tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN September 19, 2016 1:00pm-3:01pm EDT
laboratory after sandy was a micro grid system with distributable energy that will sustain the electrofied transport corridor, which is a pretty cal public safety issue. that went down, too, with sandy. so there's also now getting that kind of microgrid structure to make sure that really critical pieces of infrastructure can operate during these storms. that's important. there's a whole string of things but those are some examples. >> thank you. once again thanks for all you've done. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> yes, time has expired. mr. secretary, it's over. i want to close by saying thank you so very much for your patience, your expertise and your frankness. in texas we say you're a straight shooter. that's a very high compliment. no matter what happens in the future, i want you to know you have a standing invitation to come to texas 22 district to see
the project up and running. a big part at mit and dot, she's coming online december. she will capture 90% of co2 out of one stack of carbon powered from coal and capture 95% of co2, use it to give an old oilfield about 65 miles south. it's the first viable -- economically viable project in america, you're a big part of that. thank you, thank you, thank you. >> we are excited about it. >> we are as well. come by, too, give us a little more time, the best barbecue, swing up there rosenberg, best tacos in the county. with that, members, you have five days to commit questions for the record. without objection, the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.
quah . here is a look at what's happening in congress. u.s. senate back to continue debate on short-term continuing resolution that would fund government past september 30th deadline. a procedural vote for 5:30 eastern with six votes needed to advance the bill. see it live 3:00 p.m. eastern on companion network c-span 2. house returns for legislative business on tuesday. on the agenda this week, legislation to exempt u.s. olympic and paralympic athletes from paying tacks on metals and prize money, a bill for sharing
information on cyber attacks and iran related bills, including ban object cash payments to iran. see the house live on c-span. of course the country is watching new york, new jersey area after suspected terrorist bombings over the weekend. apparently the suspect is in custody. there's a picture tweeted out by jewish breaking news and some congressional reaction, new york congressman steve israel, my thoughts are with those injured in the new york city explosion. we owe thanks to brave first responders and law enforcement who worked tirelessly to protect us. tom mcarthur whose district includes seaside park, new jersey site of one of the sklogss writes, debbie and i are thankful no one was injured in seaside park. sobering reminder we must always be vigilant. we'll continue to monitor reaction and bring you updates as warranted. join us later today when defense secretary ashton carter and former defense secretary william perry discussed the defense
department's use of latest technological advances. see that live starting at 1:30 eastern on c-span3. a little later discussion on defense and foreign affairs policy issues with kentucky senator rand paul and senator murphy from connecticut hoesed by center for national interest, 2:45 eastern will here on c-span3. now to take us to the bottom of the hour and start of the event with defense secretary carter, a portion of today's washington journal. >> at our desk joined by olivia golden and robert. a discussion on new census bureau report on poverty in 2015. i want to start with you. that report showed decline poverty rate, total poverty number of people in the united states in poverty now at 1999 levels. we'll go into the details of
that report. what do you think are the biggest reasons for that drop? >> i think just the big headline as you say is improvement as a result of reaching across a large swath" in addition to overall poverty dropping, child poverty dropped, which is something we follow in particular from 21% to 25, one in five. big reason the economic recovery reaching a larger share of americans. there's also good news about public programs, accompanying report on health insurance shows big improvements on the share of americans who have health insurance. the number without is down by 4 million from last year. that's a big positive the contributions of programs like s.n.a.p., tax credits keep people out of poverty. the one other topic i'm sure
we'll get back to, there's been a very important positive back, there are still big disparities in poverty. so child poverty remains at unacceptably high levels, young adults, next generation getting economic benefits fully to parents and to young children i think is an agenda for maintaining the momentum. but it's very good news. >> certainly issues we'll discuss during this hour, roundtable. robert you've studied this issue, played a key role kra crafting 1996 federal welfare reform bill. what do you see as drivers coming down to 13 1/2%. >> clearly the economy, not much change in policy here fl i think we need to put these numbers in context. they are very good news. a one-year drop. but it's a one-year drop following seven years of extremely bad news.
overall for the last eight years the numbers here have been very bad. we actually have a higher poverty rate now than we did before the beginning of the great recession in 2007. that's really rather remarkable. so it's a one-year drop. but to have a significant change, you have to have drops that occur year after year after year. that rarely has occurred in our system and only occurred in the 1950s and '60s and occurred during the period of welfare reform and boom in the 90s where, for example, in that period poverty among single mothers with children dropped 8 percentage points over four, five, six years and wen down substantially on a instructial basis. here we have a one-year drop. we're worse off than we were when barack obama came bo office. >> can you talk about that one-year drop and whether some
groups did better than others. >> it was good news all across the board. it was great. i'm very happy with that report. again, one year does not make much difference if it's going up. poverty was rising during much of the obama administration. not riseing a lot. but again, we're worse off than we were in 2007 when bush was in office. that is due to a very, very mediocre economic performance over the long-term. maybe we have a change here but one year does not a party make. >> i want to discuss how we keep this from becoming one-year blip. i want to invite our viewers calling in during a segment. different phone lines. if you make under $25,000 a year, phone number 202-748-8,000. if you make 25,000 to 50,
202-748-8001. 51,000 to $100, 202-748-8002. if you make over $100,000, 202-748-8003. if you didn't catch those we'll keep them up on the screen so you can call in. how do we keep this from becoming a one-year blip? >> that's a great question. i will highlight it is very -- it's very important the president and the broad -- his policies but the broad economy have brought us back from the depths of the great recession. i totally agree with robert going forward is crucial. there are several things we need to do. building on success and going in some additional directions. first, what we've seen over the last years, big programs, food assistance, income tax credit have really done their job, but the private economy has taken a long time to improve the circumstances of low wage workers. when you look at what's going on
for children and their parents, it's still about low wage work. low wages but too few hours. people want to work full time. we need both policies that affect things like fair scheduling and minimum wage in states and localities. we also need strong investments and good jobs. you'll hear a lot of conversation about infrastructure, for example, which is about that. you need a big investment in child care. that's a big issue that affects parents ability to work and children's ability to succeed. then we need to focus on other things, filling in gaps in the safety net. earned income tax credit helps low income morkcome mothers anda lot. does not help adults, that's an example. we also affordability of higher education. right now to get a good job you need at least some kind of post
secondary credentials. that's the kind of things we need to do to build on success and keep it going. >> i think itdo you agree? >> not exactly. i think it's important what the numbers say and don't say. these are prewelfare numbers. the welfare state is not counted here. if a family receives 12 or $14,000 in earned income tax credit, food stamps, that's not counted as inko last year for families with children, we spent $221 billion on cash, food, and housing for those families. that's twice what is needed to eliminate all poverty in the united states but the census bureau counted 0.1 of that for poverty. if you count benefits, the poverty rate is cut by 2/3. you rarely see those numbers. we get those confusing pitches,
look how much poverty we've got. we need to spend more on welfare. it's not counted. can't possibly have effect. >> can i give viewers those numbers i'll let you finish. for an individual it's $12,000 a year for two people, $15,000 a year three people, $19,000 for a family of four, $24,000 a year and for a family of five $29,000 a year is the official poverty threshold from this 2015 report. you say those numbers, not including a whole lot of things these individuals are getting. >> pretty much the whole welfare state is cut out of these numbers. when you add the welfare state in, what we need to do is basically combine. welfare state generally doesn't do. if, for example, you take single
mother with two kids, she only gets $14,000, way below poverty level, she will get $17 from cash system, food stamps, medicaid. when you add all those things together her income up over $30,000 a year even putting medical assistance aside. that's not reflected in numbers. >> there's an argument poverty is overstated. >> this is a pretty accurate measure, measuring poverty without welfare. when you count welfare the actual poverty rate is cut by 2/3. question for policy how do we put together welfare system that doesn't displays people's efforts to support themselves but compliments those and brings those together with the welfare
state to make people better off. >> that shows the same pattern, total good news. the rate for children got from a little over 19% to 16% when you count those, one in five to one in six. the children are still poorest when you count those programs, reason for that benefit from tax system, what they pay and low in coworkers plus other things census has to do to make it accura accurate. two things to outline, totally agree with i think what robert is saying, a huge success of public policy that the earned income tax credit and nutrition
assistance enable low income mother it work and stabilize better than with a loan. a couple of kids working fulltime, it is a dream for most single moms to be able to work full time. you have to be able to pay for child care to do that, enormous expense, typically the same as housing. we have public programs to support child care but they only get to about one in six with eligible kids. increasingly low wage work has problems being able to work full time. the system helps a lot but remain gaps to fix it entirely. >> poverty in the united states is our discussion. olivia golden with the center for law and social policy. robert rec ter with the heritage foundation. both on the program before. ready for calls. jesse in must keegan, michigan.
go ahead. >> i retired 1979, making $9.95 an hour. back in 1979. people making $10, $11. these things, it's not true at all. trying to live on $6, $700 a month. you ask them -- going down. >> jesse, we had a lot of same comments when numbers first came out and we were talking about them. robert, the concern people don't believe numbers.
they are not seeing poverty going down. >> people in hardship among low skilled labors wages have been flat for about 40 years. that's a real problem. when you look at this broad population saying 40 million people are poor, we also have data on what people are like. the typical household among the census identifying as poor has cable tv, has air conditioning, has a computer, has internet, automobile, cell phone. if you ask them were you hungry at any point during the year, 96% of these poor parents will say their chirp were not hungry during the year. that's all government data. so it doesn't mean that these families are walking on easy street. they are struggling but
struggling to pay tv bill and air conditioning and computer bill and internet bill and keep their car running. different from the normal image and that's important. if we were to back up to the larger issue, what we have seen since the beginning of the war on poverty is the decline in americans ability -- ability of low income americans to support themselves above poverty threshold without relying on welfare. since that was lyndon johnson's plan, we've had 50 years on that. >> i'll let you respond. income in the united states part of this report released last week put it out there. household income, $56,000, 516, an increase of 5.2%.
first annual increase in household income since 2007. maryland and district of columbia had highest median household incomes. mississippi with median household income 40,593 a year had the lowest. do you want to respond? >> i just want to say to jesse, more people have been reached by economy last year. that's what the good news is. the second thing, which you're highlighting and absolutely true is there's a long way to go. i think your point about wages staying low is particularly important. some local communities and states passing minimum wage increases that needs to happen at the federal level. in addition to wages as i mentioned earlier a big problem for families and individuals is scheduling. for example, people getting eight hours this week, 15 hours next week wanting to work full time, wanting to put together
low wage jobs but not getting enough security about their hours to do it. those are big issues to address. lots more to say about the kind of damage that poverty and low income do. i expect you see that in daily life. we know a lot from research about consequences particularly from children growing up in families where food is constantly scares and stressed out. where housing overwhelmingly expensive, low income moving, doubled up, evicted, sometimes homeless. adults in the family under stress juggling work and caring for kids. there's been improvement, a lot farther to go. >> let's head to the line for those making over $100,000 a year. miner in salt lake city utah. good morning. >> good morning. it's only taken me 20 years to
speak on c-span's morning show. >> thanks for calling. go ahead. you've got your time now. i want to comment that raps -- that the reason poverty level was below in 2015 is because it could have taken eight years of the obama administration to accomplish it. >> i agree with that. extremely lackluster performance where poverty going up during that period when we were supposed to be in an economic recovery. so if you look over that eight-year period, this is really the only news we've seen. it's a very dismal period. again we actually have.
this is good news but counteracted by bad news. >> whether or not i would say is the president came into office with the deepest recession since the great depression. then turning into the depression, worked with often hostile congress not only to ease the effects of that immediate recession but also to accomplish some other things. so what the report shows is not only the success in terms of poverty but other improvements that you can very directly link to public policy. i'll highlight, affordable care act, only 7% of americans without health insurance, the lowest uninsured ever. interestingly the report looks at how that relates to policy by looking at states that have
taken advantage of the full array of opportunities in the aca called medicaid expansion, states that have not. those that have taken advantage of the policy have done better for their citizens in terms of health insurance. you can really see the policy effects and news. >> might be a good time to explain to viewers who haven't seen you before, what is the center for law and social policy. >> sure. center for law and social policy nonpartisan anti-poverty organization that works to promote policy at the federal and state level. we work at both levels, that help to reduce poverty and improve lives of low income people. i spent my career leading public programs and working in research on those issues. >> robert, what do you do with heritage? >> the heritage foundation is a think tank that promotes free markets and strong values in society. what i do is try to promote a welfare state that promotes work and marriage as keys to
self-sufficiency and well-being while supporting things for those that need it. i don't think endlessly handing out more and more money like in the conventional welfare system is helping anybody. >> on the line making under $25,000 a year. mark has been waiting. thank you for waiting. >> good morning, folks. i hope you'll bear with me here. there isn't one of these problems you're talking about that doesn't exist and couldn't be gotten rid of if we had people in charge supposed research that show national sevens of integrity. i've lived under that line you're talking about for most of my life and i'm a veteran that's been betrayed. i've been betrayed by my nation. whether or not the rest of you want to recognize it, you're being betrayed by the two parties, too. it doesn't matter how good the person in charge or involved is, as long as they belong to either one of these two parties they have sold us out. let me say this.
for all you smart, intellectual college degreed individuals out there, why can't you see what i see, and that is there isn't one of our problems that couldn't be rectified, corrected and made better by just voting a third party individual into office because the other two parties sold us out. please take this message to heart. 40% of your homeless out there are veterans. 25 years ago it was 30%. these two parties couldn't rectify the people we claim to honor all the time. make of us can't even get paid for time in service let alone what's happened to us afterwards. >> all right. thanks, the call from california this morning. robert, do you want to talk about policy proposals that various presidential candidates and what might be most effective here? >> well, i do think one area that's important, we've talked about stagnant wages for low skilled workers.
one of the reasons we've had stagnant wages for low skilled workers for decades is massive influx of low immigrant wage that has driven that down, in many cases driven people out of the labor market all together. that's a very important issue. if you bring more and more people in who, for example, are immigrants without a high school degree, they compete with the least advantaged, least skilled american workers. wages go down substantially for that group and some of them leave the labor force entirely. that's a disaster and there's really no gain anyone gets from this. we shouldn't be using immigration system to push the wages of our least advantaged american workers down. we ought to turn that around. >> one policy proposal from a presidential candidate that might be most impactful when talking about the poverty rate. >> we're nonpartisan organization but i won't refer to presidential race but identify some from president obama and the states.
i will highlight president obama made a very strong proposal on child care in the 2017 budget which the congress didn't take up, which would have made sure low income parents could get help paying for child care which contributes to children doing better and parents economic stability. >> if i could just back this up. if you look at job poverty all the way back to 1950, all right, all the way back to the korean war to the apprehend time, child poverty dropped really only during the '50s and '60s and then it remained constant and then dropped in the 1990s due to a strong economy and welfare reform. for example, the poverty rate among single parents at that time dropped from around 40% down to 30%. very dramatic drop i believe largely because of that welfare reform. otherwise all we do is spend money and basically have welfare replace wages to a considerable
degree. what we need to do, i think that it's a problem that both parties have unlearned the lessons of welfare reform under the clinton presidency, that what we had there was a requirement at least a portion of single mothers should work in exchange for the benefits they got. when we did that, we had these dramatic long-term drops in poverty, much, much larger than what we're talking about here today that went year after year surges in employment. not because we were taking welfare away. we were saying in order to get welfare, you have to also take steps to help your self. that works really well for beneficiary, works well for taxpayer and society in general. both parties walked away from it. >> let me bray in our caller from new york on the line for those who make between $51,000 and $100 per year. turn down your tv and go ahead with your comment.
you've got to stick by your phone. we'll go to connecticut. that line for those making under $25,000 a year. good morning. >> hi. thank you. i make way under $25,000 because i have to go on disability because of a back problem that was not diagnosed. and i really struggle, honestly, but i'm doing better because they know what's wrong with me and i'm getting some therapy -- >> also like to recognize dick lugar who is joining us. welcome, dick, thank you for joining us. also like to welcome you and thank you for coming out and joining us. our discussing is titled innovation in u.s. defense policy. secretary of defense perspective. it will take a deep dive look at how the u.s. employed
technological advantage in defense of the nation and whether that remains a feasible proposition. what was once the novel use of stealth technology, guided precision weapons, satellite command and control is now challenged by new technology such as autonomous weapons, cyber and advanced manufacturing. with ansell rating research and development process, will the u.s. be able to continue to rely on technological dominance for its national defense. moreover, what role does the private industry play in this future? the moderator for today's discussion knows both participants well. as the former washington bureau chief of the new york time bill has had front row seats to consequential national security events of the last few decades. in 2008 when bill retired from "new york times," he came to stanford where he is an adjunct professor for center for international security and cooperation. also serves secretary of stanford board of trustees and associate vice president for university affairs.
thank you in advance, for what i'm sure will be a fascinating discussion. we're also delighted to have two incredible public servants as our speakers today. honorable william j. perry has been at the front lines of u.s. national security for half a century. starting his career as analysts writing reports reaping president kennedy during the height of the cuban missile crisis. he hit the pinnacle when he was named 19th u.s. secretary of defense. as secretary perry led efforts to reduce dangers of nuclear weapons in the post soviet era and secure safe transition into post cold war world. awarded him presidential medal of freedom. when he retired government he took on another service, teaching and research of the at stanford senior fellow with institution and friedman
institute for international studies. honorable ashton carter is the 25th and current u.s. secretary of defense. as the chief executive of the department of defense and principle policy adviser to the president, secretary carter is responsible for men and women of the united states armed forces. similar to dr. perry, secretary carter has devoted much of his professional life to public service and advancing science and technology in the defense of the united states. he's held a variety of positions in the pentagon including deputy secretary of defense, under-secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and assistant secretary of defense for international security policy. prior to his current role, secretary carter was annenberg distinguished fellow at the hoover institution. together they have spent years in and out of the government focused on how they can promote and maintain peace and stability. when they were in academia, bill
at stanford and ash at harvard co-directed defense project, program on how to prevent threats to security from emerging, co-authored op-eds reports. mutual admiration and friendship. i'm sure you'll see that today. have an opportunity to recognize this long-term friendship and benefits it property to security. give thanks to mike franks and washington team and pentagon staff here, debra gordon, robert perry and lisa perry for making today happen. finally quick note before we begin, both participants have in advance chosen not to speak about nuclear party under consideration by the administration and will not be commenting on that subject. further note, we have the secretary for about 30 minutes. his day job calls him elsewhere.
thanks for doing that, ash, thanks for fitting us in. there will be a bit of a change in the middle. if everyone can remain seated we'll carry on with secretary perry. i'll turn it over to you. >> it's no accident these two gentlemen are here to discuss defense technology and innovation as most of you know, bill perry started his life as a mathematician, as a phd in mathematics and ash has a phd in physics. as i say, when you look back at the history of innovation and defense department, you often find scientists serving in top civilian jobs as the catalyst for that kind of change. so let me just set the stage very briefly because we don't have much time with secretary carter. i would remind you that science and technology and defense are indivisible in american history. if you pick up the story with
world war ii. you have working as head of science research and development. of course there was the manhattan project during world war ii, which was staffed by many imminent scientists. then if you come to what i would think of as the first sort of explosive period of technological innovation in the post-war period during the eisenhower administration, you have the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, the nuclear navy under admiral rickover and the development of reconnaissance satellites. then if you jump ahead, i think that the next big period of technological innovation really began in the carter administration and largely thanks to bill perry and harold brown, who was of course secretary of defense.
by the way, also a physicist. in that period we saw the beginning of the developmental efforts that led to the gps system, that led to stealth aircraft and precision munitions. so the subject for today really is what i think people are now referring to as the third offset. the prior offset, so-called off sets were done to give the united states an advantage in technology where we lacked some of the manpower to face soviet threat and warsaw pact. so here we are today. you have launched a lot of very interesting initiatives and offset. i think we're headed, at least from what i read, to more semiautonomous weapons, maybe fully autonomous weapons systems. you're working with silicon
valley. so when you think about what the goals are for what you would like to achieve with this, what would be the top two or three be? >> the goal for me is the same as it was for bill and harold and all of my predecessors, which is to make sure that we remain the finest fighting force in the world. we're that today for two reasons. i should say one is because we have wonderful people, whole different subject. also one where innovation matters. the other is technology. what we're doing today to try to stay the best, technical substantive terms, as you said, keeping up with the times. you mentioned cyber, you mentioned autonomy. you might have mentioned bio,
also, because that's the revolution that will come after information revolution in a sense. we need to be there for that as well. in addition to the technical substance and we're present across the entire waterfront. we always have been and will always need to be. there's a stylistic change from the time when bill was doing this, and i was working for bill and even before then i wan to come back and tell a story about bill later. but first of all, i always tell people we don't build anything in the pentagon. we buy things, first and foremost. we buy them from private industry. so the key is our relationship with the private technology sector. the alternative was tried by the soviet union. we just do it all in house. didn't work out very well. it has always been our relationship with private
industry that has been the channel through which we got the best technology. now, that has to be different in today's world. that's what i'm trying to adjust to, than it was in the world where i began and where bill was. in those days the technology of consequence in our world mostly was american. and much of it government sponsored. those two things are still -- were still major players, but those two things are not to be taken for granted anymore. so we have to have a new relationship with the dynamic innovative culture of the united states from the one we had when i started my career. so there's a technological -- there's a change in the technical substance we're trying to achieve but also the central change in style. that's when you see me coming out all the time to the palo
alto area and elsewhere around the country trying to connect to the innovative community. it's in recognition of the fact that they, unlike i, young scientists and engineers, it was part of my dna growing up that you had a responsibility and connection to public life. that's just not -- there's nothing wrong with people, that's just not a reflex anymore. we have to reach out, especially hard, to connect with them and draw them in. >> some of the things you're doing, some may know defense innovation unit experimental, diux. defense department set up these units in silicon valley, boston and austin. you're planning one elsewhere? >> sure. we're going to keep going because there's lots of good technology in the united states. it's a great thing. it is a cyber world and we can all talk to each other over
skype and so forth but animal proximity matters. having somebody in the neighborhood who is from us and of us and reaching out and trying to meet people on their physical and really mental territory matters. so i'm grateful to stanford, which was an important part of helping me set up diux down at ames, then boston which has a somewhat different technological center of gravity. that's good. just last week out in austin, vibrant technological community. people who -- if you talk to somebody who hasn't been part of this, and you give them a chance, these are young people who want to make a difference. they want to have what's up here. just like all people younger hoover scholars. same thing, same as you.
they want what's up here to make a contribution. when you tell them they can do that in the field of national security, and that that will be really meaningful, and you'll make it possible for them to do it, enough to join the military, although that would be great if they did, but we'll find some other way to make it possible for them to go in and out, do it for a time, then go off and do something else, broaden themselves in some other way and recognize kids are different from kids in my day and kids in bill's day. and we have to adapt if we're going to draw them into our mission. >> right. so i think if one is a student of the defense acquisition world, and i spent a fair amount of my time as a journalist writing about it, it's a very slow moving process, quite cumbersome, bureaucratic. what you seem to be trying to do is create an alternative
universe in defense acquisition. agile, accelerated, buying things off the shelf, increase, in places like silicon valley and getting involved early on in the development of technologies that you think may have military applications. so this is not such an easy thing to do on one hand to accomplish that, and on the other hand, don't you face a lot of resistance in those traditional consolidated defense industry about this, in fact in the military services themselves? >> the last part is easy. no. the reason is they are great companies that work for us for a long time. they are in the same situation as high-tech companies that i just described the department of defense it's self being in. namely needing young, good
talent. needing to draw people into them to the importance of what they do. so there's compliment every time i get someone to work on our problems, that's someone who potentially will work for them. in many cases, it's a small company they will buy. and so this becomes a feeder for the traditional defense industry, which, you know, i was secretary of technology and logistics, essentially the job bill had for harold when harold was secretary of defense and he knows it extremely well. it was a different era. in this respect it was the same. there are things that take 10 years. you're going to build a design and build a brand-new ship class, going to take a little time. what you can't afford to do in
today's world is make everything take that long, because just look around you. world of technology is changing too fast. you'll fall behind and people won't want to work with you because they are not going to work with people who fall behind. so it's a double whammy if you can't be agile. so we need to do that and we're -- the wars oddly, war is not a good thing but a spur to agility. you can't stand to not be there on time with something for somebody who isn't just getting ready for some hypothetical fight. they are actually fighting today. and so we learned a lot about agility during that period. i myself learned a lot about it. so our acquisition system believe me on the last one is going to tell you everything is
perfect there. but the companies are in the same boat we are. and the same boat basically every major institution, they are trying to get young people, especially young talented up to date people in their environs and working on the problems that matter to them. look around you. just about everybody here in this whole town and whole country is doing the same thing, competing for the faces you see around this room that are bright, have a future, up to date. we have to do the same if we're going to stay the best military. >> let's take a concrete case, which is north korea. >> not agility. >> no. >> just checking. >> the missile defense system that the pentagon has been working on for many years is shall we see not perfect. so my question is when you think about what you're trying to do
with diux and other acquisition, what do you imagine would be outcomes that would be applicable to the north koreans, frank? >> well, first of all, north korea is just to be deadly serious about it for a moment, bill perry is someone who himself tried very hard to get on a different -- get us on a different path with north korea but it wasn't to be. they are what they are. it's not a game. it's not in the headlines a lot and so forth. but we every day, the slogan of u.s. forces in korea as many of you probably know is fight tonight. not because that's what we want to do but because that's what we have to be able to do. we are ready to do.
so we have a very strong presence there. our south korean allies get stronger every day. that's not the iraq army it was. they are extremely good. we have a strong ally in japan. unfortunately the diplomatic predict is bleak at the moment. and we continue to be open to an improvement in that and try to get russia and china and others interested down that road but hard to project that's where it's going. therefore for me as far into the future as i can see, we need to stand strong in deterrence. now, you mentioned missile defenses as well. i'm going to differ with you just a little bit, because we do try to stay ahead of the north korean missile threat. you're right, missile defense is a difficult mission. and when it comes to a major
nuclear threat like that posed by russia we know and have long known we have no way to protect our selves except deterrence. but we don't accept that with respect to north korea and we're not going to for as long as we can possibly avoid it. we do aspire to protection of our selves. we invest a lot and try to stay ahead of what they are doing numerically and qal tatively, but it's -- you've got north korea, you've got iran, you're talking about problematic situations. russia, asia-pacific generally, isil which we need to destroy. so we've got plenty to do today. north korea is one of these things that never seems to go away. i worked on it once, once upon a time, 1994. i at least spend half of my time as assistant secretary of
defense working for bill perry, 1994. it was deadly serious back in those days. can i play you a bill perry story i have to get out before i need to go? . and it's really aimed at some of the people here who are trying to figure out where to go with their lives. to do what, you know, what bill's done, what i do as secretary, and more importantly, our, you know, 2.8 million folks which i think are the noblest kind of way to spend your lives that you can have. which is protecting our people, frankly, to make a better world. there's just nothing better to go home and tell your family what you've been doing all day than that. but a little story, bill may have known this, i may have told you this story before that you didn't know at the time.
i was totally in physics, not knowing anything else to do with physics, i went tote scientist conference. here in washington. i came in sessions and sessions and sessions about physics. and there was one sort of physics and public interest kind of panel. or not panel. speaker. and i had some work. that hour was free, i sat down, and there's a person from the defense department, bill perry i realized later, probably years later. and he was being essentially badgered by the audience about smart weapons. and that the question that they thought was a gotcha question to bill is, what are you going to do when one of these complicated microchip-enabled things breaks?
i'll never forget the phrase, by the way, sergeants today would be furious hearing this. you know, how is some sergeant going to fix that chip? bill said, it looks amazing. they're not going to fix it, they're going to throw it out and get another one. and i remember the audience. i thought that's an interesting guy. a smart guy, look what he's doing. look what he's doing. and a little light went off that later down the road when i got kind of lured into this. by that offering, just do it for one year. here we are, 38 years later, something like that. and there was a little spark in there. i said, wow, that guy's something else. i'm sure you don't remember that. maybe you gave that speech a million times. but for one young person in the audience that said, wow,
connecting mission and understanding. pretty cool stuff. >> so when one thinks about autonomous weapons, fully autonomous weapons, even semi-automatsem semi-automatsem semi-autonomous weapons like we're using today where we have nuclear missile as board unmanned submarines controlled by machines, that something you can imagine. >> well, i believe that in the matter of use of lethal force, there will always be -- speaking of the united states, a human being involved in the decision making. i think that's necessary. and i don't anticipate that not happening. a system is better that have greater and greater degrees of
ability to carry out certain functions for themselves. or increasingly autonomous. in most cases, you really need to continue to think of a human machine, overall system, even though the machine gets more complicated. >> so how did -- >> and interestingly, before all of this discussion started, i issued a directive. this is sort of eerie, i was deputy secretary, too. as defense secretary four years ago, i sent a directive that says exactly that. that there always needs to be a human being in the decisionmaking involving the using of lethal force by the united states military. >> so, you know when we think of technology today, we're also
finding the downside of technology and the loss of privacy, particularly. so, as you launch the programs, what are doing, if anything, to try to also launch consideration of the legal, political and perhaps even moral questions that will be raised by new defense technologies? >> well, i just gave you an example of us trying to look -- this is now four years. we're talking about autonomous systems and people. so, we do -- we do look ahead. and think ahead, in so far as privacy is concerned, in particular, internet privacy, one thing i would say to you is that we are enormous consumers of information protection technology. because there's nothing more important to us. that is our principal cyber machine. that is what i tell our cyber people, cyber commanders, that
is job one. because there's no intent in having all of those, and everything else, they're all connected today. so we have to have our network connected. so we're big supporters and big sponsors of network protection, the largest in the world, by far, in terms of what we invest, and level of protection we demand. >> you know, i think we see almost weekly stories of supposedly impervious systems that are hacked. and it raises a specter of a future in which defense operates so heavily through these systems that they are vulnerable to attacking. bill often talks about a miscalculation and possibly having a nuclear war. you know, aren't we going to potentially leave ourselves in a situation where some of these systems can be taken over by
foreign powers or terrorist organizations? >> no. we -- not in the case of nuclear arsenals. a special case in which we have special safe guards i do have confidence in for further reasons not to be gone into here. but in general, you're right. we worry about it. we're concerned about it. anybody who thinks they're invulnerable is kidding themselves. so, for us, that means it's a constant battle. we're constantly looking. i'll give you an example in a minute. but you also have to be thinking what if i lose that connection or i lose that ability. so we train our people to, we call it, operating through. an attack of that kind. so you have a fallback operational mode and style that
is not complete prostration if that happens. and in protecting ourselves, as i mentioned, one of the things i've done is innovation which i'm always looking at suggested to me by people outside. one of the things i try to do is talk to people who are not part of our world but care about their safety, their family's safety and their children's safety. and who will take an interest and a little time. i set up an innovation board, eric schmidt. the chairman. jeff bezos, reed hoffman, we've got some personnel things that we do. what i said to them is i don't expect you to know anything about defense. that's not the point. but you do know what agile forward-looking companies and people are thinking. tell me some things that might be valuable, might be useful.
we can't use everything because we're not a company. we're the public sector. but in one of the ideas i got early on this is the kind of thing i've asked eric to provide me more of. it turns out nobody in the entire united states government has ever done a bug bounty which is what a lot of countries do. what a bug bounty is when you go out and invite white hat hackers to have at you, and report for a reward of some kind, vulnerabilities that we find. nobody in the entire government -- we did it -- it's called hack the pentagon. it was spectacular, we got for free, a friend ly, very thoroug information of tax service for which we were able to make hundreds of adjustments.
the kind of thing you can pay for but it wouldn't necessarily have been as good. in our case, we can't give people rewards or people their rewards to having to hack the pentagon. so, we've got lots of people who did this for us. now, there's an example of something that isn't novel about it in the rest of the world. but that we, for some reason, our people have fun. that's the kind of idea i want to get. as i said, i can't do everything because we're the professional. so there will be things that companies do that we'll never be able to do, it's not appropriate for us to do put but there are lots of things that we can do. that's a part of adapting our style, as well as our technological content to today and in the future. even as bill did so brilliantly
back in the carter administration. >> i think we have exhausted the time that you can spend with us. >> so, you get to be with bill. >> i'm afraid i have to go do something else. i appreciate it. i want to repeat what i said about bill. bill perry was, if i -- as i think about myself now talking to audiences and trying to draw people, at the tech conference last week in san francisco. i'm looking out at these faces. and a great majority of them have not served in the military. this isn't like the world war ii generation. the generation or anything like that. you look at them and say how can i commit to them and inspire a generation to do something in
p public life. i'll just say that bill perry was a big inspiration to me. many other people, many other people, in my generation. but certainly to me. he not only represented that connection of thinking and understanding to service. but also great civility. and decency. and that matters a lot. here's someone i always knew would do the right thing, stand for the right thing. stand behind people. and i think that's important, too, that we all be, you know, morally solid for the next generation, to the best of our possible abilities, and he was. so, he had all of that. and we're just very lucky to have him. i think our country and our world are lucky to have him.
bill. >> thanks, ash. >> good to see you all. [ applause ] >> i feel like we're on a relay race. >> yeah, right. so, my apologies for not bringing you into the conversation, but the time with sitting with the defense secretary is precious. bill, knowing what you know about in. know vasion and the military, knowing what you know what ash is trying do, what would be your advice for him? what should he avoid, and what should he be on the lookout for that would surprise him and up-end his plans? >> let me start off, we talked about how important autonomous
situation, today compared to 23 years ago. i don't know about autonomouaut it's a remotely controlled situation. we don't give machines authority to cyberwatch nuclear weapons. and a certain stand-out as well. we have great improvement and effectiveness in having a machine with autonomous capability, almost in all case as with nuclear weapons. we keep a people in the loop in the decision making. that's an important consideration. some of you here are old enough to have seen the movie where they had the doomsday machine. the thing you have to argue with this, not only do people err,
machines err. the best designed machine can err. so, we have people in the loop as well. when i told you about it, many times, about the time i was at the head of defense command where the computers were short, ibms on the way to the united states. the point i want to make about that story now, is that our computers are making an error. but our system understood that machines make errors sometimes. therefore, we require a human being to be there. luckily for the country and all of us, the human in the loop that night was an astut thoughtful general. so, that's a very, very important point. you and ash didn't bring it out but i wanted to bring up that point. >> what do you think the
trapdoors are for ash carter as he moves ahead with this program? or his successor. since you've weren't down this road before with new technologies. what are the things to look out for that could turn into problems? >> he mentioned already one of them, which is introducing state of the art technology into the systems does require working with industry. we do not have state of the art. we do not have capability within the government to make state-of-the-art systems. we go to industry to get that done. and industry is different than ours when i was secretary of defense getting things developed. people then understood the importance of what they were doing. when i was undersecretary, it was easy to get people to go out in industry and get people to do things i asked them to do. it's not so easy for ash. he is creating defense
industrial experimental -- >> yes, defense innovation unit experiment. >> yeah. and one of the main points to that is to get industry on our side and doing these things. it's a tough job and he's works as hard at it as anybody could possibly work, and i think we'll have good results. but it is very different. when i was the undersecretary of defense many, many years ago, in the '70s, 1970s. more than 95% of military equipment had electronics in it. electronics for vacuum tubes. and it's hard to think of that today. and so, one of my jobs wasn't just to bring in these concepts by smart weapons and so on, it was simply to get the american military equipment upgraded to modern electronics. for the cost advantage.
for the rate advantage. for the liability advancing. advantages. the industry was receptive. we had a semi conductor industry on one side and the defense industry. and they never talked to each other. so, i created one program called very integrated high-speed circuits. nominally, the purpose was to design the next level of military equipment to -- i forget what dimension, micro, i guess, feature size. so, we put out money, invited companies to bid on this. we did get that. we got the program in the advance. more important in the advance was i required anybody that bid on this program which was a very attractive program. anybody that bid on this program had to be a team, on the team had to be one defense company
and nondefense company. it forced two companies to get together. the good to that was far more important than the feature side of the semi conductor side. >> so, secretary charter allude -- >> excuse me, that's what ash is trying to do today. >> right, right. so, he alluded in his comments early on in his appearance to the cold war, sort of balance of power with the soviet union. and it was really a bipolar war in those days. for anyone like me who spent any time in the soviet union, i was based there for three years in the mid to late '80s. it didn't take long to see the technology was technologically backward. they may have been a superpower. but technologically they were nowhere in the race with united states those days.
today when you think about the things that ash carter is trying to do with artificial intelligence. and the kinds of startups that spring up in silicon valley, i think about other countries of the world, specifically, china, which is going to have probably as astute, technological progress as the united states is going to have in areas like ai. when you think about this, how does that change the sort of stability issue when you're trying to develop the american defense of the future? >> that's a big difference today from when i was undersecretary. still, i remember i went -- after i got out of office, in 1981, my first visit to the soviet union. prior to that, i got all of these intelligence briefings about how the soviets were ten feet tall and so on. what we would look at in missiles they were damn good. n nuclear weapons they were very
good. i went there, went around and visited with people. went to factories and talked. and i was finally was told this is a third world country with a first world military system. even that was wrong. it wasn't a first world military system, it was labeled as nukes. i don't think that's true today. >> right. >> i don't think russia compares compares -- no country compares technically to the united states these days. and technology related to defense. but they're what i would call pure competitors, in china, and pure competitors in some fields in russia. so that's part of what we did. then we counted on the fact we had maybe a 10, 15-year lead in integrated circuits and we added that to the pool. what's really different now we don't have that lead anymore.
we have a lead. there are more out there. it's not a bipolar world anymore. so, it really changes the situation in pretty dramatic ways. >> so, interestingly, in an historical footnote, bill, of course, was the godfather, really, of stealth aircraft. but that technology was based on theoretical work that had initially been done in the soviet union. by a scientist. and they were either unaware of the potential applications of that technology. or they simply didn't have the ability to translate it into stealth aircraft. so that's a kind of striking example in some ways. >> russian chief of staff in those days actually proposed to the political world an erratic change in the military what he called, i remember the term, radio combat technical teams.
basically what we were proposing to do would be the offset strategy. although we didn't know what they were doing, and they didn't know what we were doing, really. they got turned down. the answer was we've got three times as many tanks, guns as they do. who needs this technology stuff. we'll stick what with we got. a huge mistake on their part. they.underlying capability and very sophisticated engineers. they could have given us a run for their money those days. one thing people often point out to me how wonderful autocratic governments are because they can make decisions like that which is true. sometimes, the decisions they make like that are the wrong decisions. and there's no self-correction in the system anywhere. once they make a bad decision, they just plow down that direction for a decade or so. by that time, it's too late to make the change. >> so, bill, you live in the bay
area. the silicon valley. in fact, bill in many ways, i'd like to think of, one of the pioneers of silicon valley when he was working out there for sylvania back in the 1950s doing defense contracts on systems. when you think about what ash carter is trying to do. on one hand, the pentagon is trying to do business with silicon valley. on the other hand, as we learned from the edward snowden disclosures, a lot of the biggest companies in the valley felt like they'd been violated by the defense department. after all, let's not forget the nsa is a department within the department of defense. so, how does he bridge this kind of cultural suspicion of a defense department? >> with great difficulty. because that's a very strong feeling among many of the high-tech companies in silicon valley. that the government is out to tell them what to do.
and to what the giant is trying to do is prevent them from dealing with companies and countries they want to deal with. and ait's now. all of these things annoy people to where they stand. and you don't have anything to balance that. you don't have the feeling on their part. yes, maybe this is bad, but it's worth doing because of the dangers and stuff that we face. so, he's having a hard time, i think, getting real support from these companies. if anybody can do it, he can. he's really thrown himself into it. with the time and the energy. he applied what david packard, originally called management by walking around. when he wanted to get something done, he doesn't just delegate. he actively went out to silicon valley four times. meeting with the companies out there at the highest level, intermediate levels and set up
an office in silicon valley. but he's trying to overcome that. >> i have one more question and then we'll take questions from the audience. my question is, looking ahead to the next administration whichever candidate ends up as president, when you started the innovative programs you did during the carter administration, there was no guarantee they were going to be carried through to completion by your successors and future presidents. so, what's your advice -- let's assume for a minute that what ash acarter is doing is smart and pivotal to future defenses. united states. what's your advice to not only his successor as defense secretary, but i think more importantly to the next president and to congress which after all has to cut the check to pay for these kinds of projects? >> a very good question. in the field of national security, there has to be some
nonbipartisan approach. for success. particularly trying to fight technology to defense systems. this is often throwing in even broader areas. when i left the pentagon with this offset strategy, reasonably well advanced, the development -- we had had the airplanes, next, we had the first test flight, we'd done that 3 1/2 years but it wasn't fully operational. it was a ahehead of us. i was concerned very much about that. some other programs were getting going which were not publicly known at that time. when the reagan administration came in, they didn't even know about a good many of them. so that was of concern.
in fact, they did just the opposite, they went to school on them, they learned what was going on, and they took the program from the development stage, to production and to the field. by the time we got to desert storm, the f-117, the stealth airplane, the smart weapon, all of these things were their function. made a tremendous difference in the outcome of that war and i felt some sense of pride for them. but i also understood that my successor, and his boss, ultimately, the president, hadn't supported that the whole thing would have gone down. it's a very, very important part. we have to hope what ash is doing now will be sustained by his successor. there is no guarantee of that. and if you're asking me to bet in 1981, i left office -- to get the results we actually got out
of him in five or six year, i would have said probably not. luckily, i was wrong, because they did pick it up and they did follow it through. we can hope that is what's going to happen with the incoming administration. >> questions from the audience. identify yourselves and keep the questions brief, please. >> good afternoon, my name is dan grazier, i'm with the project of oversight. there's been a lot of focus on science and technology but first and foremost, art form. and we have the greatest technology in the world in the military. with human recorps, four tanks in iraq and then to seven. even with that great technology, we're 0-4, zero wins and four losses in four generations of work there even with all of this great technology. so, what's being done to make sure we're not putting the cart before the horse in actual technology and separations and
the art of warfare. >> so, explain, we're 0 for 4 in exactly what? >> four generations of warfare, in 1983, somalia, in the early '90s, iraq and afghanistan. it's hard to say we've been successful in any of those conflicts. we've had all of this great technology but we still haven't had success. what can we do to make sure we're actually creating the right technology to properly implement the art of the work? >> got it. i think -- i'm not sure we will do the right thing, but i think that's what ash is trying to do with this program that he's set up. i might give you one footnote that he did not mention when he was here, when he was undersecretary of. defense, acquisition, we had a hot war going on in afghanistan at that time. and we getting requests from commanders in the field for
various things they needed. one primary one was protection for the forward operating posts. and ash, again, by managing to walk around. not just headquarters but out and talking to the commanders, became convinced that was something that really needed done. and conclude the way -- the best way to -- to resolve that problem was to get a highly competent 24-hour-a day observation that could detect at any time of the day or night. and that could be done best by balloon. old-fashioned balloon with sensors on it back down to the ground. in the ordinary course that would make five to ten years to get that done. he got that done in a few
months. the system does not prevent that from happening. the system does not permit us to bring a stealth airplane to concepts to fresh flight in three years. but people can do it. and what i did in the late '70s what he did in afghanistan. instead of trying to reform or correct the system, we evade the system. we set up a special case and just push it through. it was easier to do in '77 and '78, than it is now. but it's still possible to do it. we had to get some forbearance from chong we got. and he got in the case of the observations per person in afghanistan. but generally if you have a good idea and the importance of the security to have it, you'd get what you need to get to get it done. you have to take a chance. if you're wrong and make a mistake, you're going to get
ripped to pieces as a result. you better be sure you're right when you do these outrageous things. >> so a very interesting example, it's not really applicable directly to the question. the development of the spy satellite, i wrote a book about this. no one knew more about the problems and efficiencies of the pentagon acquisition system than dwight eisenhower. so when he became president and these new technological innovations were being promoted by some scientist, he took them out of the acquisition system and gave them to the cia, of all people. and so, in the development of the first photo reconnaissance satellite system corona it was managed by richard bissell, the director of operations at the cia who had zero technological background. but he knew how to get something accomplished that was summed up best in a little anecdote where one of his aides was riding with
him in washington. and they were racing back out to get to the cia. he was driving wrong way down a one-way street. and she shouted at him, mr. bissell, you're going the wrong way down the street. he said, i don't care, as long as there's no traffic coming, we'll get there faster. that's the way he ran the satellite program. other questions? a mike up front, please. my esteemed colleague jim calder. i think it's on, it's just -- >> i was struck by ash carter's statement here that information technology protection is job number one. it comes on the heels of mike hayden having said verizon does a better job of protecting information than the u.s. government does. and i think he's accurate on that. because, after all, the cloud system and everything shows we
have this enormous amount of information that we depend on. the u.s. government depends on verizon and others to protect. is there a disconnect here between the priority, number one? and the fact that there's not an effort by the government to accelerate u.s. government protection of information and do a much better job at what ash carter just described as job number one? >> yes, there is a disconnect. one thing i will say, though, jim, in some aspects of our protection, the ones which are most important, extremely important to us, we are paying special attention to that connect. so, when you consider the vast amount of data, the vast amount of people in the defense department, when we plan them where we get a mediocre effort, but, for example, in protecting
commanding, patrolling the direction of nuclear missiles to be fired, you know, it's very, very important. and some of these we go to extraordinary lengths to protect it. we have, i think, technically, the best cybercapability in the world. i could be wrong on that, but i believe it. but we also have the most networks in the world and the most vulnerable in the world. so, even show we apply this magnificent capability, we're not going to get it much of the time. so, the best technology but applying it is by far the most important problems. and there's a half a dozen of those which absolutely have to have top priority protection. >> in the back. please.
>> i have a related question from jim baldwin. as you know, the pentagon appears to be planning for how to use cyber attack capabilities with respect to enemy nuclear command control, as part of a push for what's being done full spectrum missile defense. there are many who see this as aperhaps a useful approach. there are some that see this as the other edge of the sword here. it could be a double-edged sword that could create destabilizing dynamics. what thoughts do you have about what considerations or policy planners or decision makers need to make, as the cyber attack and defense issue is adhered? >> as i said before, i'll repeat it, i think we have the best cybercapability in the world. part of that cybercapability is
an offensive cyber, that sometimes the way to deal with an attack of cyber is to attack back. in some cases, though, an example, it doesn't make any sense. we have to be the very best and even the passive protection. that's probably where we are the weakest, i think. it's very, very hard. we have so many networks and so complex. and we have -- and then the mixture of civilian and military in these networks. it's a very difficult problem. i mean, the internet after all was designed to be open. and trying to fix that after the fact is an exceedingly difficult problem. at various times people have considered building a parallel internet, specifically for maintaining security on links
that are most sensitive and most important. for a variety of reasons, we've never done that and probably never will. but it's a hugely difficult problem. nobody should ever believe that we can, even if we're diligent, even if we're smart. even if we put all of the effort in the world on it, nobody should ever believe they're going to fix this problem. we're always going to have a vulnerability to a cyber attack. if we can minimize that, responding back when it's appropriate. we're also going need that. and also be prepared to live with that problem. take that vulnerability into account. >> so, i think we're at the witching hour. i want to thank everybody for coming together. i appreciate it. and, tom, thank you for hosting this event. thank you, bill, for -- >> an excellent job of moderating.
[ applause ] >> i see some of you are getting to my book there. i ask two things on the book, one is read at least the preface on chapter one. secondly, go to our website and click on the link that describes the nuclear nightmare where a nuclear bomb destroys washington, d.c. since you all live here. >> and then send secretary perry a note about how well you slept that night. >> thank you. [ applause ]
programs at c-span.org. the senate is back to continue to debate on a short-tell rm resolution. 60 votes needed to advance the bill. watch the senate live at 3:00 eastern on c-span 2. and the house is also back for legislative business on tuesday. the agenda this week, legislation to exempt u.s. olympic and paralympic athletes from paying taxes on this medals and prize money. also a bill to improve information and house bills. follow that on c-span. here on c-span3 coming up in about 15 minutes or so, conversations with senators rand paul of kentucky and chris murphy of connecticut. they'll be talking about defense and attorney policy issues. that's 2:45 eastern. until then, part of saturday's congressional black caucus awards dinner. ♪
the army, u.s. attorneys office and state legislature, and 46 years in a body in which i love serving with the congressional black caucus. [ applause ] my wife who probably is the prd right now, i owe so much to, because of all the problems that people have in over 50 years of marriage, she never asked me why not me with steve and alicia, during the years that my passion was with justice, equity and helping those that needed a voice. and for those who ask, well, what are you doing after, she's my first priority and my grandkids. but the second thing i'd like to say and swiftly is, in 1971,
there were 13 of us. and then 35. a lot of people like to think there's a lot of courage for 13 people to stand up, and not against those in congress, but against president nixon who refused to even meet or recognize us. but that number grew, from 13 to 23, to 33, and today, it's 46 and tomorrow, it looks like it will be close to 50. and with all of our accomplishments, it's not that we were super congress people. but we were independent and knew that people like you who stood up for us. you would stand up for us when we wept to the caribbean, when we went to africa, when we went to cuba, as long as you knew there were people on the list
merely because they were sons and daughters of slaves, you stood by us, re-elected us. and allowed us truly to believe that we were the conscience of the congress for any injustices that we are. and now that i'm leaving the congress, i see even the biggest battles that we ever faced as a people. and in breaking out of slavery and the civil war, fighting in korea. marching with dr. martin luther king. and even fighting republicans on as acensure. once again, your caucus, 48, or 50, will be your voices, the
question will be, in november will will you be? in november, where will you be? you may not know by adam creighton powell, you may not know dr. king, you may not have been able to march. but the threat to where we are today is going to be in november. and those who are critical of donald trump that comes from the city of new york, i say he is our contribution to make this republic better. because his hatred and his bigotry has pulled the rug off and the sheet off of the republican party so we all can see it for what it is. people who really, truly believe that the constitution was only for european people. people who never thought that the sons and daughters of slaves could be president. people who look at people of color, no matter what color it
is, would never say i'm a conservative republic, and our brother donald has pulled the sheets off of all of them. and the country and the world to see who it is. and, guess who is supposed to expected to save this republic? they're depending on us to save the republic. and once again, we will. my wife elma and the family thanks the congress ago black caucus for giving us the wind under our wings to come up to here. and as she said, this torch is now being passed to 46 exciting members of the united states congress. and a cadre of young people. and you have to be the answer to support them. i feel so comfortable in knowing that the struggle continues, and
you can bet your life that retirement is not good-bye. thank you so much for all that you've done. [ applause ] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the next award is the congressional black caucus chairs award. the chairs award is presented to an individual whose work and about accomplishments stand as a beacon of life for the african-american community and
the african die yos for ra. in lieu of a video presentation mr. r. donoghue peoples will share his reflections on mr. smith. good evening again. i'm delighted to stand before you, to honor a man, who has pursued uncharted path in every turn of his professional journey. he has been an engineer, an inventor, an entrepreneur, banker, businessman, investor, and most importantly, a leader, mentor and philanthropist. he is perhaps the most successful investor of this generation. and i'm lucky to call him a friend. robert frederick smith is the
founder, chairman and ceo of vista equity partners. under his leadership, vista manages over 26 billion in equity capital and oversees a portfolio of 35 companies with 42,000 employees. and if that weren't enough, for the second year in a row, vista was named the world's number one performing private equity firm in the world. [ applause ] and what's equally extraordinary is that, to this day, vista under robert's leadership has never lost money on any buyout investment. never. robert trained as an engineer at cornell university and following his mba from columbia business
school robert worked at kraft general foods where he earned two patents and then joined goldman sachs. in 2000, robert struck out to start his own private equity fund, vista equity partners. everyone thought robert was crazy. he had no private equity experience. and the idea of focusing exclusively on enterprise software, robert set out to build what would become the equivalent of the sixth largest software company in the world. [ applause ] robert's leadership in philanthropy is also breaking new barriers. as you know, the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture is opening next week. what some of you may not know, though, is the museum is announcing on monday a gift of
$20 million from robert smith, among -- [ applause ] that's amongst the largest personal donation from him. robert's philanthropy is more than just writing a check. his support will enable the digitization of our most precious cultural assets and also establish that robert w. smith explore your family center which will ensure that our museum remains a living museum, capturing not only the lives of the famous. but also the lives of every african-american family. so that museum will be enriched with all of our stories, no matter who we are. you see, robert, no matter how
successful he's become, he's never forgotten where he came from. and, in fact, what is most inspiring is his humility. as the custom for the cbcf, when we present awardees, we have a video made of them we have a flashy video highlighting their careers and about accomplishments. two days ago, we sent it over to robert. and robert didn't want to play it. he didn't want to tell the story of all the business accomplishments including being named the rigid african-american on the planet. but wherever he goes, he carries his love of music. it was particularly meaningful to robert in all of us when earlier this summer, he was named chairman of the board of
carnegie hall. throughout his life, robert has engaged in numerous charitable activities that focus on african-americans and women. robert hosts over 5,000 children at his ranch each summer. and he also hosts foster kids with no home or place to go during winter break. most recently robert has played a role in the united negro college fund with the largest ever investment in s.t.e.m. education for african-americans. that contribution will often thousands upon thousands of young african-americans the opportunity and the skills to prepare for jobs of tomorrow. the foundation also recently made a grant worth $27 million to the susan g. komen organization to ensure that where someone lives doesn't
determine whether they live. giving new hope and new life, this 12-city initiative will fight the statistics that our mothers, wives, aunts, sisters and daughters are 40% more likely than white women to die from the disease. but rather than share a list of robert's awards, recognitions and accomplishment ofs, i can share one more story with you that i think will help you understand the kind of man he is and why we are recognizing him this evening. when robert heard that 43 of the girls in chibak, nigeria, had been kidnapped by boko haram had escaped he was stunned to see it on c-24 of the paper. and he decided to do something about it. robert contact the president of the american university of nigeria and quietly went about
funding their education, committing to provide the same financial support for every other chibok girl who will escape in the future and who will seek an education. [ applause ] robert has done all of this without fanfare and without expectation. this is exactly the kind of leadership we need today. robert smith brings great passion, generosity, humility, and dedication to improve the lives of all of nutus in the wo and the world around us. i'm thrilled to present the chairman's award of the congressional black caucus foundation to robert fred smith. please stand and join me in giving him a well-deserved round of applause. >> announcer: ladies and
gentlemen, please welcome mr. robert f. smith. also joined to prevent the chairman award are board members, congresswoman and board vice share sheila jackson-tonya piececy and lanny johnson. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> thank you, don, for that very warm introduction. mr. president and secretary clinton, it is an honor to be here to accept this award, when
i told my mother who is from washington, d.c. about receiving this wonderful award, she as most mothers do said who else is going to be there. i told her. she said huh. i said president obama is going to speak. she said, son, don't take too much time because people really want to hear what he has to say. [ laughter ] so, with that, i'm going to ambitiously take you back to the time of my birth in a few short minutes and tell you a little bit about who i am, what we do, and why i'm here. i grew up in the city of denver, fourth generation colorado native. in the hot summer of 1963, my mother, i was just 9 months old, my mother took my brother and i to washington, d.c. answering the call of dr. king. and i'm assuming she thought that the closer we were, the
more it might sink in. and she knew that her boys were too young to remember all that was said that day. but she believes that the history that we witnessed that day would always men who we would become one day. decades later, i had the privilege to take my grandfather on another journey on the opposite side of the national mall to celebrate president obama's first inauguration. and as you all remember, it was a cold day, and as my grandfather and i shivered together that morning, he kept the two of us warm by telling me stories about his time as a young man living in washington d.c. and working in the united states senate lounge where he checked hats and coats and poured coffee and tea for senators and their guests. as a matter of fact, he told me he managed to sneak a peek out the window on the day of
president roosevelt's swearing in, and he said, you know grandson, out of all those people, i didn't see a single black face in that wide sea of people. frankly, the grand sweep of history was not lost on either of us, that my grandfather could return to the capitol after all those years, not as a coat check, but as a personal guest of the great lion of the senate, ted kennedy, for the ascension of our first african-american president. as we all know, there's an obvious sentiment to this night, the final cbc foundation dinner we will share with president obama during his presidency. this is indeed an evening to celebrate, but let's not choose to make this night about the past and about what we've
already accomplished. even though the president's term is coming to an end, the distinguished members of congress here tonight aren't going anywhere. and there continue to be more steps to climb up that mountain top and the path has become steeper and more slick and prone to back sliding, and we must support each other more resolutely as we ascend together. frankly, i'm here tonight because of what you in this room have done for me and for us. your voices, john lewis, elijah cummings, charles rangle and so many others past and present have been our conscious and our hope and reminder of the dignity and potential of public service. the late great congresswoman barbara jordan who hails from texas once said, what the people want is very simple.
they want an america as good as its promise. do not call for black power or green power. call for brain power. for the first time in history wealth can be created without having massive amounts of capital handed down, the ownership of people or land or natural resources. for the first time in history wealth can be created through the power of one's mind, thoughts and ideas, and it can be developed and monetized and distributed instantly across the globe. intellectual property has now become the new currency of business. the promise of brain power to move individuals and families and communities from poverty to prosperity has never been closer and within our grasp. despite this progress, too many of our communities are being left behind, but i for one refuse to accept this.
now more than ever, the power to move individuals and families out of poverty into the mainstream of our economy is within our reach. this is our defining moment. it's a defining moment for our community, but it takes all of us, business people like me, educators, legislators like you and community leaders like you to unleash the minds of our young people. last month when i was in baltimore i was with some young adults at the in power program. some are homeless, some are veterans, all empowered by the technical skills training and the 3-d printer we just delivered so they can imagine a brighter future and grab it for their own. we need to have their back because one thing i know first hand is this. if we find new ways to unlock those long shut gates for the young men and women in our communities, they will perform. i see it happen constantly.
[ applause ] if we do this locally, we can change our neighborhoods. if we do it at scale, we can change our nation. as many of you know, one week from today we'll be gathering again for the opening of the national museum of african-american history and culture at the smithsonian. [ applause ] the brilliant architect of this museum described the african-american story as an extraordinary journey of overcoming and shaping what america is. if my story, if our president's story, and your stories and if us being here tonight tells us anything, it's that the arc of the moral universe as dr. king described it does indeed bend towards justice, but it doesn't happen by natural law or gravitational law. it's not a given, and it's not a
guarantee. it happens because leaders like you put your shoulder to it. you don't let up. and you go after it each and every day. and for this, i thank you. [ applause ] ♪ our next award is entitled the congressional black caucus chair's award. this award is presented each year to an individual who exhibits the highest standards of dedication, ability and creativity. this year's awardees are the emanuel nine. >> marie graham hud, susie jackson. depayne middleson doctor.
tywanza sanders, daniel simmons, charon da cole singleton. maya thompson. june 17th, 2015. we all remember that fateful day. in charleston, south carolina, nine christian souls were taken away far too soon. they were taken away during one of the worst mass shootings in the history of our country. the historic emanuel african methodist episcopal church, the oldest in the nation, is respectfully known as mother emanuel, and it was the site of this horrific act of hate. we have mourned and prayed and will forever feel the loss of their presence, yet our purpose this evening is to celebrate their lives, to celebrate how the spirits of those nine individuals caused the communities of charleston to
come together in forgiveness, love, unity, rather than respond in violence. we uplift the survivors and their families and friends. we choose to act in a way they knew their loved ones would have wanted. families of the slain surprised many by immediately offering their forgiveness to the perpetrator of this heinous act. communities of all ethnicities and religions rallied behind this act of christian faith and held prayer vigils, fundraisers, and a mass unity rally on the arthur revenel bridge. tens of thousands of community members crossed from the downtown side of the bridge to the charlton side. a senseless, hate-filled crime and a devastating loss has
turned into an opportunity to heal, strengthen community bonds, and lean on faith in the face of an unspeakable spiritual challenge. tonight we honor the emanuel nine and their survivors with the congressional black caucus chair person award. ♪ [ applause ] >> please welcome to the stage the family members of the emanuel nine, mrs. jennifer pinckney, eliana pinckney, ma lena pinckney, walter jackson jr., walter jackson's granddaughter, alyana simmons, harris simmons, nicole roberson, malcolm graham, nadine collier,
mrs. jennifer pinckney will accept the award -- >> you can watch all of this program online in our video library at c-span.org. we're taking you live now here in washington over to the center for the national interest. the discussion this afternoon with senator christopher murphy of connecticut and rand paul of kentucky talking about foreign policy and military issues. hosting and moderating is former undersecretary of defense on c-span 3. >> has become increasingly complex over the past few years to the point where i think many of our friends in the region has no idea where we are on just about any issue. to give you an example from saudi arabia, if you're sitting in riyadh, on the one hand you see that the united states is prepared to sell you literally $20 billion worth of ms