and they saw how precision and stealth and the enablements of space came together to produce that revolution in military affairs. and so many have been catching up in ways that are somewhat worrisome to the united states. of course, we want to always be one or two or three steps ahead. we don't want to allow ourselves to fall one or two, three steps behind. so, we are still the best today, but we are concerned and we want to make sure that we're investing and moving in the right direction to make sure that we remain the best in the world. as you mentioned, we're not looking to pick a fight with anyone, certainly not with russia or with anyone else. but we do look to defend our interests and the transatlantic partnership has been a bedrock of how we defend our interests for decades and it will remain so into the future. >> are there particular things that we have seen in russia's

activities in places like georgia and syria and in ukraine that have given you particular cause for concern in terms of their capabilities or their intentions other than the sort of fact that they're -- the seizure of crimea, the fact that they're bombing civilian targets in syria? >> other than that, mrs. lincoln, how's the play, you mean? well, certainly everything you just said is extremely worrisome. the advent of what some have termed hybrid warfare is also a worrisome development. so this is the advent of more cyber attacks, it's the advent of the so-called little green men that we saw in ukraine. it's creating uncertainty and chaos and then denying what it was all about or that it -- that they were really there in the first place. of course, we in the west, particularly i'll just speak for my own government, we in the united states, we care about attribution. we don't just throw down on somebody without having proof. so in a chaotic, uncertain situation, sometimes it's difficult to get that proof and i think that's an area that russia has capitalized on, which makes it very notable to me that in this case, our intelligence community has called them out

and said yes, they were involved, at a high level of confidence. so that takes a lot in our government for our -- the totality of our community to come to that so to me, that's quite remarkable. >> at the same time, they seemed to be -- there are indications of continued problems in their air operations, we've seen that with the aircraft carrier-based operations targeting syria. they seem to be using dumb bombs rather than precision bombs in syria. what does that tell you? >> well, first of all, the aircraft carrier as you point out, to me that was not a decisive factor in the syria operation, it was more of a signaling perhaps a messaging. it did give them some training, but as you pointed out, it didn't go all that well. they didn't launch that many aircraft, there weren't that many aircraft involved and they did have two notable crashes, which thankfully, the pilots survived. but it was more the on the ground and the aircraft that took off from the ground in syria that have made the difference.

i think there's also a different approach to warfare that you've seen unfold with the russian government, the syrian government. they do not -- they do not make huge efforts to protect innocent loss of life. whereas we, the coalition, the united states and our allies and partners, we go to great lengths. we watch and we wait, we spend a great deal of thought and a great deal of effort into the isr, the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and we strike, when we're ready, with a very, very high level of confidence that we know that we're striking. >> i don't -- you do not see that level of care taken on the part of the russian government or on the part of the syrian

government. >> ok. let's talk a little bit about the european reassurance initiative or deterrence initiative. you've named some of the things that the initiatives have been able to support in the recent past and certainly, it seems like all of those are positive for the u.s./european relationship. at the same time, the -- my question would be, has it succeeded in deterring russia from some of the activities that have been problematic regarding, you know, provocative maneuvers in european air space and all of that? is it succeeding as a deterrent? >> well, i think it is. what we haven't seen, is we haven't seen another repeat of what happened in crimea. so i think that's very important. i did have an opportunity, as i mention in my opening remarks, to visit the baltic states and those who are directly on the border, as you would expect, feel the most vulnerable. so i believe -- i'll just repeat what they told me, they certainly view these actions as a major deterrence. and also, as i mentioned, as a general proposition our allies would like to see more presence, more interoperable equipment, more training, more exercises. this was a general theme throughout all of my visits. >> ok.

do you think there's a -- a risk of escalating tensions? you've said the united states is not obviously seeking a conflict with russia. but is there a risk of escalating the tensions that could potentially lead to a conflict by placing additional assets in eastern europe and in the baltic states and doing some of these things that are associated, either with edi or just generally speaking with the -- with the desire to, you know, bolster the u.s. military presence in that area? >> well, of course, managing risk is something that policy makers and certainly military professionals do day in and day out. so there's risks in all that we do, but i would submit the greater risk is if we did not have a greater presence at this point in time. if we were to pull back, if we were to do less of the types of activities, to me that would be a greater risk because i believe a lot of what's going on here is poking and testing and pushing and seeing what the response will be. and that's why i think we have to have resolve and we have to have an active response. >> ok. and just going back to something

you said just a little bit earlier that, you know, the allies in the baltic states for example are asking for more air force. what -- what specifically are they asking you for, what are their -- what are their sort of major desires? >> well, they -- they want more u.s. military, in general. so the most immediate, very important upcoming activity is we will be having a permanent presence in the baltic's. it will be some u.s., well, the u.s. actually will have the command in poland, but then there will be nato allies in a combined fashion, multiple forces from different countries will come together to have a presence in the baltic's and it will be a rotational situation, and so that is something that they're very much looking forward to having on the ground. they want to have continual presence through the baltic air policing, which they have, the united states participates though other countries participate, as well, as i mentioned germany has the mission right now, it rotates. so they certainly want to see that ongoing and they -- they

want closer cooperation in a number of other areas, as well. >> ok. do you believe that any sort of more muscular response is required to deal with the, you know, russian provocative actions in the air space violations and all of that? or this -- would that risk as -- as we just said, potentially escalating the conflict unnecessarily? >> well, these sorts of questions are asked literally, daily. and people are making at the highest levels of government, these judgment calls on a daily basis. so based on everything i know, it's about right for now. but again, tomorrow something could happen, this could change. but i can assure you, these -- these matters are monitored at the highest levels of government daily. >> ok. and you mentioned your communications with european and nato allies. following the -- the november 8th election, have you had to reach out to those allies and sort of reassure them based on president-elect trump's comments regarding nato? how has that been an issue if at

all? >> i have not since the november 8th election because i haven't had an overseas trip, nor have i had a telephone communication since that time. but certainly, before that time, we talked a great deal about it. and what i always would respond is, the american people, the system will figure this out. and regardless of who is elected president, there are checks and balances in our system that nato has been a bedrock, europe has been a bedrock to the united states for decades and decades to come. and although there could be some tweaks or changes on the margin, i at least didn't believe that there would be a fundamental shift that would be worrisome to them. >> it is remarkable that it's sort of a time of increased anxiety, both in -- in europe because of events like the brexit and then, you know, because of some of the comments that i just mentioned regarding nato and potentially questioning some of the security commitments that have been fundamental to nato. do you sense that in your

conversations, either -- prior to the election or -- or subsequent that you have had with partners when they visit? do you sense the -- the anxiety that the -- the european nations have about the, sort of, trajectory of the alliance? >> they had questions, is the way i would put it. which, of course, allowed me to go back on a message that i regularly deliver, and that is the importance of everybody doing their part. you know, everybody -- i don't know of a single country in nato that isn't experiencing some sort of economic difficulties. even those countries that are doing relatively well by -- by our standards, there are many tugs and pulls on society and on government spending. so we all share in this and it's tough politics for everybody, but everybody has to do their part. and their part, by the -- by the document, is 2 percent. so if not 2 percent this year, it's important for everybody to get on a trajectory to get there in some reasonable amount of time.

back in the 1980s, when i was on the house armed services committee staff, one of my assignments back then was the nato burden-sharing panel. and i think it was an old issue back in the '80s. so this has been around as a topic for a long time, but certainly it is top of my now with the election. and it's my hope, as hard as it might be because government spending is tight everywhere, that the allies who aren't at 2 percent can get themselves on a trajectory to reach that point. >> ok, i have two more russia questions for you. how do you see the -- the -- if you could just comment a little bit on the situation we have in syria, where the united states and russia are operating in the same airspace. you know, what has that experience been like in terms of managing that, thinking about that at the pentagon? and what do you see as the potential risks there, or is it -- can this be managed as it has seemingly so far? >> well, what we've done so far is we've had deconfliction

procedures, phone calls to be able to deconflict airspace. not to coordinate, but to deconflict and to have safety in the air. and so far this has worked quite well. we have been operating largely in different parts of syria. i say largely; not exclusively, but largely. what has been troubling to us -- i'll just speak for the u.s. air force, is that there's quite a say-do gap with russia. they say one thing but then they do another thing. so, they said they entered the fray in syria to help fight isil and terrorism, but what they have done is they have propped up the government and the interests of bashar al-assad, the government of syria. there's been very little action against isil. rather they're going against the groups that are going against assad and threatening his direct interests and the territory that he is most concerned with. so, that's a major say-do gap. they say that they are using precision-guided munitions to

take care not to kill innocent humans, but in fact 80, 90 percent are the dumb bombs. so there's a lot of say-do gaps there, and there's a lack of trust between the russians and the u.s. as a result of not just that but many, many other things. most recently, obviously aleppo has fallen, but within days of that, isil overran palmyra. and the united states has begun bombing around palmyra. the russians and the syrians, upon fleeing palmyra as they were about to be overrun, left behind equipment: artillery, trucks, tanks. and so we are going in now and we are destroying them with a variety of aircraft, to include a-10s and mq-1s and a number of other aircraft as well. so, the battlefield -- the makeup of the battlefield can

shift and does shift daily. >> what was your perspective -- i'm curious. what was your perspective on the proposal for increased military coordination between the united states and russia in syria? there was a proposal that, sort of, fell by the wayside to not do joint targeting, but to share information in order to target the nusra front. >> we were prepared to execute had that agreement reached fruition. but there was concern, there were -- there was concern in the pentagon precisely because of the lack of -- of trust. so of course, it -- it did not reach fruition and so we are where we are. >> and last question on russia, what would be your recommendations to your successor regarding -- regarding how to deal with the russian threat that you mentioned in your remarks? >> i do think, based on everything that i have read and understand of russia, russia is a country that does understand force. and so to -- to present a strong

front at a time like this, at a time when i believe they are pushing and poking and testing, i think the alliance needs to demonstrate that resolve and show force. and so, what i would suggest to my successor is continue to support to the maximum extent possible the role of the united states air force in the baltic policing, in the air dominance actions that i talked about, ongoing rotations, like we did on the f-22, like we're about to do with the f-15s in the spring, like on thinking in the not-too-distant future, the f-35. these are the types of approaches which not only demonstrate that resolve, but they also are great training opportunities, they provide experience with interoperable equipment. and airman-to-airman, it -- it works well when we get to work with our counterparts. >> well, i want to turn to a couple other issues.

you mentioned the -- the threat of migration coming into europe and the sort of burden that that's placed on european nations, number one having to provide for -- for refugees and also sort of think about security threats that would come along with that. what is the air force role in that? you mentioned the global hawk, what other -- in what other ways can the air force specifically contribute to helping manage that threat? james: well, the -- probably the isr is the greatest one. air lift can, from time to time, be helpful depending if people have to go from point a to point b. when we've gotten, obviously, more in a war time environment, there can be air drops in a humanitarian type of an environment. now, this is much more extreme than -- than what is going on in the -- in the european states at this point. but the -- the air force also has certain intelligence

associations, so you know, we have intelligence assets as do the other military services in the ic community, as well. so this sharing of intelligence is something that we're trying to do more of across the alliance. >> and there's been a lot of discussion, obviously, in the last year, year and a half about the threat of islamic state plots within europe with the attacks in paris and brussels and elsewhere. what is the air force role in that in terms of -- in addition to intelligence sharing, what specifically does the air force contribute to that? >> so other than the, you know, sharing information whenever possible, that's our top role for that sort of a -- a threat, i would say, because that's much more of a law enforcement. >> let's talk a little bit about the air force itself and the -- and the trajectory of where the u.s. air force is headed. you know, one of the things that people talk about is how the -- the fleet is aging and that readiness has really been under pressure because of continuous deployments, because of the budgetary issues. how do you -- how would you recommend dealing with this in

the next five years? what is the best way to cope with the -- the readiness and the sort of strains that the force has been facing? >> well, whenever we talk about readiness, i think it's really important that we step back a moment and we say ready to do what? because you heard me say the u.s. military is still the strongest and the best in the world, and i absolutely believe that. so if you were to say, is the u.s. air force ready to do its missions which have been continual, thousands of bombing missions, even more isr and humanitarian and all of these missions, are we ready to do all of that? the answer is you're damn right, we are. we're doing it and we've been doing it for the better part of 25 years. but where we have our readiness concerns is are we ready to do a high-end fight. so there's where, if we would get into an anti-access aerial denial situation, if it would be a very complex fight against a foe or foes that could shoot us down, interfere with us in space or make it a more complex

environment, there is where we are concerned that we don't have sufficiently high levels of readiness. >> like a russia or a china. >> like a russia or a china. so what to do? the answer is, it's several fold. the greatest thing that we could do in the near term is increase the size of the air force. so i mentioned, where this -- we are you know, we've been downsizing for 25 years, we're now the smallest active duty force that we've been since 1947 when we became an air force. and you can't do too many things at once if you're that small because capacity matters. so to increase the size modestly, i'm not talking about hundreds of thousands of people -- but that would allow us to plug some holes and also build up certain capabilities, particularly isr, cyber and a few other areas, fighter pilots we're short. so these are some areas that we want to build up. so grow the air force is the first thing i would recommend. the second thing is, continue to fund some of these high-end

capabilities, particularly in the training environment to get ready. so this means our -- upgrade our ranges, for example, so that we can practice against the simulated high-end threats. what your mother told you, practice makes perfect, there really is quite of a lot of truth to that. so when our pilots see these kinds of environments in the simulated world, 100 percent of the time they're gonna do better in the real world if they've had that ability to practice. so beef up certain things like that and the readiness accounts is another key recommendation that i would make. and then keep modernizing, that's the other part of it. >> ok. and what about new technologies and acquisition? and to what extent can the air force do that in the way that it would like to because of the budgetary constraints? >> well, the budgetary constraints are real and there's, you know, been discussions about increasing defense spending. certainly, we have got to once and for all send sequestration to the dust bin of history. there's talk of doing that.

we've been talking about that for two or three years now and it hasn't happened. i'm certainly hopeful maybe this spring it will because that's the first thing. that has to come off. and then, some additional funding would certainly be very welcome so that we can -- by the way, we're also modernizing not only our conventional forces, but we have an imperative to modernize our nuclear forces. >> right. what would be a reasonable increase in the -- the end strength in the -- if you're talking about growing the size of the air force, what would be a reasonable increase? >> well, we -- we ended our fiscal year at about 317,000. so we would -- i would like to see growth over the next several years to the mid 320s. i'm sure we could, you know, use more people than that, but i would say at least to the mid 320s. >> ok. and if there was -- if there were to be a budget increase for the air force in the next administration, what would be sort of your priorities? would it be the personnel or if -- if there was one thing that you could choose to spend that money on, what would it be?

james: personnel. >> personnel, all right. ok. i want to ask a little bit about the -- the election and we have just about five minutes before i'm gonna open it up to the -- to the audience. without getting into the, sort of, politics of the election, what do you think that the -- the change in administration and the change in parties will mean for the air force? >> well, first, let me say we've had -- you know, the transition team has been in the pentagon now for weeks and they have been meeting regularly, so i had the opportunity to meet with them, the chief of staff of the air , they have been conducting it in a professional way. they have very much been in the listening mode. they have welcomed, certainly written down suggestions about if, you know, if you had some more money, where would you put it? so they asked me the same question, i said people, that's the number one place i would put it. so all of that, i think, is being conducted at pace. once again, there is a lot of

anticipation that there will be additional money coming to defense, and so, the question is how quickly and where will it go? so these will be questions, of course, that that team, rather than i, will have to answer. i just hope that the people issues will come out on top because i want to reiterate, i think that's the greatest way to alleviate some of the readiness concerns in the near term, as well as alleviate some of the frequent deployment and the family concerns that we've been seeing. >> what about the president-elect's comments regarding the f- 35 and air force one? i mean, is that damaging for the sort of industry institution relationships or is that something that, you know, won't really amount to much? what's your perspective on that? >> well, i think any incoming president or any incoming leader is going to be asking questions, right? so this was, in effect, a way of throwing a question out there

through twitter about the cost of these systems, which let's face it, this is a lot of money we're talking about, for both the f-35 and for air force one. but with time and as additional material is presented and briefings are had, the complexity of both of these programs come to the light. and so it's not quite as easy as it might seem to get these costs down. there are ways of doing it. so, for example, in the case of air force one, the complexity is, it's more than a 747. if you just look at the cost of a 747 and then you look at the projected costs of air force one, it appears astronomical. but air force one is in fact a flying white house, with ultra high-levels of security and communications and defensive protection measures built in. so it is nothing like you have ever experienced before and that is what involves the cost. moreover, we made a judgment to go sole-source on that, so if

you were to compete it, maybe you could get the cost down, if you were to change some of these requirements, maybe you could get the cost down. the u.s. air force, by the way in this case, didn't develop the requirements for air force one. the professional communicators and security people in the white house developed those requirements. so if you were to strip away some of those requirements, you could get the cost down. so there's a variety of approaches, and again, the new team will get a full chance to explore that and determine. on the f-35, it certainly has had a history of cost overruns and problems, and there's just no doubt about that. but if you look at the recent years, the f-35 -- the cost has been coming down. it's going to soon be approaching -- the per-plane cost will soon be approaching a fourth generation plane cost. so that's a pretty good deal, fifth generation at fourth generation prices. but again, the past is the past, and it was a difficult past. so, we're focused on the future. and once again, as all of these

facts are presented, then the new team, the new president, can make up his mind. >> you think that they might get in there and see the details and maybe think about it differently? >> i think the more details you are exposed to, it certainly opens up, you know, the aperture to see what the possibilities might be and what the constraints might be. >> ok. and just one final question before open it up. what's next for you, secretary james? >> i don't know. is the washington post hiring, missy? yeah, i'm gonna be unemployed pretty soon. yeah, i don't know. i think beach is going to be in my immediate future. i'm looking forward to some time off. and my children live in new york, i might crash on in on their pads for a little while until they don't want me there anymore. so i don't really have any immediate plans, but i'm sure something will present itself. >> well, a well deserved brake for sure. well, listen. let's open it up to the audience. i think we're gonna have some -- can we just go ahead and do questions or are there other microphones? ok. maybe start in the front with

sydney. and please just identify yourself and make sure that your question is a question. >> hi, i'm sydney freedberg from breaking defense, question mark. i wanted to question you on the f-35 issue. you've defended the program, you've mentioned, you know, in passing instant important versus anti-access area denial, some of these high-end issues. a lot of allies are buying it. what's the case you would make to the transition team, perhaps you've already made to the transition team, you know, for this program? what is sort of the game changing value of it for the u.s., for the allies that makes the price tag, admittedly high, worth it in your opinion? >> well, the case is the threats. if you look at the various scenarios where we may have to go into combat around the world, and i'm not talking about against isil in the middle east, i'm talking about the types of high-end threats. and you said, it sydney, it's the anti-access area denial environments.

the threats are what to me sell this capability. it sells -- sells the program. so that's point one. and of course, the new team is in the process -- not everybody has their clearances yet, but those who have their clearances are able to get some of these briefings, and so that is happening. and then the other piece of it is don't just look at the -- the -- the past, but look at the recent past, i'll say, look at the last few years of experience on the program where there have been great strides and i think great accomplishments made in bringing down the price. so to get a fifth generation capability, which all those who have experienced it agree, it is just a cut above any other aircraft because of those capabilities, and to be able to get that at a fourth generation price, something like you might pay for an f-16 for example, that's beginning to sound much more reasonable.

now, can the cost be driven down more? perhaps, and i know certainly the current leadership, the jpo and so on, they're focused on this each and every day. i know that industry has made concessions to try to bring down the price. so can more of this be accomplished? i would say probably yes and the pressure should remain on to do just that. >> the gentleman in the second row with the turtleneck, just right there. >> i'm harlan ullman with the atlantic council. deb, thanks for a really professional and informative briefing. space did not allow you to talk enough about two issues. one, as you know, ash carter has set a four-plus-one matrix for planning, in which the united states military is needed to deter and defeat if necessary russia or china, whatever. and second, you didn't talk about the offset strategy, though you obviously inferred to it. could you comment about air force thinking about how do we go about deterring and defeating russia or china? what's the thinking in that regard?

and could you also relate this back to what the air force is doing to follow bob work's third offset strategy that he's made the centerpiece of his administration? james: well, of course there are joint war plans that are written against a variety of different scenarios that could happen around the world. and for each of these war plans, the united states air force is front and center. and one thing i will tell you about the u.s. air force is not only are we front and center in each of these scenarios, but we're front and center on day one and day two. it's not day 30 or day 40. it's right off the bat. we are those who would kick down the door, so to speak. so we would be that front line of defense. so we're heavily involved in all of that. and as i mentioned, if there's a worrisome aspect to this, it is -- we have become sufficiently small, both in numbers of people and in numbers of air craft, that if there were multiple things happening simultaneously around the world, there's where

the capacity may suggest that we couldn't do all of it. we might have to swing and let one area go, for example, and nobody wants to do that. so that's a key concern. in terms of the third offset, this is simply a way that we are looking for what would be the next big advantage that the united states and our allies could acquire for a future conflict. so just as the nuclear -- having nuclear weapons back in the '40s and '50s was quite an advantage, that was what we call the first offset of the 20th century. because no one else in the world, for a while, had that capability, but then others acquired it and it didn't have quite the same value as it once did. still very valuable, but not the same value. then, the second offset is frequently termed the combination of precision, weaponry, stealth and all of which is enabled by our space assets and we saw that in the persian gulf war.

that was shock and awe to many of the world, who witnessed that in those early hours of that conflict. but for 25 years, people have been watching how this works and they've been watching up. so the question is, what's the next offset going to be, what's the next big thing? we think it's some combination of technologies, all of which are designed to make the humans more -- have greater endurance, greater speed, greater ability to make decisions quickly, make sense of you know, many, many sources of data. what's the important data amongst all of that clutter and then push out decisions in a very fast way. so we're investing in a variety of technologies that would give us some element of what i just said. so technology is certainly a part of that, but so is tactics, techniques and procedures. so it's how do you put all of these technologies together into a process and procedure, a way when you're going to be executing a plan. and then the third element is

people, you gotta make sure we're an all volunteer force, we've gotta make sure that we continue to have the very best people that can think agilely , who can problem solve, who can be creative, who can take those tactics, techniques and procedures and those technologies and put it all to our best advantage. >> ok right here in the front row, i think there was a question? >> thank you very much. damon wilson here, executive vice president at the atlantic council. thank you very much madam secretary for your service. thanks for coming back to the atlantic council for this conversation and thank you for your service on our board before you assumed this role. you underscored the importance of the -- of the aptly renamed european deterrence initiative and the u.s. presence, particularly in the baltic states, poland, romania, bulgaria. but there's a question about the timelines, the perspective in terms of our, how long u.s. forces need to be present in those places. how do you think about the planning assumptions for our presence on the eastern flank, if you will? and the funding that supports them?

as i understand it, it's really in the -- the operations budget. shouldn't this be something that, over time, is put into the base budget to recognize the fact that it isn't a one-year deployment, that we're likely to be there for -- for quite a while? >> so yes, it should go into the base budget. all of this, or most of this, should go into the base budget. but of course, the folks who are here living in washington know that the oco budget doesn't count for purposes of counting money that we spend in the federal government. so how crazy is that? it's kind of an accounting situation. but if we can live sequestration, if we can clean up some of these accounting situations that we have backed into the last however many years it's been, 10, 15 years, then it would certainly make for a more clean situation. but for now, that's the way we fund it because that's the way we can fund it and get it done. the most important thing is to get it done and i consider it to be a perpetual mission.

in other words, any mission can stop, but there's no plan to stop it. so to me, it's a perpetual mission. it'll be reviewed on an annual basis and unless the world changes fundamentally, i don't see any reason why that would change in the near term. >> ok in the second row and then i promise, we'll get to the back. >> hi. laura ellington with aviation week. good to see you, secretary. i wanted to ask a little bit more about president-elect trump's tweets. the -- the air force one tweet and f-35 tweet i would say rattled the defense industry a little bit. so do you think that -- do you think he has a point i guess without being too political about it? is it good to put this kind of pressure on the defense industry? or do you think it's better to do this kind of negotiating behind closed doors as opposed to on twitter?

>> you know, time will tell, time will tell. what is good, is its good to have a focus on cost saving measures. and as i mentioned, that focus has been very much in place. and if you look back over the last several years, the cost has been brought down. i give the credit on that to the team who's been negotiating that, you know, in the jpo. i give credit to industry as well, because as i've said, they have made certain concessions in this, as well. but you know, you've heard me speak a lot of times, laura (ph) and you know i have three priorities; taking care of people, getting the balance between readiness and modernization right, because we need both in our u.s. air force and make every dollar count, which is my way of saying cost consciousness. and we've got to be the most efficient team possible. so i'm all for that focus. twitter is a different way of doing it and, you know, time will -- time will tell. i hope those costs will continue to come down.

>> ok in the back, the woman in the black shirt in the aisle? >> hi, secretary james, lee jung greco flightglobal. , again, another f-35 questions. i'm wondering how you continue pitching the f-35 to any new customers overseas when the president-elect again, has these comments that it's out of control? and on top of that, you already have foreign governments like canada that are already skeptical of the price tag associated with this program. >> well, the good news about the f-35 in this regard is we don't even have to pitch it. there are other countries, it was just delivered to israel, italy is -- is -- got the f-35 now coming. it's right -- it was just developed i -- or produced, i should say in italy. so in a way, it is selling itself, you might say. now, of course, we still do talk about it, i certainly have talked about it.

but i'm not the only one and the u.s. government is not the only one because other allies now, are acquiring it and they want it. now, in the case of canada, canada has decided, of course, to bridge with the f-18s, but they haven't shut the door on the f-35 down the line. so, time will tell, and of course, that will be their judgment. they do remain as part of the program, they are contributing to be a part of the program, albeit they have not decided to actually purchase it at this point in time. but again, that remains an open question for the future. >> we're going to take another one from the back and then go to tony. the gentleman with the white shirt. >> we haven't talked at all about north korea, and so i'm interested in sort of your views on the current threat and the role of the air force in responding to that. and just moving forward, where do we go from here? so, north korea is a major threat. we talked a little bit about the one, so you know,

north korea is one of the four. let's put it that way. north korea, iran, china, russia and then terrorism, particularly isil but other forms of terrorism, so that is the four plus the u.s. air force is very one. involved in deterring, countering that threat, so we have what we call the continuous bomber presence that takes place on guam. we have had b-1s, b-52s and b-2s deployed to guam that do periodic patrols in the pacific. they're there, they're available at a moment's notice to do whatever we would need them to do. similarly, in south korea, we have forces stationed there, along with the army, along with the rest of the u.s. military. so, we have a very, very close relationship with our south korean counterparts. and then finally, i will tell you, as north korea has been testing nuclear weapons, testing

launch capabilities of late, the reason why we know a lot of this is because the u.s. air force has the monitoring and the detection systems to know exactly what went on here. was it a nuclear weapon or was it something else? and what was the possible yield of it? and you know, we have all of those systems to be able to then explain to our leaders, our allied partners, and in some cases the world, what has happened here. it goes back to the importance of attribution. >> i just want to follow up on the north korea question. because the air force is so close to this, do you think that the north korean threat is getting the attention it deserves from within the sort of u.s. national security community? i mean, they've obviously made strides in their program in recent years. but you know, often we're focused on isis, on russia to -- not -- and not in the same way that we are on north korea. >> well -- and i will tell you we are very focused on north korea and there are things that we talk about and there are things that we don't talk about. but we're very focused on north

korea. >> all right, tony? >> hi, madam secretary. tony capaccio with bloomberg news. among the trump comments lately was implications that the revolving door in washington has led to some of the out of control costs of the f-35, you know, his words. is it -- does he have a point in terms of the revolving door? are post-employment regulations tough enough from where you sit? and he did say last week in his speech he wanted to impose a lifetime ban on those who issued the major contracts and even the smaller contracts. what's your view on that? james: my view is the totality of the restrictions that are placed on people coming into government to serve at these high-level positions are pretty strong.

i've lived this. so i mean, i had to -- when i came into government out of industry, i had to divest stock, i had to make all sorts of declarations. i mean -- and you make your whole life public. i think it's not an overstatement to say that people who are coming into these senior cabinet level or even sub-cabinet level jobs have much stronger legal requirements upon them than the president has upon him, if you see what i mean. so, i think they're pretty strong. so, i haven't seen his proposal exactly. there -- there -- there already are lifetime bands for people -- bans for people who have had particular matters, worked on particular matters. so what i understand of it, it's quite strong and -- but obviously, he'll -- he'll have the opportunity to do his own review of that. >> post-employment, you're talking about coming into the government -- post-employment also. >> right. so, the post-employment, there already is a lifetime ban for certain individuals who have

worked and it's a definition in the law, called a particular matter, so that's already a lifetime ban. for me for example, i will have a two-year ban on being able to represent back for a company to the government, a two-year ban on that. i'm not a procurement official. obviously, there are people who are procurement officials and there are others who are policy overseers and whatnot. so the -- the rules are different for different types of people, but what i'm saying is the totality of all this is really quite strong. and the proof is, if you look at the number of positions that people from industry actually occupy, it's not as high as perhaps you would like because they are that stringent to come in, and you know when you come in what the restrictions will be on the way out. >> the woman in the blue in the back. >> hi, ma'am. courtney albon with inside the

air force. i just wanted to go back real quick to your comments about some recent i guess cost successes on f-35 over the last several years. for -- for the lrip nine contract, there was a unilateral contract action that was utilized for that. and i just wonder, are we gonna see more of that, do you think, as a way to reduce costs? and if so, what -- what concerns do you have about what that says to industry? well, i think the unilateral action came as a result of what had become a very, very prolonged period of negotiation and it was a feeling where there just wasn't going to be any more progress to be made. and so the unilateral action was imposed. now, back to this question of are we being sufficiently good stewards of the taxpayer money. there's where the jpo had a choice to make or the contracting officer who was charged with making this decision. the choice was, do we continue to negotiate, do you give in to

perhaps what would have been a higher cost to the taxpayer in order to conclude negotiations at the end of the day? this contracting official decided to impose a unilateral solution. so, that's a fairly unusual thing, it's not done all that much, so i wouldn't say that it might be more or less in the future. i think it really depends, and it was the unique set of circumstances in this particular case and the length of the negotiation and the belief that there just wasn't going to be any more progress made. >> this weekend c-span, tonight at 8:00, former vice president dick cheney and leon panetta. >> i think the challenges are very great, and i think you have unfortunately over the course of the last many years done serious damage to our capabilities to be able to meet the threat. >> living in that.

, there were a lot of flashpoints. a new administration will have to look at that kind of world, and obviously defined policies we need in order to deal with that. but then develop the defense policy to confront that kind of world. >> thursday 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look at the career of vice president allied mike pence. >> amidst the shifting sands we have stood without apology for the site to the of life, the importance of marriage and the freedom of religion. >> on friday night beginning at 8:00, there will speeches and tributes to several outgoing senators, including henry reed, barbara boxer, kelly ayotte and dan coats. this we get primetime on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] week.e and others she often does she argues that

that history, black progress has been met with bright rage -- white rage. anderson, with carol in atlanta. anderson is author of this book, entitled "white rage: the unspoken truth of our racial divide." and the book in a part stems from an op-ed you wrote a couple of years ago at the time of ferguson and the headline of that piece, we will show it to our audience. you said ferguson is not about black rage against cops, it is white rage against progress. take those terms, black rage and white rage and put those in context. guest: it was during ferguson win -- win of the protests are happening, fire industry and all of that and all the pundits,

regardless what ideological msnbc, fox, they're all talking about black rage. lack people being so angry, anti-violence and blowing things up. why are they burning of where they live? why are they burning up where they live? everybody was talking about black rage and i was shaking my head, this is white rage. i have lived in missouri for 13 years and i saw the way public policies worked to undermine african americans' axis to citizenship -- access to citizenship. ,hite rage is cool, calculated out of the courts, out of legislatures. not what you see in the streets. it is lethal. went back a couple of years, the book is a history book and goals back more than 100 years.

-- goes back more than 100 years. tell us about the history. guest: what i did was charge when african-americans made significant progress, access to the citizenship rights, you saw a wave of policies rolled out to undermine those citizenship rights. i start with right after the civil war with reconstruction. this is the moment were african-americans move from being legal property to being human beings to then being citizens. and that was such a seismic shift that you saw this movement come up from the white house, from state legislatures, from the supreme court to gut the 13th and 14th and 15th amendments. again, i tracked it through the great migration where african-americans are leaving the south in droves looking for the schools, good jobs and the right not to be lynched.

instead, they face a number of barriers and tracker to the brown decision of 1954 and 1955 and civil rights. and then the election of barack obama. host: phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for our guests, carol anderson. we will take your calls in a moment. a little bit from the book, white rage is not about visible violence but it works his way through the courts, the legislatures in a rage of government bureaucracy and wreak havoc. it does not have to wear sheets or burn crosses or take to the streets.

tell us more. guest: yes, one of the things we have is a narrative in the society that only if black people would, if only they would value schools. if only they would work hard. if only they would fill in the blank. when you look back historically, african-americans have done that. , the responseng has been a wave of policies to undermine that. i will take a recent one. you saw in the 2008 election and the 2012 election, african-americans came out in record numbers to vote. election,2 african-americans'participation exceeded that of whites. what you had following that, we should be saying we value democracy and want people to vote and we want people to participate and it is democracy

and feel like they have a stake in it. what you say mentally after that high participation rate was first the supreme court counting the holder decision. that we can severely though voting rights act of 1965. as then a wave of voter suppression loss -- laws that were designed that targeted african-americans with a nearly surgical precision to find a way to stop them from voting. host: one more question about present day, what are you expecting during a donald trump administration? guest: i am expecting that wide range will be in is full glory. through the be courts, through the legislature will embed a whole series of laws and policies that undermine african american access to citizenship rights.

the progress was made during the obama administration with sentencing reform. i'm expecting that to go by the wayside. understanding that the war on drugs and mass incarceration is not the way to go. i expect that to double down on so-called law and order. host: to the phones for professor carol anderson. herman is calling from louisiana . democratic caller. caller: good morning. i have a question. can you be a citizen of two countries? citizenon why, i am a of the united states of america but i am african-american and the united states. what i am getting at is why are we labeled african-american? the white people are just white

americans? host: why don't you answer your own question and then we will hear from the professor? caller: ok. [laughter] can you be a citizen of two countries? host: i was hoping he would elaborate. guest: first, africa is a continent. the description of african-americans as part of a move for black people in the united states to define themselves. to go from the n-word to colored to negro as an negro with a capital "n" to african-american. -- the part of a way to definition of self because

again, when you realize that for many blacks in the united states legacy.y is the that legacy of property and we have been fighting against that 1619. of property since and then waits 1865, again, it has been that battle against the definition that black people are less than. recent polls and surveys in fact 2016, blackday in people are seen as being less than american. erasedttle will not be if black people just simply say, we are just americans. i will take the example of brazil. in brazil, they do not identify

by race, but what you see is that black brazilians, in fact, have greater poverty, lower , the greater criminalization. what that does then is when it's a organized to fight against that, the government says we do not have statistics by race so that cannot be happening. part of what you are seeing here is this push for identity and to the push to have the data to make sure that it is very clear what these kinds of systemic policies, the systemic inequality is meant for black people in the united states. host: let's hear from paul, an independent caller. caller: good morning. professor anderson, i have been looking at this problem since i retired a few years ago. i have come to the conclusion that the real root of the problem, that we all have to

face, is not so much slavery but in the rise of scientific racism starting with the predecessors of darwinism. the whole idea that it is proclaimed heavily in the late 19th century that there was a ranking of human beings that the english want top and then the rest of the europeans and then the asians and then the africans . , it whole idea which gained received science from all of the universities. you look at woodrow, probably one of the worst racist in kindca, he talked to this of thing. the misuse of darwin's teachings to bf a heart of this problem -- to be active the heart at it has gotten embedded in our thinking. until we root out the idea of raising that science is proving to be illogical and without

basis, what cannot really get it there. slavery does not seem to explain it. slavery was practice more widely in africa than it was enzyme the new world. for more people who owned slaves than in the united states. that yourably true ancestors are more likely to own slaves than mine. , i just wanted have you looked at it from the point of view of the misuse of what i will call social darwinism. host: thank you. a lot. guest: i sure will. it is not just the science. of understand his is understand the way, for instant, that religion works and the power of religion. you had in thing being ordained by god and want to slap god on top of stash once you slept got

on top of something horrific, it gives power and meaning to it in ways. thinghole person of hame to explain why africans could be enslaved. i also want to deal with the way that slavery was done in the united states was so fundamentally different than the way it was done in africa and african kingdoms. slavery and united states was multigenerational. slavery that the status of the enslaved carry through to the child, carry through to the the child'sd in child child. that's a fundamentally different. if we try to raise the role of slavery, what we erase then is by the time of the civil war, gdp washe united states

attached to slavery. we erase the economic power of the united states that was built on the backs of the enslaved. and then we erase the kind of and thes fervor religious rationale behind it. az and then you merge that with the science. it has not been as you said, still embedded in the academies. what the academy has done have to talk about how race is a social construct. what is also clear is that the policies and the systems that have come up because of the construct are real. and the way that people face those constructs so that we know there are differential in the way policing happen in the way that employment happens. that construct in fact of facts less chances. host: more about what you write

in "white rage." guest: yes. white rage really, probably until this election, swaddled particularly after the civil rights movement. protecting the integrity of the ballot box sounds just -- who could be against this? what you see are these schemes, for instance, i will take north carolina again. ,here they said, the gop said let's get the racial data on voting and looked at how do

black people vote? we see they use early voting instead of most of them comment out on the tuesday election day. many of the vote early. we will constrict the number of early voting days. that should cut down the number of black voters. we see their certain type of ids they do not have. those of ids we will require. then call will we will make a more difficult to gain those ideals. that's that kind of surgical targeting of african-americans. let me back up for doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing -- voting. that's the way white rage works. host: the headlines said the gop attack on voting rights was the most undercover story of 2016. 25 debates and not a single question about the attack on voting rights even though this was the first residential election in 50 years without the full protection of the voting

rights act. they go on to write that is the first -- biggest underwritten scandal. why undercover? guest: i am still trying to figure it out. it is huge. i did a piece where after the break the vote, there were several here who were writing we saw the rise a white nationalist and the brexit vote but that will not happen here because we have this firewall, this demographic firewall of blacks and latinos. i wrote their firewall is breached. it is under attack. we are seeing it in wisconsin. you had gop legislators who were absolutely giddy, it is the quote, "giddy" about slicing and dicing the votes so that particularly vote -- blacks in milwaukee would have a harder time voting.

they were pleased about that. we see it in texas where the naacp and the legal defense fund both found to their joint report that up to 1.6 million blacks and latinos what not have access to certain type of id that the state was now requiring. why this is underreported, not taken into account? i have to say maybe it is because of what it did was to target blacks and latinos and you do not want to a certain race into-- a certain the election debates. it needed to be there. when were denying american citizens the right to vote, where trampling on democracy and we need to understand that. host: democrat, latoya, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning professor anderson. i hear you.

, asme being a black woman long as they have been knowing about the ids and voter suppression in everything, why we wait until the last minute to fight it in court? behind the eight ball. it does not make any sense. when we say they are trying to put all of these laws in our way, we knew it before the election started. sometimes, we cannot be -- we always act after-the-fact the fact. we have to be proactive. truth is truth. yeah, they did all of that that you said. sogeorgia, they are doing much in every red state that you have a republican leader. have suppressed the vote in some kind of way. where theyichigan, have the water problem, i did analysis, they do not go out and vote.

it is so hurtful that now -- the , yeah, they had us in slate, if it were not for laws, that was still have was an slavery. that's a sad part. the stores in because they have to. everything they do is because they have to. they always thing they are right about everything. i've never seen a group of people something think they are god's gift to this world and not we. everybody makes of the world. it is one race that is coming down on everybody. and we standing around watching them do it. is an accident. republicans, what they have planned for him, is on purpose. watch how it believes back to the senate leader on these emails trash they have been doing. we have all been duped. we have been duped.

and the last -- we have to be proactive and not always subtracting. host: thank you for college. it is i would say part of the moment that the supreme rightstarted the voting act, you saw mobilization across the nation. part of what you do not see is it does not get big media attention. .e hear about there were series of lawsuits, early on a by the aclu, naacp, .he legal defense fund use activism. it was not like people were waiting until 2016 to file the suit. -- you saw activism. they started early. i will push back on the sense that black people were waiting until the last minute. no, they were not. part of what you are seeing is you had a group called volta

riders who were -- vote riders trying to help people to get those ids and running to all kinds of all kind of crazy barriers. gowisconsin, a man had to stateisconsin to another to get his original birth certificate. then they said, no, one letter was wrong on their birth certificate. kinds of shenanigans that were happening. this was no last minute thing. host: don, democratic caller. thank you forgetting got to talk with us. caller: good morning, mrs. anderson. you are ansure educator and you know everything like that. but now, i am wondering have you tor, you know, decided to go the bible, the word of god in order to find out what our

histories about? black people in america are cursed. and occurs is from god. and our oppressor is the white men which is the oppressor of the world. the bible says of the earth is given into the hands of the wicked. ok. and so therefore, everything is done by him because he has covered the faces of the real judges which is jesus christ, which was a black man and gave us this white to jesus we have now. and we are following their ways and ways of life as opposed to the way we were which were the jews of antiquity. we are the real jews of america and we are not americans. where not africans. where not none of that. judites.ws died -- you need to listen to the

israelites. everyone in america, all you blacks, hispanics and native americans, you need to turn to the israelites and listen to their program and listen to what they are trying to say. everything they say comes from the bible. host: comments from don. guest: as i mentioned earlier, the bible has actually been used to provide cover for the subjugation of black people in the united states. i think that's absolutely miss reading and misuse of the bible. one of the things we saw in the civil rights movement, in fact, you had ministers, black ministers, who had been preaching from it is supposed to be bad done here for black people. that's what the bible says. you have to take it and you will get yours and i'll by and by, the hereafter. and then are another way led by

reverend verna jones and then dr. martin luther king came up as saying, they were reading from another side. that's what we have to understand about the bible. it is open to interpretation. uses foro open to the those who have various pernicious, very pernicious intent. we really have to think about what is ab bible is saying in terms of basic humanity and basic decency. that is where we need to be really reading and not about issues of subjugation and oppression. host: al. caller: good morning. one, i think in every race and every religion, two or 3% of people are evil. we do not fight a war does the evil people. also, black lives matter's started under president obama.

if you look, it seems like the left is always on the side of evil. you have young african-americans who are arrested and charged with transporting drugs across state lines. what he told the judge is you did not know who was transporting drugs is a he ballroom the car from -- he borrowed the car from a friend and and i know. the judge told him he was the one driving the car across state lines with the drugs and ignorance of the lot was not a defense and sentenced him to 20 years in prison. if the same judge were to prosecute somebody like hillary clinton, he would say that she sat and received classified in mouth and downloaded them onto a private server and gave it to her attorneys and had them delete classified. the rich is not being prosecuted.

also, an african-american and hispanic is arrested. african-american -- they both go through due process. african-american is found guilty. he spent 10 years in prison. we have enough money to incorporate -- incarceration. without legal documents a but we cannot support him. we do not have enough money. after the mega lives do not matter. it is the left and not the right . african-americans, you talk about the bible. you look at what african-americans support. god says, do not allow a man to lie with another man. all of the democratic support gay rights. everton american support gay rights. host: we will let you go. you said a lot.

lived to tell the tale. casteel, a say black man, up in minnesota, who over because the police officer thinks he has a a robber just like that they're looking for. he has a concealed permit. the car.ned down in that's the disparate treatment talking about.

hen black lives matter and i want to say when black lives matter talk about black lives matter, what they mean is that black lives really do matter. long as we treat black lives dissupposable,r, we have not grown as a society. in 1999u begin the book in an episode in new york city, hat very well known, the killing. events as kindling for what is going on today. us more. a black man who stepped out on his back porch to go get something to eat after a long day a worth. this is regular. the four officers from the new upk police department pulled in front of him, guns blazing and fired 41 bullets at him. down.t

19 bullets hit. , no criminal nothing, but being a black man in new york city. at the time, have you broken policing theory governing the way the nypd worked. the ad hyper policing in black community. ight after that killing, rudy giuliani, who was mayor at the was talking to ted coppell. my way is working. had the show "crime going down," and i'm thinking, your policies are worked. on have an unarmed dead man a porch, hit 19 times with 41 bullets shot at him. your policies are working. began to start

thinking through the way policies work in order to begin to undermine african american access to their civil rights, began, the german nation of moment.age came in that and because that broken window theory of policing, which led to stop and frisk. frisk, so at the time, 0% of new york's population were made of black and latinos. of all ounted for 84% stops. handful of whites who were stopped accounted for twice many of the illegal drugs and legal weapons. if this was about law enforcement, you would turn your police force to look where illegal drugs and weapons were. instead, this was turned toward black and latino community, where the drugs and weapons were not. about t is what i mean the ways the policies work. what that did, led to hyper in those ation

communities. the shooting of a man. anderson, carol author of "white rage," good morning, kathleen. caller: good morning. here listening and i want to say we as hebrew sraelites need to teach our kids what was black people before slavery. talking about slavery, slavery. what were we doing before slavery? what were we doing on the west coast of africa? what were we doing when our ancestors ran out of jerusalem into west africa? okay. what were we doing? we need to goaid,

y god's law, god gave the hebrew israelites laws. are oke them laws, we cursed. e sold us into slavery because we broke the laws. laws.o go back to god's [cutting out] we're losing kathleen, we understand the point. how about a response? the response is, i mean, here are -- i talk about slavery because that is where there are arts, but many scholars who fully document west as happening in africa. so that is just not the focus of conversation, but one thing that you do see and i don't want to think of slavery as like, god, because in fact, the

enslaved fought. they fought for their freedom. resisted. tools.roke their they put rocks in the bags, instead of cotton. they ran away. resisted. they fought for their freedom also deal with the kind of "we broke god's law and cursed," if we really are looking at the bible, god's law.has broken would bemean everybody cursed and enslaved. we need to be much more judicious and we need to be more humane about the way that we think about religion and the bible. host: doug from would be cursed and enslaved. we need to be much monroe, alifornia, calling on the republican line. hi, doug. caller: thanks for taking my call. anderson mention as a state legislation

and suppression laws and i have read they offered free state id's for people for the purpose of voting and i believe that actual voter suppression was on of pittsburgh, hen trump's stand was absolutely destroyed. that seems to strike me as voter suppression. when young people hear when they are being ts you a state legisn suppressed and your rights being taken away, they hear you are a victim and you end up being nothing more than a victim and never realize their full potential and that is a real disservice and propaganda, that is all i want to say. host: thank you, doug. thoughts. guest: it is only propaganda if it is not true. the -- in wisconsin, for things e, one of the governor scott walker it was to hours of the

department of motor vehicle in areas, particularly in the city of milwaukee. hours for the department of motor vehicle in republican areas of the state. you see for instance, in texas, where the -- when they passed sb-2, voter suppression law in texas, that the state knew that in over 00 counties, they did department of motor vehicle in 80-something counties and it was -- some people would have to drive 250 miles in order a government issued photo i.d., but since they couldn't, drive, ot they had to

somebody had to drive them. in the original bill for sb-2, was a provision that dealt with reimbursing people who had to drive a long distance to get a issued photo i.d. and the republican legislature drew reimbursal gh that o that in fact what we have is a poll tax. when you have the state systematically identifying people by race and by lass, that is not exactly tion, that is what the government is doing and when people need to understand that is what is going on, it doesn't make them a victim, it makes them understand they need resist.d up and host: our guest is carol anderson, professor of african emory an study necessary exactly y and author of "white what the government is rage," our educated at at i university, got a phd ohio state university. ther books she's written, "the

united nations and african american struggle for human "naacp and colonial -- miami book fair she attended at our website, book t.v. and type in carol anderson and the event should come up for you. obama,te about president of course, part of what you write, obama's solutions and the lack of radicalism in of obstructionist senate should have made him a hero. of the term, disapproval 85.7% gop.ng among the telling us more. guest: we hear obama being a socialist, for instance, as the reason why he is so vilified, except when you look at for

demonic the absolutely demonized affordable care act, obamacare. it was created by the heritage adopted by nd then mitt romney in massachusetts. private industry, private insurance companies, in fact, providing the insurance. it is a century solution to deal ith the fact that we have millions, as one of the leading industrialized nations, millions who did not have health insurance and could not get health insurance because of conditions, for example. not, here is his s centrality, did not win his favors. the fact he tried to walk a fine did not do anything, instead, what you saw immediately coming out, were the kind of vilification. he's muslim, muslim, muslim, muslim is part of the other

ring, making him not american, making him oreign, ome kind of -- you know, candidate kind of deal. when you look at his policies i say, he took over when on the precipice abyss.ive financial he helped right the course congress whose first line was we oppose everything that hedoes, everything wants. e are going to try to make him as mitch mcconnell said, a one-term president. hen you have that kind of resistance in the face of that resistance, right now, the unemployment rate is less than 5%. has risen. building starts have begun.

corporate profits have increased and the man is hated in a way when you remove all other variables, all you can come up with is race. blackness, his very blacknes blackness, created this kind of sense that this domain of the white house, the pinnacle of was now occupied by who could provide, who said, pin ultimate in achieve sxment how have you little black boys and girls i, too, could be president of the united states. that is terrifying. this is why you see the level of up, beginning with massive voter suppression. ost: about 15 minutes, maybe more left with our guest, helen on the line from morrow, georgia, democratic caller. hi, helen. morning.

caller: good morning, professor anderson, i will not call you i don't know if you are married or not and want to give respect. guest: thank you. caller: speaking of victims and the last ion, as per war on i think about the drugs as in the '90s, against where african americans were targeted as criminals and demonized, compared to the over billion, recent bill passed in 2016 by and pushed by the the victims of opioid epidemic in a lot of the s and a are victims of these

opioid epidemic of white. this is being pushed by the senate, they have approved it and they are waiting for the funding, i believe, but can you the way nd contrast that people who are addicted to opioids are not demonized nd criminalized the way that blacks were during the '90s with he mythical "crack" epidemic where all blacks were demonized and criminalized. calling.anks for guest: absolutely. absolutely. here was a study done by princeton professor where she looked at the difference between how crack was identified and discussed and the way that methamphetamine were and what found was that crack was criminalized, as were the so blacks werew, een as crack heads and they

needed to be incarcerated. methamphetamine in the discourse was seen as a public health crisis and that, because meth a white drug, that was affecting poor white america. rural the same thing i believe we're opioid crisis e right now. things i detail in "white rage" is that in 1982, when president ronald reagan started talking about the drug crisis in the united states, was a drug there crisis in the united states, was going ed about we're not after drug traffickers, we're going to set up treatment had a kind of you reatment frame tlt work for understanding a drug crisis, but hit, in crack epidemic fact then you saw him come out with 4, i believe it was,

his speech on the war on drugs. legislation e of coming through that criminalized crack and made tis operate sentencing where you needed 100 powder cocaine than you needed for crack to get the same sentence. we see that ere disparate understanding a victim andlly is we begin to see what that, how race plays out in terms of the looks at he society the issue. host: here is a question by from patrick, asks about the media here. the media have always been racism by in misinformation and selective information. what do you think? guest: yes. host: what examples do you see? so i remember -- so yes.nstance,

rroof, the young white went into emmanual cme african american bible study was never defined as a terrorist in the media, even start a raceted to war, even though he had a list of other black churches where he was planning additional ese killings. never a terrorist, but as a youth, as someone who illness, e some mental and you never saw a discussion of people could raise him. killing of tamire rice, the 12-year-old boy up in the police, he was playing with a toy gun in a onk and the police rolled up

him and he was shot within three seconds. when the videotape came out to account police officers was highly inaccurate, in fact, hey lied, what the media focused in on was that there ere like, what kind of child would be playing with a toy gun in a park? what kind of parents does he have? headlines d seeing about rice's parents. that's that kind of example of kind of disparate framing get in the media. host: brent calling from colinwood, tennessee. hi. caller: hello. since i called c-span. i called when you had your 50th nniversary for the voting rights bill. anyhow, the question i had for the professor, professor

i know i've seen her book t.v., she's -- her discussions about her book she's had on there. i'd like to find out if she elaborate on lynching know i've been research, what little research that i've done that lynching, or lynching h actually comes from colonial ary war, a virginia, lastin name of lynch, who had this olicy to be used against loyalists to lynch loyalists and pr property. is that true? this ny of the cities in country like lynchburg, is that where the name comes from, is related? and also -- let you go, let me you brought up a couple of calls in.e want other

fair enough to brent, got a couple points in. go ahead. guest: i don't know if the roots virginia, are lynching. i have read where lynching, in come from the colonialist in virginia. that has the things happened is that while black people were property, killing not profitable. but once the civil war was over and you had emancipation, then is a wave t you see of lynching that happens in quest foreign in this freedom that black people had. ne of the things, i talk about n "white rage," the key point is that is policy. it is not bad enough that the lynchings happened, but it is hat they were sanctioned by policy, sanctioned by the court, allowed -- the killers were

to that with absolutely no consequences, which made it normative. host: joyce from houston. welcome to the program, calling on the republican program for anderson. hi. caller: hi. i am irst let me say that almost 84-year-old black senior citizen grandmother. are talking about voter suppression. should be insulting every black person that said we don't have, like we don't have sense enough to get a picture i.d. and the reason we don't want picture i.d. is because of voter fraud. i've worked in voting for years, witnessed so much fraud, i have reported it and nothing was done about it. that let me know there were peep high office that knew that this was going on and you know, voter i.d. have a i went to get said we don't have, like we don't have sense enough to get a

i ture i.d. and the reason we , ad to have picture i.d. to get card.ary when it come to voting, ki walk in there and vote and i don't have to have picture i.d. about the diva white man. the white man is not our problem. we are our problem and one of break-up ofoblems is that black family. when that black father was the home, the jail house was not young black men and need and that is what we to come to the realization that we are our own worst enemy. more of each other than any other group, we are not dealing with that, we are it is the white man's fault or slavery. problem, the t our white man is not our problem, we are our problem. and you notice every time it is time for voting, you come up with this race stuff. is how the liberal democrats keep us under control and emotion and

once we come to the realization they are using us and we have used for our vote for 50, 0, 70, 80 years and still complaining about what we do not have. -- i didn't teach my children to say we are victims. taught my children they were victorious and as long as we say, you can't get this or can't do that, you are teaching them they are victims and that is what we need to stop doing. host: thank you for calling, we do understand the point. guest: yes. let me move through that. a law taught my children they w victorious and as long as we professor in california, i.d. ct, looked at voter fraud, the kind of voter fraud i.d.'s are supposed to stop 34 cases out of 1 billion votes from 2000 to 2014,

that kind of voter fraud is not the issue. haskind of voter fraud that sieged g.o.p. legislators is not issue. and in for instance, in wisconsin, up march or april of this year, they weren't even allowing military i.d.'s as acceptable i.d.'s.ent it is a type of i.d., that is art of the shell game being played. -- what , i mean, this for rch is clear on instance is that if you have a white man with a felony a college degree, has a better chance of getting a with no a black man felony conviction and a college degree. when you're doing those kind telling you , work.hing is at

this isn't about victimization, it is about knowing what you are up against. i got to deal with this piece, too. one piece that came through for me in working on white rage was that black people are fighting for education. we're supposed to do and when we fight for policies come e up to undermine them. virginia shut down the public school system or prince edward county, we're voting. the fact that we actually voted, i mean really voted in 2008 and 2012, the response has been wave of massive voter suppression in fact were designed to reduce that vote. trug use, rms of black people use drugs either amounts, but qual are arrested at 10 times the amount. understand how that works because that's real in society.

ost: anna from desoto, texas, democratic caller. last call for this segment. hi, anna. caller: mrs. anderson, thank you so much for bringing forth what the last caller from people forget we were republicans and eisenhower was the last one that we really truly voted for. there is a holiday called june 19th, and june-teen th, in people that move into the state do people forgete were republicans and eisenhower not know what e that we really that means. we were the last one and parts of arkansas and louisiana to get freedom. slavery had been over two years before we were ever freed. sometimes we still have that education, ith us, mr. chavez, before us, i raduated from a segregated

school. i look at school districts now, minority children, i got a better education under a system, where black teachers told us what we needed do, that you will always be behind the eight-ball. you got to study harder. got to work harder. going t is what is still on today. and the people call in and talk under he bible and we're a curse. i'm not under a curse and i will never teach my children or -- i have onethat great granddaughter that they are under a curse. state supreme court judge harriet murphy was my government teacher. she taught us how that we need think about the presidency, but about congress and the senate and that is where we're losing out and have you voter suppression, because congressmen and senators who are

not doing their job are still in and another thing when you talk about the media, we ebony and essence magazine that talk about, mr. johnson, if you wanted to know years g, emmett teal, 13 old, he was killed, brutalized, ebone hnson put it in magazine. we don't have that, we're talking about booty calls and all that now. that is the problem. host: thank you for calling, anything you want to respond to? guest: yes, one thing that the brown decisi decision. when the states finally, after a decade or more of ighting brown, one first thing they did was fire the black teachers. they were like, we will not have black teachers teaching

white children. part of the policies that we're talking about that undermines african american access. moving forward, we've talked a lot about problems, moving episodes, forward, is there one thing this country can do to create better african s for americans, more equality? guest: yes. needs the big things that to happen are that whites need racism. to whites about because it is one thing to have a black person sitting up here talking, but usually it is like, okay, here we go again, right? saw happening e in this election, for instance, was that you had families divided. were trump supporters, some weren't. lot of g we saw was a trump supporters, at that tima is really clear. issues of racism are strongly alliance with trump in support for trump. that conversation about the real history of this nation, hat is how we begin to move

forward. understanding the cost that the united laced on states in terms of our democracy, in terms of our strength. host: carol anderson, professor f african american studies at emorwhereuniversity and author of "white rage, the unspoken ruth of our racial divide," than week,cer: next "washington journal" will devote the entire programming day to the key issues facing the trump administration. we will take a look at national security and defense issues, including challenges facing team int-elect trump's the year ahead, and a closer look at the secretary of defense nominee, james mattis. how the trumpg administration could change current tradeaw