i will also tell you about a week ago it was now that we were informed, we the air force over in theater, was informed that there was one such unmanned aerial system in the vicinity, and fairly quickly we were able to bring it down. we brought it down through electronic measures. so you don't necessarily have to shoot. there's a variety of ways to attack the problem. what we need to do is put our best thinking together and focus on it on forward in the future. >> ggg and it? how did you break that electronically? >> i can't get into the specifics of it as you can imagine. but again it's a problem an example another thing we have to attack quickly. >> this is the reporter in me, i'm sorry. side note, in that particular instance since the coalition was informed, that it posed a threat to u.s. and coalition troops? >> any drone that possibly is carrying explosives is a threat. it could be a threat to troops. it could be a threat to civilians on the ground. we brought it down is the key thing and we need to focus on this for the future. >> that's an example of where the laser weapon i talked about to bring down a drone. >> let's talk about the current practical threat you're facing. your ships, there's been some confusion about it but not all that much, fairly have been targeted by rebels in yemen

firing surface-to-surface missile statue. berry low-tech threat essentially -- very. what can you do about it? >> well, what you do about it over all is enough multimission platforms and you trained your sailors, your marines to be flexible and adaptable because you don't know what the threat is going to come at you. you don't know what the next thing coming over the horizon is going to be. but when those missiles were fired at the ships, they took out some appropriate action. nothing hit the ships, no one was harmed on the ship. and to show you the value of naval presence and being everywhere at the right time, the right place, but all the time, is that instead of saying you're in big trouble two or three weeks from now when we can get somebody here to shoot at you, we had somebody there. we had a tomahawk shooter right there that, when the decision was made to retaliate, to show people that if you attack us, you do so at your peril. we were there. we could do it instantly.

>> i think it's interesting, one of the threats is while the bureaucracy, again while the bureaucracy may move a little slow in this town, enemies move pretty fast, pretty low-tech. the only reason i say marine corps is a land force, or land forces facing an isis threat here we know that isis is challenging you rudimentary, they have that ability. this weekend we saw then set fire to an oil plant and a phosphorus plant in the iraq. that doesn't take massive multi-gazillion weapons to

defend against that it does take your troops being able to still have the equipment to operate. so talk to us about that. that's a threat perhaps could be anticipated but still when it comes it's very challenging. >> we do a fairly good job of anticipating a lot of the threats, not when they're going to use them or how they're going to employ some of them but being prepared for a multitude of threats in the battle space. but it gets back to a point that we've been talking about this morning. that decision cycle, the cycle the adversaries are so good it. in many ways there's a lot of innovation in military, a lot of innovation in industrial base that succeeds despite the prophecies and the barriers that we put up in place. in many ways the department of defense to operates like it's the 1950s and we are driving technological change. when there is all the change that we can keep up with, it's faster than we can absorb it. >> what worries you the most on

that point of iterative technology moving faster? >> is everything. the rapid capabilities office, we set it up in the army because we are seeing, we been focus on certain type of fight for 15 years, and russia goes into ukraine and all of a sudden we see that they did turned into much more of a learning institution that we thought they were they have been watching us, studying in making improvements. and are decisive advantage we thought we had wasn't as big as it turns out as we hope it was for thought it was. so we set this office up for things like cybercom electronic warfare composition navigation and timing, and countering this threat of the uhf. i think the two things, the three things that worry me the most, cyber, position in china, gps, not having that in a fight and everything that is pretty much dependent on it one way or

another. and then of the threat of these kind of insistence that we're starting to see proliferate. >> we could talk about this point for ever but let me shift now to the sort of service members sight of it. over the last several months everyone in this room has heard the constant conversation whether it's aimed at congress and the budget and sequestration, the pressure on your budget, which are not going to be able to do with sequestration. we have heard from all sides in the political arena, the military, you know, broken stress, disaster, not ready. set that aside for a moment.

let's get the bottom line from all three of you on readiness current and anticipated threats. what can you do? what do you worry you cannot do to meet the current threat? how ready are you? how broken is the readiness? >> the united states air force is not at all broken. i would begin by saying we are the best air force on the planet. we have challenges. we have challenges and manpower. first of all in my opinion over the course of 27 years and type in the air force. we've probably gone to far which is why we have stopped downsizing and now we're modestly growing our force, particularly to the blog some

important holes in the maintenance arena and also growing our rpi aircraft force and cyberforce to name just a few. so we are growing our force modestly. when it comes to our readiness, our ability to do our jobs that we are called upon to do today, you always have to ask yourself, ready to do what? which job are you talking about? the question is are we ready to do what we are doing in the middle east, the site again isil in iraq and syria comes the answer is darn right we are. we've been doing this types of operations for years and we do them extremely effectively. what if you get into a different type of site? if i or you don't necessarily control the skies and where the enemy on the ground or elsewhere can interfere with you in a

major way. but if you get into a site into a site where there's integrated air defenses to go up against the underground. this is where you have concern that you don't have enough force to take on that level aside. we will do the job but at levels of lower readiness, our worry is that it will take longer to get the job done. we may lose more lives. more people may be hurt or killed. we may lose more assets, more aircraft and the like. that's the impact of not having sufficiently high levels of readiness for what i call the huygens complex fight. >> the navy marine corps are ready to fight tonight. we are global around the globe, around the clock. the people that we deploy, the forces we deploy are at the absolute top of readiness training. new mexico are at the same level, getting the treatment they are needed. the equipment they need, the

and maintenance done. it is the next force. the search force after that at the cost of sequester, the cause of declining budgets that were not getting enough training for the long-term, not doing the long-term maintenance as well or as deeply as we should. the number one theme for the navy was when i came in, we just didn't have enough ships. the fleet had decline from 316 ships and 217 a ships in 08. you didn't have enough ships -- you are having to make choices as to where dissent assets. in the time from 01-0 wait, what the organ once ships under contract. not enough to keep our shipyards in business. in my seven years would put 86 ships under contract. we will get back to 300 ships by 20 night and 301 by 2021 what does rss need of today. we are living with the fleet size today based on decisions made 12, 15 years ago. the decisions that i make in on

this big-ticket items are going to determine the fleet size 2025, 2030 in your comment about giving the future of seat at the table. you have got to do that and you got to do it in a way that you don't know what the threats are going to be. every time a striker comes back, i get a briefing on it and the one constant is they face in shame that they have not expect to comment that during their work and training and it wasn't foreseen. we are just not. the only thing we can do is have enough of the acquit and, chavez ready it changes you can possibly have. and finally, that you trained to

be very flexible, and that you don't all into one mind that, but you don't fall than to fighting the last war, that you are about to ball, that you do see their threats when they come and your good at overcoming them. >> i'll echo the army is ready. it's incredibly lethal war fighting machine, by far the best we've ever had in the best in the world. debbie was they asked the question ready for wide. but when we talk about first of all readiness, and resets the number one priority but it's resilient soldiers who are trained and properly equipped. and so i think the army is ready. we are expanding the trading. we've been focusing on that in the last year taken on decisive action that the larger scale

near peer adversaries, different type of sites focused on in the last 15 years. but because of that site that we've in the last 10 years, i would never say broken. i would never say hello because it is a very strong lethal army. but we've been running it hard for yvonne time now and there is no end in sight to that up-tempo that has been tough on the army and expanding at the expense in some ways that the future. we've cut the procurement budget pretty dramatically over the last 10, 15 years. focus on today's readiness, making sure the army of today is ready or paired for the combat situation it finds itself in. i worry about making sure the future army has what it needs to get done. >> what i hear from all three of you is yes, randy, but that such are all paid to do is to worry. essentially. so let me ask you this. secretary james, you mentioned if you had to be at the follow-through is nobody goes a long if you are suddenly in an area where you did not control and you're in an area challenged

by missiles on the ground. so let's be very specific. if for all three of you not hypothetical. it's been discussed. if you had to do a so-called no-fly zone over syria, many people in the pentagon say ok but that would take resources away from the current pace despite. could you prosecute the current site air, sea, ground and still have resources if you are ordered to do a no-fly over syria? could you do that? >> i will just begin by saying -- >> without diverting resources away.

>> let me begin by saying if we were called upon to do a no-fly zone, we know how to do this. we know how to put this together. we know how to plan it, how to execute. it's been done before. as you point out it would require money, people and resources. we would figure out how to accomplish it. remember, the united states air force is not alone. we are with the u.s. navy.

we have a coalition of partners. i have to believe that we were called upon to do this we would keep the fight going at pace again isil and iraq in the area and we would find out away to do a no-fly zone. we've done it in the past. we know how it can be connect to it. >> you are suggesting it could be difficult to layer on these additional tasks as threats emerge an additional tasks emerge given what you are facing right now anyhow with the challenge to your budget. >> difficult is that the military guys. we do planning and execution so i don't want to in any way makes it sound like it would be complex. what i'm trying to convey is if asked to do so would step up to the plate, do it with our joint

war fighting partners and do it as part of the coalition. >> eric, you talked about, one of the dead, but there's been a lot of talk about pressure going into crimea and eastern ukraine at various points. you have a step g army presence in the air force president in eastern europe now. military personnel generals have expressed concerns that if russia did make a move, came the u.s. army, can nato push it back fast enough? do you have enough to have a credible deterrent to russia right now do you need more? >> i think we are a credible deterrent to russia. let me just address that for a minute in terms of it there is a no-fly zone are stepped up her occasional presence in europe. it goes back to the readiness question. we hold our military to a higher standard as we should. we want the jury in a decisive

way and we are asked to do things all over the world. adversaries just have to jam us or prevent something from happening. we have to penetrate and defeat them decisively into it at the globe. as secretary of the army i'm always going to want more to make me feel more comfortable in terms of deterrence to russia are resources for soldiers. but i think we are right now a credible deterrent. >> i suppose it all depends what level of risk one is willing to take. i you don't keep everybody at the top alert status around the world all the time, but you do have ships there just in case. >> and that's the value of the maritime forces that present day in, day out. that is the reason you need decisively that you need.

you have to have enough ships to be there. haven't shifted more folk and have it shipped in san diego doesn't do much for an immediate crisis. to your question to eric, we do this is a joint course and we've got a lot of presents, protect you early navy and marines. the army has come behind the marines and the blacks rotational force. we were together incredibly well, the air force and the navy and what used to be called air sea battle. the notion that we can control the skies. the other thing that a maritime force brings you is we operate off of sovereign u.s. territory. we don't have to ask anyone for permission to get the job done. the best example of that was when the president made the decision to strike a says in august of ford team we had a carrier stationed in less than

30 hours launching straight. we were the only strike option or 54 days. it wasn't because we didn't have other assets. we have lots of other assets in the region. but the countries with the lower planes to take off. we did not ask. >> would you tell your successors as this approaches? not you personally, the u.s. defense part in. have you pretty much given up on that old notion that you might have to be ready to face two major regional conflicts? i made only person on this panel of math to remember. have you given up that construct? or is that still where we are.

of course there's north korea out there, russia, the middle east. >> weary think of the joint force as the u.s. military, we are prepared in the event that there should be a conflict with what is sometimes called a near peer competitor. we are preparing for the possibility of a persistent fight against terror for years to come. so it is a combination of all of these elements that we are trying to make sure we are prepared to do. but i was not one to pick a fight with anybody, this is mostly about deterrence, about

being there and reassuring allies around the world. as was noted we are globally engaged force. to the extent are people feel some strain is because of the pace of operation. >> my last question before we go to all of these which are looking really good, north korea. the reason i ask about this in terms of transition and what may come next, a couple weeks ago the cia director, john brennan, publicly was talking about north korea and said that he thought it was kind in not only the current administration obviously has to prepared to deal with at any time, but that he thought a new administration needs to get ready now, that both candidates irrespective of who wins need to be briefed up and ready, that you could literally have a new president having to deal with north korea from minute one, that they could take advantage. so talk to me as you look ahead on what you want to prioritize for yourself as you form the next budget. how much does north korea play into your thinking?

you've got people rate air. >> first i just want to speak to your last question and say we have not given up on the atf has been able to do more than one thing in the world simultaneously. i don't want anyone to think. you certify that on the head when you said it's about balance that risk. that is essentially what the jobs are about. we have the incredibly potent michael force and it's a matter of determining how you balance that risk based on the enemy having a vote in this. we've not walked back from that concept at all. we can do more than one thing and we are now in fact doing more than one thing. north korea plays heavily in my mind because it is so the situation is so one predict the bold and the pace seems to be increasing and there are quite a few soldiers that are sitting right there ready in case something happens. so making sure we are prepared for this increasing thread is

north korean capabilities increase is a very important part of the calculus budget together. >> it is not just north korea. any incoming administration is ready from day one for any of the threats out there and that is part of our job to pass to our successors. the readiness is rare, you can take north korea as an example. again, i come back to the wordpress and. our soldiers are already bear upon the ground and south korea. our ships, we've got carrier in

japan. we are adding destroyers to that after. and the ballistic missile destroyers. they are there. they are forward. so if there is a crisis, you don't have to wait. we are not going to have the luxury whatever the next fight is there whenever there is the next fight as being able to take weeks or months to get forces there. it doesn't matter what the sources are. you've got to have them ready and they've got to be ready to fight tonight. i think that's not just north korea, but that has to be the way pass on to our successors. >> i certainly agree, but leave as soon as we know what the next

president will be and as soon as we have a transition team specifically at the pentagon, that very quickly there will need to be a strategic review by this team of the threats. i will prep the larger quadrennial defense review down the line, but steve will be very, very important. to understand the threat profile, to also conduct to overtime and nuclear posture review, something most administrations will do to look at the state of our enterprise and we go from here. the new administration will have to also address up front whether or not we stay the course, a direction we have been going in space which is near and dear to my heart because in addition to being secretary of the air force the principal defense space advisor ensign years and seven years ago with that space with the peaceful domain. today we recognize it is contested and congested i have lots of satellite, debris and all sorts of things. it's terribly important will have to make decisions going forward on that as well. there will be a lot to do and on our behalf we are about organizing, training and equipping and i will be stressing some very important

people issues going forward, said an important training type issues for our readiness and the importance of modernization across the board. >> let's go to some questions. everyone is probably curious about what this person is asking, which is how your services are preparing for the upcoming transition. and there is a new on the book that actually allowed some preparation for trend mission prior to election day. can you give some insight into how the pentagon is thinking and preparing for transition for a new secretary, for new secretaries, how are you getting ready for this? >> debbie and i are both in the administration and i was in this

administration very early on. i think there are really two phases to transition. there's a whole bunch of work taking place now voip altogether governing documents, explanations on what the budget is and what we are thinking about in terms of the budget we are getting ready to submit. but the second phase really kicks in and my ex. michelle would know this as well the day after the election. the teams are thinking about staffing. they are thinking about substantive issues, but it kicks

into high gear the day after the election when teams actually show up in our case at the pentagon and then you really are focused on making sure the needs of those teams are met as they get a sense that in my case the army, but the issues are and what issues they are concerned about to be organized differently. many events prepare for that to be available and drives up right after the election so we can make the transition as smooth as possible. we have a whole series of binders and information available for the team when it shows up. but they are going to give us guidance on that day. >> i don't think i can improve much on that in there. -- answer. we are ready today to transition on big programs on the budget on the way forward. after the election it will be more of the one-on-one. it will be the start of explanations. one thing the pentagon does

appear well and my experience is to get you ready to go when intensive briefings than where we are in terms of making sure that nothing falls through the cracks as you move from one administration to the max because as michelle knows better than anyone here, there can't you've seen. there is no luxury of having a couple of days after the inaugural. >> you've got to be ready at 12:01 on january 20th to meet >> "washington journal" whatever comes to -- >> i would just add that for the department of defense as a centralized effort arrest. ost is running the sufferer, gathering up these papers and documents. each of us has thoughts about what the next team needs to know about. at the moment, all of that is being given over to the office

of the secretary of defense for central management so when the time comes, we'll be ready to go. >> would be happy to give you our e-mails. [laughter] >> we will keep you posted. last night's >> someone is asking a really good question. the secretary himself has talked about this. cyber, i mean, every time you turn around, somebody attacking somebody else. and yet you are dealing with more of a personal issue, dealing with competition from private industry. what can you do to attract the best cybertalent without having

righto off to industry away?> because it seems that is the warrior of the future. >> cyber encompasses so many different challenges. workforce is being one of them. i think everybody agrees that we can't build and retain a workforce like we have done traditionally with other aspects of the force. there are many opportunities to experiment and think differently about the defense work for us. one of the things we always have and we do have trouble competing with industry if you just look at it on dollars, a valor is what we can pay. we have sent a no one else has, which is the mission and the challenge that attracts the best out there who want to be a part

defending the united states. >> you can't win on salary, but what you can't win on its people and making a difference here and that the military. people are making a difference in terms of the future of this country, in terms of other fellow citizens. we've got a lot of very patriotic people who want to come in and our job is genetic surveys more flexible for them to give them more avenues, to get in and to move up and give them orders as abilities and reasons to stay. cyberis one of those areas that we've got to have the expertise. we've got to have enough of that broad thinking in different sorts of thinking. one of the things that all three of us have tried to do is open up the force. a military force that is predict

able is a force that is defeatable. we've got to bring in people that think differently from different wraparound, different experiences and not just become a monolithic culture and civilians are the uniformed services. >> there is no single approach on cyber. one i will add to the narrative is to maximize and we do this in the air force. maximize their use of the air national guard and air force reserve. if you can attract some of these top-notch cyberprofessionals in the private sector to also serve part time in a reserve unit, the individual can have it both ways if they can keep their civilian job that they have this opportunity to participate in the fantastic, very important mission. we're trying to maximize the use of a reserve. i will also say undersecretary

carter's force of the future, one of the key parameters area is to try to get people from different walks of life into service could be civilian service, uniformed service or civilian service is easier. it doesn't have to be a lifetime. they can take a sabbatical and be with us in the pentagon and be working on this important matters of national security for a year or two or three and bring up some of this expertise on sort of a rotational basis. one example that has been extremely successful today relates to the world of i.t. called the defense digital service. these are software professionals who largely come out of the west coast. they have come to the pentagon for a year or two or three. they've given up their time. they will one day of course go back but we have used them as troubleshooters on programs were of course software is king and we have run into difficulty is and they've been able to comment and help troubleshoot for us.

there's a variety of ways if we open up the aperture, a little bit differently than we can get people into our ranks if not for a full career of disrepair to time. >> go in the other direction, maybe with established secretary of the navy industry tours to send some of our gallant officers and best people to great american companies particularly things inside her and i.t. to get best practices, learn from the best and then come back and bring that back in the service. >> i am seeing some of that reflected in questions. people are asking about

force of the future. can you stick with it and make it all happen? let me ask you as a reporter you sorted here that you are not quite yet get in the level of interest participation from female service members to immediately join combat units. let's get a reality check on that. about theou seing pace of the activity of women frontline joijn units including special operations, forces units?

are you getting the response you anticipated? >> we are. we were expect ms to develop slowly. the army strategy was to build the leadership cadre before really trying to move out training in the larger scale. we knew that would take some time. all these things take a little time that we can stick with it, that we are sticking with it. but we have seen a lot of interest. we've been moving west bank branch in the combat arms. but we knew it was going to be slow at first. we think it is moving at the pace we think it would. to setnotion was standards. make sure the standards had to do with the job. , colorings like genderm love become you

irrelevant. if you meet the standards, you you get the job, period. it is not forcing people out because of simply gender or color or sexual orientation or something like that. from that point of view, i think going forward it's been a big success. you are going to have those standards. nobody is suggesting lowering the standards, but once you get those, once you know what the job entails, then gender, sexual orientation, whatever, shouldn't matter. the final thing i will say is we simply have not done a good enoughjob of recruiting women. many women from six to year twelve.

people have to make the service anden family. it's always the woman if it's a dual military couple or the woman is in. it's always the woman who decides to get out of the service. we need to do a better job paired some of the things we are trying to do, were going to let them take three years off and come back in without hurting your career. i tripled paid maternity leave from six weeks up to 18 weeks to try to get people not to have to make that choice. we do co-location policies. we have to make the military, i think we are down the road on doing this, but far more family-friendly, far more friendly to women to keep them from having to make that choice between service and family. to make it flexible enough that you can do both.

>> are you seeing women yet try to apply to become part of your special operation forces, to become become navy seals? >> i think you will see that. >> but not yet? >> the cycle is such that we haven't seen it yet, but that's not a surprise. it's a fairly long cycle and i will say this about the seals, they've had the same standards for years. 80% of men don't make it. seals haven't been discombobulated at all without opening it up. is, you meet the standards, we go through the same thing we go through and we don't care. >> you've all seen secretary carter's effort on developing the force of the future. how much of that can really, at this point, carryover in your views into a new pentagon administration?

is it far enough along yet to be institutionalized as part of the system, or does this need to have some more work done to make this an institutionalized part of the bureaucracy, to make sure it stays put? i'm just looking for your assessment. >> there are a number of aspects to his initiative that we are implementing, they are in place, but i think it's a larger question.

we have to, this is the starting point in my view. we have to keep thinking about the force of the future so we are bringing in to the department of defense, in or out of uniform, the best that we can from the largest pool of people possible. that means accessing people and talent in different ways that we have in the past, not just in a civilian way or a uniformed military way. we have to to make changes in both of those workforces, but we have to think of other more creative ways beyond what we are doing already to keep tapping into other resources, other assets that are out there. the problems we are facing are as complex if they have ever been. that iterative cycle that were talking about, what to do an experiment and change in the field is happening faster and faster so we need all hands on deck. >> whoever the next president is, whoever the next secretary of defense or service secretary, they are all going to be acutely focused, just like like we have been, on continuing to recruit and retain and develop the best

people in our armed forces that we can possibly get. as time goes by, as the economy improves, we all foresee much more difficulty in this arena. whether there is a series of initiatives that carry forward that is entitled force of the future or whether they call it something else, these issues that we discussed our issues about flexibility, trying new types of approaches to get different sores sorts of people into the military. more women, more more minority, making the standards neutral to all other factors which have held some people back in the past. i have to believe all of this will continue because it makes very good sense for future recruitment and retention and of course we also have to develop our people. >> as eric said, a lot of these things are already in training and i'm a big fan of force of the future because we've already been doing most of these things

for so many years in the navy. we are way down the road on a lot of these initiatives, but whatever you change in administration, things like personnel, things like acquisition, not the job of one administration. they can't be the job of one secretary or one for your time period. if they are, they are going to lose capability in every sense of the word. you have to, whatever you call it, you've got to keep changing on personnel initiatives because the world keeps changing in our expectations keep changing. you have to keep changing on acquisition because as we talked about before, the world gets a vote. the change that's going on in terms of potential threats and types of threats and types of ideologies that arise, types of weapons that are out there and types of things that can be used against us, those are the types of things we have to respond to including stuff like climate change, which storms are getting bigger. our responsibilities are increasing all the time. you can't simply say, ok, were there, were solid.

>> is the urban legend or true that you think the navy worries that some of the shored locations, the sea is going to rise so much that some of your bases -- >> we are the navy. we tend to have bases on the sea >> really? >> it makes sense. i know that's a unique concept. norfolk is at risk over the next few decades if we don't do something to slow down sea level rise. >> wow. >> all our bases are in some way or another at risk. even today, we are the first responders. the navy and marine corps are the one sending in if we get a request for humanitarian assistance or relief almost every two weeks.

as these storms get bigger and sea levels rise, our responsibilities increase. the arctic against to be ice free, russia russia has already said the waters to its north are an internal waterway. they are not. part of our responsibilities is keeping the sea lanes open, making sure sure that international law is followed, making sure that peaceful trade at sea can go where international law says it can. climate change and things like that, it's a risk in the future for things like norfolk and our basis, but it's here today in terms of increasing our responsibility in terms of what we have to respond to, in terms

of how we have to position ourselves and how we have to think about our roles. >> i want to go back as we begin to think about wrapping up shortly, to the question of diversity in the force, because it does strike me that this is something that has a lot to do with civil military relations that you oversee and a lot to do with the next generation of leaders coming into the pentagon and also in the force. let's chat for a minute about the importance that you see of diversity in the force, because you have all mentioned us. whether it is gender, faith, who you love, i would like to go back and ask you, i suspect you are probably talking about the past, but i don't know, so let me ask you. where are you seeing that

worries you my concerns you, wants to deal with lack of opportunity, lack of lack of diversity in the force, potential discrimination in the force that you want to put a lid on. we know the cases in the marine corps recruiting situation, so washington has all these great words about diversity, but out there in the ranks, what are you seeing, what concerns you? >> it's not diversity for diversity's sake. what it's diversity of his experience, background. >> equal opportunity. >> yes. but every time we've opened up the force, and i was talking about when we desegregated the military in the late 40s, when we recruited women in the 80s, when we repealed don't ask, don't don't tell, when we opened ground combat to women. every single time, we have have become a stronger force. every single time that you get a

more diverse force that you get diversity of experience and background involved, you become a stronger, more resilient force. one of the things that worried me is the divide between the american people who are being protected in the military that does the protecting. in a democracy, you can't let that divide get very large. a force are to be reflected of and representative of the people it defense. a couple examples, i brought the navy rotc back to columbia, yale, and others because we need it people with those background. i also instituted it at rutgers and other universities. i can have one geography that we tend to recruit from. we have to do it from all. one of the things that you do have these instances of a

terrible act here and a terrible act there. one of the things we found is as you open it up, number one, there hasn't been the doomsday scenario that everybody was saying there was going to be with don't ask don't tell. i went back and looked. every single time we've opened up, starting with desegregating the military, exactly the the same arguments were used against it. we're going to lower unit cohesion. it's been physical things. african-americans in world war ii, can't fight as well, can't do land navigation. >> all of these things, to be crystal clear, completely diss true. >> all of these things are totally bogus, totally ridiculous but those arguments get recycled.

with the repeal of don't ask don't tell, were going to destroy unit cohesion. you're going to have problems recruiting, you're to have problems with retention. none of that has happened. none. women in ground combat, same argument, exactly the same. the concern that i have in a larger scale is that we do get the opportunity for all americans to participate in the honor of defending this country, that we don't exclude anybody for reasons that have nothing to do with their competence or their patriotism or their ability to do the job.

>> so in this very, you know, difficult 1818 months that the country has had, do you think there needs to be some military outreach in terms of recruiting to the muslim american community to tell them specifically that they are welcome in the u.s. military, that in fact you think they bring value to it or it is this something that needs to be done at this point? >> i will echo what ray said, i think that outreach should meet everybody. the force is stronger when it's more diverse. it's better for flex society, it's better for us because we can recruit the best from a broader pool of people, but i think everybody should feel if they want to serve and they meet the requirements that they have an opportunity and they see that opportunity and future for themselves. >> to this point, about the battle for talent like in every industry in every company across america is trying to get the best and brightest of young people, but in addition to that, diversity, there's all kind of data to back this up from the private sector, diverse teams

are also the types of teams that bring you the greatest innovation. the old saying, saying, it's the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, then pretty much every problem is going to look like a nail applies in this case. people who are tackling a problem who come from diverse backgrounds and thought processes, disciplines, different types of people, this is where you get your best innovation and we are all looking for the best people and innovation for the future. i just wanted to throw that point in as well. that's why it's important to us. >> a quick round of questions here for everybody. 7:00 a.m. november 9 when we've all been up watching the returns.

november 9, 10:00 a.m., what's the first thing you do? what happens in your world that morning? >> on november 9, all of us will have several months to go, there is still work to be done. i suspect i'll get up and come to work on november 9 and of course we will all discuss the return, all americans will be discussing it. we are no different than that. then we will get to our appointments. we will be continuing to work with the congress to try to help push over the finish line, our bills. we will continue to focus on next year's budget and deliberations and i expect there will be meetings on that as well for me i don't want to say it's a day like any other day,

it will be a rather special day because we will know, i hope we will know who our next president will be, but then it's get back to work and do the best you can to complete the important work we still have the time. >> any sports metaphors? don't take your eye off the ball and run through the tape. new administration doesn't come in for over two months. there is a whole lot to get done during that time. it's not over then. it's not over until the day you walk out. don't ignore, don't push problems forward.

make decisions. don't push problems to the administration that they have to deal with. make decisions and give them the very best launching pad that they can possibly have. >> the army has 4 million people and they deserve our attention for as long as they are in. they will start to think about that second phase i talked about but we still have large institutions that we need to run until we are no longer in the position. based on my own confirmation experiences, we have no way of knowing how long it will take for a new team to get in place. [laughter]

>> we need to stay focused on the job until were not in it anymore. >> ok. me, i'm just thinking about how much coffee and have to drink that morning. i would like to thank everybody. i think this was a really good round of discussion and conversation. >> i just want to start by thanking all of you for an incredibly insightful and candid and thoughtful discussion. also really to thank each of you for your service to the nation. please join me. [applause] >> thank all of you for coming to this discussion. we hope to keep this conversation going in the weeks and months ahead, but we have all learned a lot today and we have benefited from your leadership and insight. again, thank you and thank you barbara for leading such a great conversation. [applause]

one last thing, if you could remain seated while the secretaries depart, that would be great. and then you can get up once they leave. thank you. [inaudible conversation] announcer: today a panel on congressional oversight power of the executive branch. events hosted by the constitution project alive at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. national security and heroism experts on how news shapes public reaction to terrorism. ont is it 12:10 p.m. eastern c-span two.

with the supreme court back in session, we have a special web age to help you focus on the court. select supreme court or the right-hand top of the page. there you will see the calendar, a list of justices, and with demand court video on watch appearances by supreme court justices at the span.org. today on c-span, washington journal is next. a.m. this morning, the state department special envoy on climate change. at 12:30 p.m. eastern, a discussion on religious freedom in civil rights. later, former first lady hillary clinton in coconut creek, loretta. then a discussion on the elements that make i was a battleground state.

then, hillary clinton's chances of winning the state. and conservative ready host: good morning. "washington journal." the focus is on the candidates "washingtontoday in florida. hillary clinton is in coconut creek, florida. you can see her live at 2:15 this afternoon on the main website, c-span.org. donald trump is slated for an event at 6:00 this evening on c-span two. for more information on either of these events or anything in