are some promising indicators. >> is there anything

specifically ucs promising? >> let's take robotics for example. hutnow right now that pizza can deliver pizza and amazon can deliver a book with a robot. you can have a robot run around .nd do all that kind of stuff we are using unmanned vehicles, the navy is experimenting with surface to sub, the air force is talking about a pilotless air force in 15 years -- no one has asked the pilots. -- autonomous intems -- have great promise the air and maritime domains. ground to me is much more challenging. it is a much dirtier environment. it is not an environment that lends itself easily to robots

linesaking straight . you have a lot of variables. haveevertheless, robotics some tremendous promise. for example, i could see in the future the third increment of time -- there is potential, for example, to have all your logistics convoys as autonomous convoys. either someone is back in a rare area driving these things up, or it is literally autonomous, and all your fuel and water in all bullets are done by autonomous vehicles. there are a lot of things you have to think through, not the least of which is the training. but the potential is huge, because tons of people are , althoughn logistics

slightly less than world war ii, is not significant. if you produce that kind of capability, you can potentially reduce your logistics footprint by a lot. you would also reduce things like casualty and all this other kind of stuff. there is great potential there. there is also great potential in information technology. right now for ground forces, your command-and-control facilities tend to be fairly large. a fair amount of people in them. . as information technologies continue to accelerate, there is a potential to go forward with small command posts that have the same capability to have situational awareness and understanding of the battlefield to reach them. you could have the larger

command-and-control capabilities, and they could turn the information just as quickly as if they were there. yet you have a relatively small footprint. there is potential there. those are two big ones that i'm looking at. >> ok, good. we have time for one more question. yes, all the way in the back. >> i have to ask the question. as you look at being a more agile force, is it a priority of yours to go faster, and what do you think about autonomous helicopters? >> same thing. it's a follow-up on the previous comment. the short answer is yes.

we are looking hard. there is no question that autonomous helicopters -- we will see how their pilots fare. ok, good. thank you so much for your time. [applause] >> on today's "washington journal," the founder and president of the arab-american institute. he talks about the debate over muslims in america and the u.s. strategy against isis. then a look at the future of the affordable care act and efforts by congressional republicans to block funding key provisions. our guest of bloomberg news. but washington journal," live every morning.

you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. president obama speaks a naturalization ceremony today here in washington. we have that live at 11:25 a.m. eastern on c-span3. spokeint chiefs of staff at the daylong security forum hosted by the center for a new american security. he discussed the current plan to defeat isis and how he plans to implement women into military combat roles. this is an hour 10 minutes. >> it is hard to believe that we are approaching our 10 year anniversary. we have dedicated ourselves to shape and elevate the national

security debate and to growing the next generation of national security leaders. a dominant pillar is to prepare the intellectual capital for the next administration, and as you will know, less than a year from there will be a new commander in chief preparing to take the oath of office. isil to fight against the rise of tensions with china, the next president will have a daunting inheritance and there will be little time for introspection as he or she faces a cluster of challenges. president, the next will inherit also the best trained, best lead, best equipped military force in the world. though the budget pressures we have talked about today and the

pace of operations will remain incredibly challenging, we are privileged to have the quality of men and women who serve and to volunteer to bear the burden of keeping us safe and secure here at home. we are incredibly lucky to have a professional military leader to has devoted their life shaping and sustaining our armed forces. joe dunford is one of those selfless military leaders. he spent decades leading u.s. marines at every level of command, including in combat. he spent 22 months of his life iraq, and then he subsequently served as the native commander of forces in afghanistan. he was called back to washington dc to become the commandant of his beloved marine corps, and all too 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 up the military professional, the term, in the dictionary, joe dunford's picture is what you would see. solace from the fact that joe dunford will be the chairman through the coming transition, and will act as a key point is stability and continuity, vision and wisdom, during the period. we are so thankful that you made it back from the pentagon in meeting with the president this morning to share your thoughts on how the u.s. military is confronting today's challenges while preparing for conflict. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the 19th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general joe dempsey.

[applause] thanks, michelle, and good afternoon. i really am honored to be here. i appreciate the flexibility on the scheduling. i was supposed to be on an hour ago but we did have an unexpected thing at the white house and i am 10 minutes away from finishing it up. i have been the chairman for just about two months now, and although i have had plenty of , thisunities to excel actually is the first time that i am going to share at a venue like this my thoughts about the current security environment. perhaps more importantly, and i think the implications of the current security environment, i will share that with you will stop it has been a good time.

yesterday, in advance of coming here. i see a bunch of familiar faces and friends that are here. the process of being introspective and trying to put my thoughts together to come over probably was useful to me. when i look around the room, the question-and-answer will be useful, so regardless i will be -- it was very helpful. i looked at the agenda and i would like to commend michelle for putting the talk here today. to be honest i wish i could have been here for the sessions this morning. the issues that you have been talking about are exactly the issues we are spending a lot of time speaking about on the joint staff. i think i have some plans out here. give -- to spend a few minutes addressing what was described as my agenda in my priorities during my time, and i will try to do that in two

parts. first i will talk about the current fight that does concern my time and will consume much of my time, whether i serve three years or four years. by that i mean the counter isil fight. then it will shift a little bit to some other challenges that we have, in really use russia and tona, iran and north korea look through the implications of other challenges in terms of capability development. that is how i will lay out my remarks. at the end, i have what i think are two or three of the major implications when i look at the current fight. i have laid out two or three of the major implications which will reflect in my priorities. there are many more and 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, and i do believe that. i just came back from a trip on thursday where had a chance to go through the european command and the united states central command. a large number of soldiers and marines, great spirits. it probably won't surprise you to hear me say that the closer i get to the fight, the more experienced they were. they are focused on what they are doing. i bring that up front because i don't take that for granted. is one thing i am mindful of that we has been running pretty hard for a long period of time. many of the young men and women i spoke to over the past week are still deploying what we call a one-to-one deployment. they are home and deployed an

equal amount of time. i said iid to them -- can't see a time in the near future where that dynamic is going to change. if our requirements continue to be what i believe they will be in the structure stays what it is today, and i think that is a fair assumption, we will be run hard for some time to come. i won't go through that with you today, but i would tell you that i do view readiness differently. i still look at the traditional metrics associated with train, organize, and equip, but i also look at readiness through the have the right inventory of capabilities and capacities to do what must be done. then the third element of readiness that i look at the perspective that i have today is to respond in a timely manner.

those are the three things i am paying attention to. michelle and i both spoke about that but the other two parts are important to me in terms of readiness. we are in the process of reframing what we call joint readiness. we described it as comprehensive, but whatever we end up calling it after the first of the year we are reframing readiness, just to make sure that our dialogue captures what i think are all the developments. it's not just the readiness of our individual units, it is making sure we have the right inventory and making sure that we are ready to respond in a timely manner. let me transition to the current fight. the fight against violent extremism is clearly the most prominent challenge, and that includes the fight against isil and all associated movements.

well isil is clearly a trance core isilhreat, it is in syria and iraq. it such asgs in governance, intelligence, finance -- i won't spend a whole lot of time speaking about those. ,here is a military dimension but there are two lines of focusedhat are specifically on the department of military capabilities in particular. that is what i will talk about. the first is to conduct strikes to kill isil leadership, and a knife and resources of revenue. element iscritical to develop and support effective partners on the ground and sees insecure isil terrain. it is designed to put pressure against isil across syria and

iraq simultaneously, but there are clearly differences on the ground as we execute and i know you all appreciate that. let me say up front that i am not satisfied with our progress , and i won't be until isil is defeated. i also want to say because maybe ,he media would say otherwise that within the framework of international into mystic law, i don't personally feel at all inhibited in terms of making recommendations to the president .nd we will continue to do that we just came from a national security council meeting this morning. we had general austin and we provided a campaign update. every meeting we have had on this particular issue was concluded by what more can we do?

what other ideas do you have? i can assure you that i will be as aggressive as i can be in making those recommendations and that is certainly what the president has led me to believe he expects. let me shift a little bit. syria has presented the most difficult challenge of the past year success in syria requires working with turkish partners to secure borders with syria. it requires us supporting vetted syrian opposition groups that will do what i mentioned earlier and take the fight to isil and sees ground currently held by isil. we need air not only against their command-and-control, but sources of revenue. you might have seen early concerted efforts over the past several weeks because of the intelligence we have developed.

there are other elements that will continue to go after in the coming weeks. to be more effective, we'd better human intelligence and to better enable those groups, those that will take the fight to the enemy on the ground and we are in the process of doing that. to be honest with you, i will not go into detail on how we are doing that, but in terms of further developing human intelligence and setting ourselves developing human intelligence and posturing ourselves to provide support to the scripts on the ground, that is our focus in syria. the political transition in syria is going to have a lot to do with our long-term success. to focus on getting after isil's military capabilities, reducing the terrain that they have and disrupting their ability to conduct external operations.

in iraq, we have a partner on the ground but the relationship is complicated by several factors to include the political landscape, sectarian ism and iranian influence. success will require integration of iraqi and kurdish forces and enable their operations with support. we are doing all of that right now. i expect we will do more in the coming weeks. you've seen some of that in the secretary's recent testimony in the testimony he and i did together in the house armed services committee a couple weeks ago. mind the challenges we have, we are not satisfied with where we are until we have defeated them. we are encouraged by recent operations with the peshmerga. in sinjar. even what has happened in ramadi, there is significant

progress. and number of things on the ground are developing opportunities. why do i highlight the positive? what we will do is we will do a large number of things pressuring iso-across syria and iraq. where we find we are having success, we will reinforce the success. operations are indicative of what is possible in the future and we will try to reinforce those. we will be aggressive and other ways. we look for opportunities to increase the tempo and effectiveness of our partners. looking around the room, i looked at the folks that are here, a lot of folks have a lot iso-campaign. the and a lot of folks everywhere have ideas about the campaign. in all sincerity, i will tell

you i'm at the point where i am not confident we have all the ideas and i do listen and i read and engage in the ongoing dialogue. i did not want to spend time giving you campaign updates, but i wanted to frame what we are trying to do in iraq and syria and maybe that will prompt some questions. isil the fight against dominates the headlines, we face extremism and south asia. the pressure we've put on al qaeda since 9/11 is one of the most important reasons why we wee not had another 9/11 have not eliminated as threat

appeared while the focus has been on al qaeda, you all know that it is complicated by the khorason islamic state in afghanistan and pakistan, it has become more complicated. several extremist organizations in the area that provides an network for al qaeda possibly rich and most recently we had the islamic state. the president's decision to leave 9800 and afghanistan into ant year does provide opportunity to continue to grow security forces as well as demonstrate our commitment to the region. administration's supportive of what we are doing. in terms of what are we trying to do together, we are trying to develop a counterterrorism partnership with afghanistan, which is what ghani is

supportive of. and have a platform from which we can advance our interests. we have common objectives with the ghani administration. this summer highlighted that the afghan security forces have a ways to go, particularly in the areas of logistics, intelligence, special operations and what i have more broadly capacity, therial ability of the minister of defense to surprise -- to provide support. we certainly have work to do. a critical part of the campaign moving forward is the continued commitment of the international community in terms of resources. are reliant on commitments made in chicago and in 2017. those run out this summer there will be a meeting in poland. tothe agenda will be

resource the afghan campaign, develop it in a security forces perspective through 2020. watching that developed is going to be important in terms of how we move forward. ultimately the key variables that will affect the campaign is the afghan reconciliation process, a strengthened afghanistan between and pakistan and the resilience of the afghan government. you've all seen president ghani has had some challenges. the national unity government that has been in place in a pretty difficult political environment, we're doing all we can to support the maturation of that government. the resilience of the government is going to be one of the indicators. the threat from violent extremist networks is one that has dominated much of my time over the past few months and dominates the news on a

day-to-day basis. we have a number of challenges in addition from state threats. state challenges is a better way to say it. former secretary of state kissinger has said this is the most dynamic and complex security environment he has seen since world war ii. after about 60 or 70 days on the job i have a hard time arguing with him. i probably agree with that. would like to describe the behaviors and the capability actorsment of those 4 and get into a discussion on as i look at that what is the so what. despite its declining population and shrinking economy, russia has made investments and military capabilities. on saturday morning i picked up in thehington post and washington post was a summary of putin's- of

announcements, new ballistic missiles, new submarines and capabilities over the past year. russianlosely watching developments in space and cyberspace as well. russian look at development you have to look at it in the context of crimea and ukraine and syria, that frames russia. what we emphasize in china policy is opportunities to cooperate, that is a sincere position that our government has. we get paid to watch their developments in military capabilities and their behavior in the south china sea. typicallychinese are opaque about military capability development it is clear that they are continuing to invest in conventional capabilities, a growing navy and sophisticated

air force. we also see their advancements in space and cyberspace and particular. in the south china sea review their activity as destabilizing. we exercise freedom of navigation routinely and that .ssures our allies and partners it has not done anything to turn back what admiral harris called the great wall of sand being built by the chinese in the south china sea. in order to spend more time on questionsations and and answers, i will skip through my perspective on iran and north korea. with theiramiliar behavior and we see similar trends with ballistic missile development, cyber capabilities and north korean aspirations for nuclear capabilities are things that we look at. when we look at this in the aggregate and look at the current challenges associated with violent extremism and the

other challenges that i just referenced, there's a number of implications. the first implication for me is foundational. we need a balanced inventory of joint capabilities that is going to allow us to deter and defeat potential adversaries across a range of military operations. todo not have the luxury have a choice between a force that can fight the current fight against violent extremism and one that can deal with the full range of challenges i spoke to earlier. need tond is the consider how to most effectively use the military instrument of national power to address today's challenges in areas characterized as the gray zone or even in cyberspace. i believe we need to develop methods to deal with challenges like russia's little green men or iranian influence. is that we are

either at peace or at war. the case fort be our adversaries, they live in between. we need to spend time on that issue. there is a full range of instruments available to our nation to deal with these challenges. we need to think more about how the military in the gray zone. when you look at cyber, clearly , not only toenges protect ourselves but also development of a sense capabilities and cyber deterrence. admiral mike rogers is doing that and i certainly will do that over time. framework develop a within which cyber threats, the attribution issue and the managing escalation and hardening ourselves are areas we mentioned. when they get to one that is --

let me get to one of the most significant implications and that is the high likelihood that any conflict that we have will domainnds regional, multi- and multifunctional. i will explain a little bit about what that means. when i look at information operations, cyber capabilities, ballistic missile technology, they have all affected the character of the modern battlefield. we see such capability fielded by state and nonstate actors and they will look to harness those to exploit our vulnerabilities. the current fight against extremism is a trends regional fight. limit give you another example that highlights what i'm trying to get at. would have thought about the korean peninsula years ago, you would have thought about it conflict we would have hoped to isolate. as the north koreans develop ballistic missile capability, it

started to affect japan. no longer could you hope to isolate a conflict on a peninsula. as you look at intercontinental ballistic missile technologies, space capability, information operations, it is hard to see how even a regional conflict on be anythinga would other than trends regional, multi-domain and multicultural. currentperspective, our organizational construct is not really optimized for that fight. when i look at how we are going to fight and the character of the fight and how we approach things, which is through a regional approach. you,tly it may surprise the lowest level of integration in the department of defense is the secretary of defense. andse collaboration supportive relationships between combatant commanders but in terms of integration and decision-making authority to

integrate a fighter crossed a region, is the secretary of defense. terms of what is at the top of my inbox, that is an issue i'm taking a look at hard. believe,lieve what i you look at the nature of the fight even against violent extremism and you look at the nature of what the fight might competitors in the future, i don't think we will be able to be as responsive and generate the tempo and frame decisions and act in a timely manner as much as we should unless we make some fundamental changes to our organizational construct, the way we plan and the way we develop strategies. we had a good discussion with the combatant commanders about that a few weeks ago. i think this will be an issue that will come up in the senate armed service committee

hearings. i think we will see more of this in the coming months. thate within the authority we have today doing some things to mitigate the challenge. this is not a future challenge. we need to do things today to mitigate the challenge but i think making fundamental changes for whater posture us i described as the character war of the 21st century. thatnot suggest or argue the nature of war has changed, but the character of war capabilitiesy the i spoke about earlier and what have, aetitors would character war is dynamic and our organizational construct needs to be changed to respond to that. going to suggest a solution today but merely to frame the problem. allow forp there to questions. is seed theto do

ground for the q&a session. about myt thinking priorities, i cannot help but be closed fight.e one of the things we want to have a mind towards is capability development for the future. if you ask me what is your number one challenge you expect to confront, the number one challenge is balancing the requirements of the current fight with what we need to do to make sure we are ready for tomorrow in a fiscally constrained environment, try to make sure we are doing that. making sure we are adopting for today and innovating for tomorrow. do not know what secretary work spoke about this morning but i suspect he talked about innovation. i dry distinction between those two words, the at at tatian is the things we're now with the

wherewithal we have. innovation is when you are looking for a different way to .o things in the future we've got to do both of those things. >> thank you. i will ask you to join me in the chair's chair. will have the q and a back-and-forth and then open it to the audience. 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 of warfare is changing and how we are going to see trends regional scenarios. raising the question about our we organized. i do not want to push you , cands premature answers you give us thinking about what

kind of alternatives or options or what kind of questions should we be asking ourselves? as we look at this issue, what kind of avenues? gen. dunford: before we get into execution, 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 to take a look at russia. if we are involved in a conflict with russia, it is not going to unfold like the old plans we developed. there is a science of our business and the old plans help inform science but if you look like russia,ge it is not going to be isolated to an old plan. from the beginning when you think about challenges, our old plans need to be born with the

view that it will be trends regional, multi-domain and no multifunctional. cyberspace, ballistic missile defense. the first thing is, in terms of strategy development, i think it needs to be informed by the assumption i just made. it is my assumption today that it would be difficult for any conflict to be isolated to a region. when we think about potential adversaries in the future, we need to think about strategies that take into account that it is going to be fought in that way. any scenarioabout where there are ballistic , you have theved, u.s. northern command which

would be responsible for consequences. i do not want to leave you thinking that today we cannot make all that work. that is one thing that is going on in a series of 100 things affecting multiple combatant commanders simultaneously. from my perspective, there's probably an organization, it is not so much authorities. this is not the joint chiefs of staff saying we need more general staff and more authority. not what this is about. i do believe there needs to be a staff that has a perspective of all the combatant commanders that can provide the secretary of defense with a common operational picture that can frame decisions for the secretary of defense that involve multiple regions and can do that in a common manner. that is not currently what the joint staff is designed to do. the secretary of

defense and the national command authority. i do think if you look back at nuclear command and control, we with nuclearght command and control. nuclear command and control was an effective way for the president to make decisions. the complexity of nuclear command and control in the 1960's was not replicated by traditional conventional fights. now you see some of the same complexity in other fights. we need to get a better way to get after it. >> very helpful. we spent 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 wrestling with how do you do this? one thing when i was in the pentagon is what i've come to call the tyranny of consensus.

sometimes the objective becomes what can we all agree on as opposed to how do we come up with the best options or alternatives to solve problems? from your perspective, do we have enough space or have we created a space to half the competition of ideas that is going to be necessary for how we approach different war fighting challenges? what more can be done? gen. dunford: what you say resonates a lot. the worst thing we can do for innovation is incentivize innovation. as i've been involved, the thing that i've argued for as we need innovation.ze one way you incentivize in our department's resources. resources help incentivize innovation.

there needs to be an overarching view of what we are going to be working on in the future. a vision that is laid out to inform innovation. problems that we can see and you want to solve those problems. there might be things along the way that allow you to develop a different technology but there is a combination of testing things and finding out what is possible and going after a process that is specifically designed to solve certain problems. i do believe that one of the things you need to be careful with, some people think that a more we bring the services together, the better off we will be, i'm in the opposite place. i think allowing the services and their laboratories, organizations and some other , thatpartment think tanks might be the universities we

have relationships with. incentivize innovation and figure out a way to cast the net over so we can --erage it and harvested harvest it, we would be in good shape. we need to lay out what we are trying to do and harvest the good ideas. what happens in between should be to the maximum extent possible decentralized. >> human capital is important. we heard some ideas about a force for the future. people are interested in hearing more. they do not fully understand exactly what it is. they are not sure what problems it is trying to solve. there's a sense that the all -- if we'rerce going to recruit and develop and develop the leaders and have retention. how are you thinking about the

human capital direction? answern. dunford: i will that from a service perspective. was not a gratuitous remark, i fundamentally believe we are recruiting and retaining an incredibly high quality force. it is somewhere between 2-3 women in the u.s. that are for military service. we are getting a good cut of people. 67% of the marine corps is on its first enlistment and 47% is lance corporal's and below.

when i look at mechanics, cyber capabilities, some of the things that really do require years and years. for those of you who read "outliers," 10,000 hours of repetition. in an occupational , handling the technology we have today. that takes a combination of training, education, and experience. to move theme needle into the force in some select areas to the right. currently we have a pyramid structure across the department. it is not force of the future slapped onto the department. it is looking at what is it that

we need to have in each occupational field in the civilian force and the military force. i said let's look at the force next, let's look at each individual requirement. what 10,000 hours are for that position, let's recruit 10,000 hours and develop a training and education and experience path that will allow you to get to that point in time where the person has the wherewithal to do the job. me what force of the future ought to be is a plan that optimizes the human capital for challenges we are to face in the future and it should not start with an overall approach. it ought to start with a clear sight picture of what we need individuals to look like if they are performing certain functions and then go out, starting with recruiting, to get the right people. there are some other things we can do. we mentioned -- we've always measured physical fitness and measuring psychological

resilience is another area where we might have a discussion. number one, force of the future is being very specific about the requirements we need and the young men and women in the future, identify this requirements and cradle to grave start to grow the force. there is a certain amount of maturation in the force. 10,000 hours of what might have been conventional 20 years ago is different from 10,000 hours we will need for the multifunctional fight of the future. >> another human capital issue is the secretary's decision to open up all career specialties and the military for women.

obviously, he has the benefit of hearing wide range of views as he made that decision. you said now it is time to implement. can you say something about how implementation is constructed. over the past couple years, and areas where we did not have standards, we have them. it wasn't because of the organizations didn't have standards, it was because we made certain assumptions when it was an all male population in an occupational field. about 90% of them can do it. i provided some input to the

secretary. i would frame along these lines. effectiveness.t i don't think anyone is suggesting anything other than that but we've got to make sure we are clear and the standards with each occupational field. we have to have people who meet the standards filling this fields. i 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 were dismissive of issues about physical injury. in my mind there is a real issue there. to figure out how we can go about many getting that. it would be irresponsible for me as a leader not to know that right now given what we do, we have twice the likelihood of having an injury in one part of the population than another and say that is the price of doing business. the other thing is make sure that, back to the theme of the force of the future, this at the

end of the day is about talent management. andave to be more precise put people in an occupational field where their talents can be leveraged. where they have a high probability of not only completing their first enlistment but being available from the pool from which we will draw competitively from the future. the secretary's guidance is clear. he has test meet with sitting with him. -- he has tasked me with sitting with him. 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

time talking about russia. as you think about a posture in in a rebalancere in asia, are there things you think we need to be looking at that has not been on the table in the last 10 years in terms of deterrents? gen. dunford: i will oversimplify the dialogue that has taken place in various parts of the department and frankly probably in the journals as well. some people think that the most effective way thank you deter an adversary is to have a capable .orce others argue that not only to adversaries but to assure

allies, you need an effective force. in terms of a rebalance, we've said that in order to advance our interests in the pacific and ,upport our economic interests we want to be present in the pacific. i feel the same way about other particularly in europe. not only do we have to have the capability to respond with the contingency requires, but on a day-to-day basis we need to be there where that our knows response time provides us with a competitive advantage. we need to be forward in the pacific. deterrence i support

.nd insurance as well 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, the headquarters staff. you add in defense agencies and you get to about 200 thousand people. there's a lot of important work but there's also a sense of duplication and bureaucracy that has grown. you are two months in and have

spent most of your career in the field. coming back into the pentagon, what's your sense of the headquarters where there's an opportunity for streamlining and adding agility into the system. gen. dunford: i was raised with if you have a problem, you should start solving it. never increase concentric circles around your own desk at i will talk about joint staff initially. i do think about some of the discussions about the joint staff is probably fair. represents what used to be the joint forces command and is now the extension of the j7 and the joint staff. in all honesty, there has not been a huge growth of the joint staff. having said that, the joint staff over time for a variety of reasons has begun to do things that i think we can probably walk away from. my priority for the joint staff is to focus on the strategy,

focus on the combatant , joint force readiness, those core areas. some things that need to be done , i hesitate to say this right now because there are people and i want to do this right and probably will do this some time after the first year where i can look at people and say it is not what you are doing but we are going to divest ourselves in these functions. to date, i have not had a meeting with the joint chiefs on what i would describe as a title 10 issue. i do not intend on doing that except in extraordinary cases. i will give you an example pay , raise. the pay raise came up and i provided my input. i talked to the chiefs and i aid if you think we need joint chiefs position on the pay raise, that is fine but you have

a vehicle to provide input for your service secretary that then goes to the secretary of defense. unless there is an extraordinary reason, a title x issue, we will spend our time establishing positions on the current fight against isil, whether that be in afghanistan. what our strategy will be in other challenges we spoke about. but over time, i will not have be critical but the demands of the joint chiefs have been driven by others. they said we want a joint chiefs position on this or that. 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 the principle of alignment and divesting ourselves in things that we don't need to do, inlicate it jup in ost or

the service sector. -combs, i'm to co willing to take a hard look at this. i don't want 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 they do or do not do across the range of military operations. i commanded one, joint task forces solve other problems for the commander, i don't think that is true. if you think about what i said a minute ago, about transregional, multifunctional, i don't know how we will call somebody at the four star level that's

responsible for geographic command anything other than a war fighter. 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 form. it does not mean the joint staff has to exist in its current form. i want to ensure we have the right framework to have a debate and we do not take the last 14 years and say this is what we've been doing for the last 14 years so this is what we will be doing over the next 15-20 years. 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 it. personal experience, a bigger staff isn't always necessarily a better staff. i am now 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 is more difficult to convey your intent and to come up with a process within which you can make decisions and frame decisions, harder than a big staff. most of us would want a smaller staff, it has got to be aligned to the functions that have to be performed and that is the work we have to do pretty quickly. i have an obligation to provide military advice. goldwater nichols , the department's position was not accepted. i would like to think we are as innovative as anybody else is. it doesn't mean we'll have all the good ideas. i will be receptive to those. 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

diagram and talking about how big we ought to be. that would be my only appeal in this debate. >> right here, the lady with her hand up. briefly introduce yourself. i am a vietnamese-american, thank you for your service. may i ask you to share your position about the south china .ea have we been successful with our strategy of deterrence in that area? what options do we have with the military as man-made islands china has. the globald: commons, so to speak, should be accessible to all. in international law, that is where we ought to be.

the south china sea ought to be accessible to all within the framework of international law. what you mentioned, militarization, that is important. we are not seeking to militarize the south china sea. we are trying to make sure it is available. is to make sure the pacific as a whole and the south china sea is available for trade and the economic prosperity we've enjoyed for the last 70 years because we have freedom of navigation. an economicire issue and there's a military issue as well. if you say what is the military dimension, freedom of navigation is a piece. military to military engagement

is a piece. transparency is a piece of it. diplomatic,omic and it has to be clear to everybody that that is the right regime to have. >> thank you. the mic will come your way. thanks. gen. dunford: good to see you. we had a chat at the reagan for um. major general, retired. thank you for robusting up some for aviators going deep into raqqa and stuff like that. i know your experience in iraq was like mine. a dollar for every iraqi that thanked me, we could retire tomorrow. the thing that is most bothersome was the performance

of the iraqi army after we left. frequently we get questions after speeches what keeps you up at night? they do the right thing when no one is looking. i implore you and i know your staff is listening, when the chairman gets the status of iraqi forces, would you recommend to the president to makert in various forms, sure that he gets terrific assessments of their real combat capabilities. grade where you have to have confidence before you employ our boots on the ground to support those people. gen. dunford: i will do that based on personal investments as well. >> can you hear me? gen. dunford: sure. my name is paul johnson, i

live in washington, d.c. in the dupont circle area. i'm a persianite. early 1970's i attended the university of tehran, they have an excellent persian program for foreigners who have a knowledge of the language, which i had by that time. i used to take a lot of tours to mashhad and stay in the hotel's where the pilgrims would stay. of u.s.s a contingent army arresting drug truckers from the -- drug traffickers from the poppy fields and afghanistan. i talked to a marine who had served on the afghan side of the the border working with

iranian army to arrest drug traffickers. iran and the united states have a very personal problem with drugs. >> can we get to the question? >> all right. i guess i do not really have a question. >> thank you. thank you very much. if you do, i'd be happy to see you on the way out. >> sounds like we have a very interesting background that we are going to focus on questions. fcw federal computer week magazine. i am wondering if you can tell us what your key take away was ofm the joint chiefs hack

the unclassified network. it occurred before you arrived but no doubt was on your mind and has been since. i'm wondering what you've done since then. it has only been two months. what you've done or plan to do to make sure that will never happen again and what that experience may have taught you that you did not know about cyberspace. gen. dunford: first of all, i did mention in my remarks, i had -- one of the areas i'm taking a hard look at is the idea of resiliency. when you think about providing options to the president in terms of the conflict, i'm going to work my way back to the vulnerability. it has to be informed by our resilience to whatever action is the enemy may take. one thing that jumps out is when you have the vulnerability, whether it be in the civilian sector or from a military perspective, you do not have the

resilience you need to provide the president with options to advance interests. clearly it highlighted for me the resilience issue as it is connected to the war fighting feature but whatever investments we made an cyberspace to date have not gotten us to where we need to be and that needs to be an area of investment as we move forward. i do not know that that is anything profound. not good enough was the number one takeaway. probably when you think about -- i think about the united states as the platform from which we deployed a joint force. the resilient of the united states has to be such that we have options to horizontally escalate in the event of a we areand know that but not doing is exposing one of our vulnerabilities to the enemy. you are a very exciting

leader. i am with the naval postgraduate school. gen. dunford: i thought you were going to say you are my mom. but you are so young looking. [laughter] gen. dunford: -- bei'm old enough to your mother. my concern is understanding the other, this is related to the intelligence world. what are our expectations about all the people we're dealing with and how do we educate our to understand how these other people think? the assumption is that they have the same views as we do, clearly it is wrong. one interesting story in "the economist" is how these democracy but not like ours. how did we learn about them? it is not built into general education of our military, except for a small number of people. gen. dunford: i agree.

many of you probably read one of the best articles that i read which was in "the atlantic" -- i wish i remembered the author. it was a great article. it framed honestly how they think, what they believe in, what they are trying to do good many of us new pieces but that was probably as comprehensive and coherent and outline as what we are dealing with as anything we've read. unfortunately it has not resonated much. it is not only our troops, i think our troops have a sufficient understanding of what we are dealing with to do what must be done. the that fills me more are 15 or 16-year-old girls and boys who romanticize -- what baffles me more are the 15 or 16-year-old girls and boys who romanticize what isis does and go join the fight. my daughter had to classmates make their way to pakistan and

say we would like to join al qaeda. two young guys who grew up in alexandria, virginia. what is concerning to me is that the new death that we spend a lot of time talking about this morning and we do every meeting, the narrative that nice a house -- the narrative that isil has is gaining traction. we can look at the absurdity of the ideas and immediately be dismissive. ideas actually are resonating. they are resonating with people who do not have access to the universe of information that we have. they are resonating with people who have grievances in areas. they are resonating with young people in the u.s. who are either disaffected, dislocated or just not fully integrated into our society. i wish i had a good answer for how to solve it that i think you highlight one of the challenges we have right now.

to be successful dealing with the narrative, countering the narrative and the legitimacy of isil is going to be critical to our success. we are at a c minus or d in terms of doing that right now. it is an area we need to be a part of in the department of defense. >> thank you. john leddy with aerospace industries cessation pit my question pivots on that. it's about radicalization. this might be part of your experience on the ground, how much to our military actions bear on the question of radicalization? most recently in the news was the question of dropping leaflets on the convoy before we blew it up. there is a debate about our policies on

immigration at the moment. how much does what we do or say there on that turning point of radicalization? gen. dunford: i think it bears a lot on it. i would say two things. have set athing i couple times. i do not think we ought to apologize for our values. when we go to war, we bring our values with us. when we look at this as a long fight, we cannot let the immediacy of whatever challenge we have formed our actions. i do think that over time when we have unnecessary civilian , if we are abusive, i do not suggest that we have been -- money make it clear because it is true -- i'm proud of the discipline of our force since 9/11. for itself.peaks have there been exceptions? there have. exceptionss those

more quickly more than we do. i believe with the thesis that you are outlining, this is a war of values. this is a war of ideas. the experiment that we have in the u.s. could be and should be sold and we should sell it. go someplace, we are a reflection of the united states of america and our day to day behavior and engagement with people in afghanistan, iraq or elsewhere may be the only part of america they ever see. >> in the last five minutes, the young lady back here. i'm with the christian science monitor. just to follow-up on michelle's

question about women in combat. this process there have been a number of women who as the message that marine corps, we do not want you in these jobs. you are going to ruin everything. you're going to ruin the camaraderie, the fund, the fighting, the effectiveness of the force. now that you are the top officer in the military, how are you going to heal this rift? do you feel like it is a rift that needs to be healed? i am tereus, as you were going through this data and these studies and seeing the women going through ranger school, was there a point where you looked at this and said, wow, here's a way in which women could make these forces more effective? first of all, i had hoped to move forward from

implementation and get on with it. let me tell you what my criteria was in making a recommendation. the last year what i focused on was my ability to stand in front of a room with 2000 marines and say marines and sailors, this is what i recommended and this is why i recommended it. and walk through the logic of my recommendation and say ok, i agree with that or ok, i disagree with it but i understand how he got to where he is. i do not actually believe that there is some huge rift. to be honest with you, it would break my heart if i thought that that was true. even in the recommendations that i made, we were going to open up all but a very few mos's where the data indicated there was some challenges and the secretary determined we will overcome those in implementation. in terms of the value of women in the marine corps, i think the record speaks for itself over

the past 10-12 years. we have trumpeted that. there may be in a washington, d.c. sound perception that women in the marine corps do not feel valued, i've spent a lot of time with marines and i can sniff out b.s. when i see it, i don't think that is true. marines are proud to be marines and the women who have different opinions have been opened with sharing that in a professional way. i do not think there's a rift to heal. treating every marine with dignity and respect and valuing the contribution of every marine and putting them someplace where they have a high probability of succeeding is what we are about. will personally make sure that that message is conveyed in every audience i speak to during office.in if there were groups of women that felt that i did not value their service, i will close

those one by one to make sure that is not the case. it is not the case. resent it if someone suggested it was and i provide the best military advice with recommendation a with four willingness to implement whatever it is shouldn't -- whatever decision was made like it was my idea. i've been doing that since i was a second lieutenant. >> we are out of time. the general has been generous with his time. we are honored to be able to host you. join me in thanking general dunford. [applause] today, house speaker paul ryan and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell talk to politico about what is ahead in 2016. a.m. eastern on c-span2.

president obama speaks at a naturalization ceremony today at the national archives in washington. live at 11:25 a.m. eastern on c-span3. ♪ >> abigail fillmore was the first first lady to work outside the home. teaching in a private school. lobbiedessfully congress for funds to create the white house library. pink eisenhower's love of was a fashion sensation. jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the creation of the white house historical association. as a young actress saw her name mistakenly on the black list of suspected communists and fighters -- sympathizers in the late 1940's. ronald reagano for help and later became his wife.

these stories are featured in "first ladies: presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women." giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first lady in american history. stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resume today. america'sstories of first ladies for the holidays. available in hardcover or e-book. be sure to order your copy today. today on c-span, "washington journal" is next. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, a discussion on the international climate change agreement. at noon eastern, the house returns for general speeches. at 2:00 p.m., the house takes up a bill to combat terrorist use of social media.

gby.ng up, james zobb he will talk about the muslim americans and the strategy to combat isis. then our guest this alex wayne of bloomberg news. host: good morning, everyone. lawmakers are returning to washington today facing a deadline to pass a $1.1 trillion spending bill. reports say house republicans told paul ryan that it contains policy victories for the party but not as many as they wanted. ryan promised to give them three days to review the package. he