burning operations and vegetation management with prieflt ranch owners and private land owners as well as on state and cooperating with our federal agencies with the u.s. forest service. so two-fold program, vegetation management, we aggressively pursue that, but also from a public education stand point. what we find in these large scale incidents, the public is going to have to be self-sustaining and self-supporting. they need to be prepared. we try to educate them in respect that we say we'll provide the offense, you provide the defense. we talk to them about hardening their structures in a defensive measure against wild land fires. a lot of it is public education, survivability, building standards, but predominately our focus is putting the onus on the land owner, putting the onus on the private property owner, we will attempt to protect your home

but the days of staying and defending your home and killing our fire fighters are done. we will not stand and defend a house that has not been prepared by a land owner and die for it. we don't do that any more. that's one of our doctrinal changes and we set forth some new guidelines with that. >> thank you. >> question, mr. secretary. >> in a large scale disaster relief, where the military is called in to assist the civilian components there is an obvious issue of how you get the command and control and in particular what telecommunications is used to support that command and control. your exercising together is very critical, i think, to working out command and control but you still have an equipment problem because the equipment, telecommunication equipment designed for the military was different from that used. how are you working out to get the

coordination of telecommunications, particularly in disaster relief where the cellular infrastructure may be broken down and not available to support? could you comment somehow are you going to work out this telecommunications problem. >> so from a perspective of fema, we not only have a defense officer appointed by dod embedded with us during a disaster but we actually practice and have communications interoperatability over our systems to be sure we can communicate with each other on similar platforms and also support state and local platforms, whether it was katrina or other events we've actually been able to bring in national guard platforms to provide 911 systems for cities that have lost those systems. we recently in the joplin tornados and also tuscaloosa tornados we brought in dod

equipment to replace what was destroyed. from the fire side i know there's a lot of things you are doing to work around the interoperatability issues with regard to communications between fire and dod and maybe if ray or anybody else wants to speak to that. >> our communications challenges still exist. we have excellent telecom communications, we have a layered effect of our radio systems. we have mobile command posts that we can exercise. so we're prepared for power outages, reduction of telecoms, we have a layered effect for our communications. but as everybody here said, we need help. if somebody here can help me get a navy or marine corps aircraft to talk to my guys on the ground tactically, i need that and i don't have that today. i use a command control helicopter, a civilian helicopter, to handle that and transfer that to an

air to air victor frequency. but from a command control perspective, we're fairly robust. are we perfect, no, but we do have layered defenses against that. >> miss yeager, i don't know if you want to say anything from a national guard perspective. >> we have some mobile explorable platforms we can send out to incidents to help provide additional infrastructure in the event everything breaks down then our units have organic communications capability so i can move that out and i can help reinforce cal fire on their incident with what i have in the aviation brigade and units through the state of california have that same communication but the iceu, which is a mobile communications platform, is ideal in events like this to push out to help. >> any other questions? >> i have one. back in 1992 when it was a big fire season

and there was a lot of grass, they came to us and i was down at camp pendleton and they asked us it train marines on shovel work. what happened about 6 months later, they ended up sending two battalions to yellowstone. i haven't heard any discussion at all, do you expect the military, the guard or the active forces to be training people to do shovel-like work? all you have talked about so far is aviation. >> one of the challenges with a ground-based attack and training a soldier to be a ground-based fire fighter is the training takes time. and it takes approximately 3 to 5 days of solid training to make sure that they are going to be working in a safe environment to learn what's going on. and most of the time that, the

incidents in california will become mitigated. now, not to say that we certainly have that as an option. we have a fairly robust what we call fire crew program using cdcr inmate fire fighters. it is on our radar and it's something that we have as a contingency if we needed to do it. >> lieutenant colonel. >> yes, general, in the mou it does address the ground portion but the focus of effort is mainly on the aviation side but it is built in there for the ground side if necessary. >> i just want to say in 2008 we did activate hand crews to fight fires and we've identified soldiers throughout the state to respond if needed. they've got the tools that they need, the boots and all that cached and available. it's really just a matter of

getting the call and being ready to go. >> i was going to end with general myat. i know we've trained soldiers to do that kind of thing. after the colorado fires just recently they did put a lot of soldiers that trained, so we do still have that program who can do that if the need warrants. any other questions from out there before i turn it over to general myat? let me thank our panel here. >> thank you. (applause). as we leave here today, we need to keep the ball moving forward. we can't -- i think most of us all here would

agree, we really can't prevent the next disaster from happening. but by building the partnerships that we are here today and will continue to build in the future, we can certainly limit the number of deaths and long-term destruction. we can surge a lot of things: resources, people. but we cannot surge trust. so venues such as this is what helps us build that trust so that when the bell does go off we know -- a comment i made yesterday and i'd like to use it again in closing today, the most important thing for me to come out of this two-day seminar and sbat -- into the future is the ability for us to physically face to face look each other in the eye, shake hands and say to

each other, we are in this together. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. . (applause). >> thank you, admiral beeman. you have helped me carry out one of the instructions secretary schultz gave to me 3 years ago, bring the fleet back to fleet week. we couldn't do it without you. i thank secretary and mrs. perry for coming, just -- i know it's, you've got some other things, people are waiting on you right now but i really appreciate you coming here. of course secretary and mrs. schultz for the entire program. vice admiral nathan, i don't know if he's here, he may have gone already, but he gave a great talk yesterday on the medical side. and vice

admiral z, coast guard, our senior rep here, i can never pronounce his name but he's made things great. general speese, thank you for making this happen. rear admiral hubner, he was here, he's been terrific working with us. rear admiral rivera coming up from the chilean navy, thank you so much. i learned a lot. we need the kind of input that we got from you, really, and we thank you so much. i would be remiss not to mention the two people that really are responsible for all this. first was lewis loeven. lewis loeven works hours and hours to do this. thank you so much. but the other is because she's committed to make it happen and it's her focus that

always to learn from everything that happens, ann koninberg at dem, thank you so much, ann, for everything you do. you had to have a pass to get on the ship. i've asked captain pringle, to get off the ship, i wonder if you can secure the hatch until they fill out their participant form. if you could do that, i would appreciate that. fleet week, we are a neutral convener of the process to improve the relation ships between this global force for good and the local civilian officials. and one of our goals is next time you put up your slide with all those logos on it, general, you are going to have the san francisco fleet

week logo on it, too. i look at what we accomplished in 2010, we had a meeting to understand dsca, in 2011 we had the table top exercise, we debriefed that, we had a great speaker then we had an education seminar. this time, this year we had a functional exercise in august which was terrific, you saw the panel, a medical exercise as part of fleet week and you saw the enthusiasm of the participants, then we had the back brief. now we've had a strategic operational and tactical discussions about going forward and the things that we can accomplish. so what are you going to do in 2013? well, fill out the form and tell us what you think we ought to do but we're going to be working hard to move this forward. i think ray cheney said it from cal fire best today: we are all better off because we're in here for the last day and a half and i'm

sitting here wondering, all my contemporaries, what have they been doing for the last 36 hours? they haven't been doing anything near as important as what we've been doing. i thank all of you so much for participating and stay in touch. if we've got your email address you will never be lonely because we're going to get you back here next year. thank you all so much. (applause).

>> and good evening. welcome to the meeting of the commonwealth club of california. i'm bob, a member of the commonwealth program community and a chair for of tonight's program. i'm also a member of the house of delegates of the american bar association, where it first met steve. this is a series of programs underwritten by the charles gesky family, which examines the constitution in the 21st century. this examines the balance between safety, security, and public order, and the protection of civil liberties and the integrity of the constitution on the other.

tonight program will focus on threats to our american justice system caused by under-funding and indecisiveness. i would like to mention that the question answer portion of the program will be moderated by a professor geoffrey hazard, a distinguished professor of law at uc hastings. the professor is a leading expert in the field of civil procedure of legal ethics and is good at asking questions. it is my pleasure to introduce our very special guest, stephen zack, president of the american bar association. with nearly 400,000 members, it is the largest volunteer professional membership organization in the world. mr. zack is the first hispanic american to serve as the president and the second to be born abroad. he was only 14 when his family emigrated from cuba under harrowing circumstances, including last minute detention by the secret police.

he made it here. in two lines -- and two lines come to mind when i think of him. "this is my country, land of my choice. this is my country, here i found voice." what a voice it is. he earned his aba at the university of florida and he is now in their hall of fame. he is a partner in the miami office of the national law firm. his clients range from former vice president al gore to philip morris, to the national geographic society, and he is listed in the 2011 edition of the best lawyers in america. his cross-examination of an expert witness in bush vs. gore made the front page of "the new york times." he has a framed in his office. he was the youngest attorney and first hispanic to serve as

president of the florida bar. he was chair of the ethics commission and served on the orange board committee. in the aba, he has been a florida state delegate, chair of the house of delegates, our policy-making body, served on the board of governors, and is a fellow of the american bar foundation. as the aba president, he has led national effort to protect state courts, improve civics education, and fight cuts to legal aid funding. it is his mission to make equal justice under law a vibrant living reality for everyone, not just four words carved on the facade of the supreme court building in washington. mr. zack is a passionate and tireless advocate for liberty and justice for all. as he wrote in a letter in today's "daily journal," "that is what our profession does. we get in the way of wrong.

we get in the way of attempts to separate and divide our society. we get in the way of those who would let our constitutional democracy whether away from ignorance. we get in the way of those who would further widen the justice happen in our country." please welcome a great lawyer, my friend, and our speaker, steve zack, president of the american bar association. [applause] >> that is a wonderful introduction, bob. thank you for those kind words and for all the good work you do at the aba and have done for many years. thank you for this invitation. it is the world's largest public affairs forum. i love your model. "find truth and set it free." what could be better than that? i have heard many mottoes under

-- over the years. in many ways, it is what we are all about here today in finding some truth and hopefully setting a free. we need to explain why the preservation of the justice system is so important. it should be obvious, right? it should be a very simple discussion. unfortunately, it is not. in my lifetime, the loss of liberty is not a theoretical exercise. i actually experienced that in cuba. and, part of the passion that i feel about this issue comes from the fact that, in 1961, the cuban constitution was identical to that of the united states. those words in that constitution did not protect us. words do not protect you.

understanding and be leaving in the words do. -- and believing in the words do. we today have a serious problem in that regard. the "new york times" three weeks ago -- "time" magazine three weeks ago reported as a cover story how the constitution is under siege, and "newsweek" about two months ago had a cover story about the failure of americans to understand our government. some very scary statistics. two out of every three graduating high-school students today believe that the three branches of government are republican, democrat, and independent. that is an actual poll. 75% of all americans don't know that religious freedom is protected by the first amendment. 75%.

more americans can name the judges on "american idol" than on the supreme court of the united states. what does this mean to us? how did we get here? well, first of all, unless the next generation understands the obligations imposed by the constitution, we are going to have a serious, serious problem. my children can always tell me about their rights, but very rarely tell me about their responsibilities. those responsibilities are critical to our future as a country. the fact of the matter is, if we do not understand the constitution, if our children do not understand the constitution, and appreciate the separation of powers, and appreciate the different roles that are

branches of government are meant to play, how are our elected officials opposed to understand? what has happened today in washington? what is happening to our country? what is happening to a saying that we all have heard? i will ask people to raise their hands. do you remember going to school when we all heard the statement, "i don't agree with what to say, but i will defend to the death your right to say it." to do you remember that? how many of you recall saying that? every single person in this room raised their hand. today, the statement is, "i don't agree with what to say, and if you say it, you are a bum, and you should not say it, and i don't like to." where did we lose our way? what happened to us as a country? we cannot have a civil discord

and discussion amongst ourselves and still respect the other point of view. is it 24-hour-day cable? is it a society that says "i won't listen to fox," or "i will listen to fox, and only fox," or "i listen to msnbc"? why can we not listen to the marketplace of ideas and understand that people have a right under our constitution to have different points of view? that is why you are here today. to listen to different points of view. the fact of the matter is, today, we are in a society that does not even respect the concept of having a right to a lawyer.

as president of the american bar association, i have an opportunity to choose the theme for our law day, and i chose the legacy of john adams from concord to guantanamo, because every high-school student had to think about why it is our obligation to defend those who have ideas different than our own. why we live in a constitutional democracy. a constitutional democracy is the difference of two words, each of which are two letters. that is the rule "of" law, and the rule "by" law. the rule by law as when a majority get together and get -- and decide what rights, if any, the minority has.

nazi germany was one of the most lawful and unjust society is in the history of the world. the nuremberg laws were rules by law. what exists around most of the world and in cuba today come in my own experience, is that the most powerful, the most privileged, get together and decide what rights, if any, the minority have. the united states constitution is the rule by law. the rule by law is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. it is the classic definition of law. now, the rule of law is what justice kennedy and justice roberts recently spoke about. in their opinions, one was involving the flag-burning case.

texas vs. johnson. the other one was by justice kennedy. the other one was by justice roberts very recently in the demonstrations of military fit -- demonstrations at military funerals. they both said the same thing. they said, we don't like what these people did. as a matter of fact, what they did and their beliefs are abhorrent to most americans, and to us personally, but unless we protect their rights, all our rights are in jeopardy. and that is why the concept of a constitutional democracy is so important and must be preserved, but is not understood today. it is not understood by many americans. why? it is not that hard to understand. we live in a democracy. a democracy is supposed to be

governed by a majority opinion. so, why isn't the court just governed by whatever the majority of people think? the answer is that that is what is also called mob rule. a constitutional democracy is one that protect everyone's rights, even those who are the minority. that is a concept that was discussed in the federalist papers, which i know we all read when we have trouble going to sleep, and is the basis for our government, but what will happen, what will happen if there are no courts to protect the rule of law? that is really the fundamental message that i wish to talk to you about here today. we have a court system under attack. 11 states provide less than 1% of their entire state budget to funding the judicial system. california and florida tend to

lead the pack. in this case, unfortunately. florida, 0.7% of the entire budget goes to funding judiciary. the superior court in san francisco recently said that it will have to reduce its staff by 42% compared to where it was two years ago, and that it will have to close 25 court firms -- courtrooms. we have established a commission for the preservation of the justice system that is chaired by ted olson and david boyce, speakers at this great forum in the past, and 24 of the most prominent lawyers in the country, both women and men, all ethnicities, both sides of the aisle, to look at this issue. let me tell you what we found. in hearings around the country, we found the supreme court of georgia telling us that there

court is so under-funded that she has to ask nexus' lexus for pencils for her law clerks. in ohio, you cannot finally pleading unless you bring your own paper. in new hampshire, the court closed the courts to all civil jury trials for a year, a year. alabama supreme court justice said she is going to have to reduce civil trials by 50% and criminal cases by 1/3. well, we have spent $1.30 trillion in bringing the rule of law to parts of the rest of the world. the rule of law begins with one word. "access." access. if there is no access, there is no rule of law. today we have a just a step in today we have a just a step in this country where 80% of poor