tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 4, 2016 2:00am-4:01am EDT
establishes there is more energy produced for example with a gallon of ethanol than in the past. from our perspective it is more energy efficient, if you will, than a barrel of oil. >> the airline ind us stray large user of fuel. can biofuel be use foed are commercial aircraft? if not, is there ways to adjust that so they can be used. >> not only can they, they are. that's why i mentioned the fact of the equivalent of 12,500 flight from lax are being fueled on blended by alaska airlines making the commitment. here eat challenge, this industry was going to allow your car or truck to use biofuel. we are now in the process of trying to encourage the industry at large to expand access to higher blend of ethanol.
the challenge is to make sure that we distribute supply and we have the distribution systems that will allow a consumer conveniently and easily get that higher bland. that's why we put $100 million behind in an effort to understand blending pumps. including in in texas. which has matched our $112 million in commitments to roughly command new distribution systems. you are dealing with a hundred thousand pumps and tens of thousands of gas stations. beauty of commercial aviation is 40 airports so 90% of the jet fuel. so that's why i think the long-term opportunities for this industry will be complimenting what we are doing for cars and trucks and expand on higher blend and appreciate the amazing
opportunity we have on the commercial aviation side and on the defense department side. combination of those two things i think suggest that this future is quite bright for this industry. >> since we're talking about this mr. secretary, i'm wondering if you personally or did you use in any form a vehicle that usees a higher blend of biofuel. >> the car that the federal government provides to me is a flexible car and consumes a lot of ethanol. my personal cars, one is nine years old and one is ten years old. one is a hybrid. other is a flexible fuel vehicle. we consume ethanol in both of our personal vehicles. >> do you want it name them just to give them a little product placement? we are all going to wonder -- >> a mercury mariner to longer in production and ford fusion i think is the car my wife drives. >> this question comes from the national farmer's un dwlon i
believe. they say they appreciate the world you've done. i'm wondering what they can do to hech the next administration, whoever is leading it, maximize the farmer's contribution to resilience. >> farmers stepped up in a very specific way before the president went to paris to negotiate the paris climate agreement. the ability of american agriculture to step forward and say, we think we can double the rate of emission productions which will allow the president more latitude in making a commitment of 26 to 28% reduction based on 2005 baseline. we have identified ten building blocks. everything from better soil health, better irrigation sift eps, rotational grazing with live stock, opportunities to use wood products more efficiently. newable energy to be expanded. 10 building blocks where we have
emission each year that american agriculture can meet. these are baked into the american commitment of pair as and are going to contribute as icy, up to it% of the over all production amount, 2% of the 26%. so it's a really significant commitment we made that empowered the president to go to the chinas and indias and say hey we're serious about it and you need to be serious amazing, the national geographic shows impakt on climate and green house and why it is important for chinas and indias to get in on the way. we are doing our part but we need cooperation. the fact that our september it is commitment that this country made. we have research efforts to be more adapting and more mitigating consequences of
climate. they are on the front lines here. they see every single year the difference that climate and weather variability make in their production processes. they know they have to deal with troud, the and because after warming circumstances. so they deal with this on day-to-day basis. imcon if i department that they will not just ask but demand that future administrations be very serious in helping them providing them the resources to do the building blocks so at end of the day we can make our contribution. it is a positive story for american agriculture. >> thank you. switching gears a little bit, some call you the secretary of fly-over country. how have you helped rural america fight poverty, drug abuse and crime. >> well they are two different questions. let me ask the economy question by somewhat reviewing what i just said. there are four strategies to
rebuilding the rural economy. that's -- there's a natural resource base in the rural ekeehn my. that's what we have pch. in the past we've been an extraction economy. extracted our natural resources. what what this administration is doing is creating a sustainability model. one that can be replicated. one that doesn't detract but renews. exports obviously we produce more than we need this in this country bp we have an opportunity to skpapd job growth and create a supply chain that meets the exports needs of the country. we've had eight best years offing aof agricultural export. it helps us keep jobs in big towns and small sissy. but it just do that. we have invested nearly 40 thousand separate inof thements
and creating supply chain allowing small and midsize producer the ability to market directly to consumer so they can dictate their own price. not dependent on the chicago board of trade or commodity price. they can dictate what we see pl it went from $5 billion about the time i started as secretary to now $12 billion ipd us try and is expected to go to to go to $200 million. conversation, we have a number of ache earns rolling conversation today. we need to basically help them finance these conservation practices. and one way to do that is to say by regulated industries we are corporations with a responsibility focused on conversation. coca-cola just announced they upped their commitment to reclaim the water they use in their coca-cola product.
they'll work with usda putting millions of dollars behind us. those millions of dollars go to farmers and ranchers and producers to expand on conservation opportunities. that's creating an ecosystem. water markets. habitat market. sole health. these are all opportunity then the buy why based economy. when you talk about 4.2 million. many of them mark those jobs in rural small town areas and we will just continue to see if growth in that type of opportunity if you stay with it. i'm confident, given the fact we are seeing results, given the fact poverty is coming down, we are better off since 2007. given the fact that this industry is creating new jobs,
phenomenal. based on the study -- and to continue investing in this new opportunity. >> you've been the man for opioids not going any further. what can we do with those addicted with them. >> is it starts with creating an economy so that young people can see that their tomorrow is bet are than today. if you think your tomorrow will be any better idea. you might be tempted to look for an escape. but number, on the open yad issue, and by starting with health care officials in rural areas are aware of the cdc kbied lines, and use opioids sparingly. the nature of work and life in
rural areas often times leads one to have back problems for shoulder problems because it is physical in nature. it is important for us to expand physical therapy and alternatives to opioids. it is incredibly important that we provide the resource to first responders, to police, to emts. to be able to have access to reversal drugs to that if there is a tragic overdose circumstance, that a life can be saved. recently i talked to a company that recently received permission from the fda to use nasal spray, a very simple one-dose things. it is an incredible relatively inexpensive. they have been willing to provide every school in the country free one of these, a dose or two of this narcan so
they have it on-site. we need to take advantage of that kind of thing. third thing we need to do is expand access to treatment. the mention was made at my mom's circumstance. my mom was a tremendous hero m in my life. she decided after several suicide attempts, after splitting up our family, afteri my life. she decided after several suicide attempts, after splitting up our family, after having some very vie leapt activity, she decided to turn her life around. but that not enough.leapt activity, she decided to turn her life around. but that not enough. this is a disease, an character flaw. not like if you toughen up and you exercise free will, you have to have help. just like if you're a cancer patient, diabetes, you have to have help. the help isn't available in those areas. over 1,000 service areas that provide that kind of help, only 25 are in rural areas.
that's why the president is increase the budget to expand treatment in thousands of different locations. thousands. and once have you the treatment, then you have to make sure that you have the transition that allows people to gradually sort ofry incorporate themselves into society. so if young people are having a difficult time with addiction you doipt put them right back immediately into the school where the temptation is great. you create opportunities for them to get themselves strengthened. if you have someone going through drug court basically don't put them back into the neighborhood where they came from. give them transitional housing. you give them education and training so they are stronger. and finally you have a criminal justice system that doesn't punish this, that understands this is a heal issue. this is a disease issue and we
need to understand that and we can't cram nalize it. we can't jail our way out of this process bp we have to create more support for mental health in this country. and then last but certainly not least. every certain personis in this, understanding this is a disease. an character flaw. it is no different than any of the other diseases. if i told that you one of my children had cancer, your immediate reaction would be oh, that's so terrible. what can't we do to help? why weren't we saying that same thing it parent who is has a child who is dealing with addiction. . >> we create ability to work with people what step forward. you know, rural folks, they are independent. it is hard for them to say to a loved one or myself has a
problem. we need to create more com forward to come up from. they need to exercise which is why we are trying to martial the faith-based community to have those conversation answers create meeting places for aa. i know that was incredible important for my mom. she today have somebody she could call everyday if she was tempted. she she'ded an e-mail seven-dayes a week if she doesn't have want to. you at least ought to have one or two sponsors can you call. so it is important i think from a rural perspective that we expand. to treatment and recover support services. >> sir, washington post recently reported you went to president barack obama and offed to resign because you felt like you had done what you could possibly do. but he asked to you head up this op open yad crisis and fixing it. >> i think is before crystal left.
i had such good people working at usda that all of the problem challenges, all of the issues that we have and we have numerous of them every single day, were being handled very well by our team. not as much was coming to my desk. i didn't have to make so many decisions because they were being made the right way and the can course staff was really made. there just went as much to do. and i had an opportunity with my grandson that made me stop and think about nings. ways home in iowa one day and early in the morning and i thut that was subcontractors working on the house. i open up the door and there is my of-year-old grandson, jake. they live kind of cater corner to where we are. i said, jake, what's up? he said, gran dad, i was just thinking about you and want to know if you want it come out and
play. you know, it sounded really good. i said, buddy, unfortunately i have work to do today bp but by the way, does your mom know you're here? no, i just took the pathway that dad made. we better go home and tell your mom where you are. >> we're walking back, he has his hand in my hand. we're walking back talking about things. he said you know gran dad, you're really old. but you know everything. and i had that experience that reality is that these jobs and you know, and i'm not saying this for me, i'm saying for everybody, who works it these jobs, it may seem glamorous and exciting and it may seem like it's just an incredible honor and all of that is true. but there is a sacrifice involved in it, especially if you're away from family. and you have to make sure that
that sacrifice is balanced again your capacity and yir ability to make things happen and for you to contribute to something positive. team was just incredible. incredible. the bright young people at usda, politicals, bright people. they are wonderful folks. doing a great job. they didn't really need me. that and that is what i was trying to convey, the present p. he said well in essence, there is stit work to be done. what about this and provided me with a list of options and the issue is one that is important to him. important to the country and one that had personal significance to me so it made sense to throw myself into that. we have cdc guidelines. warnings on. grants going out to expand treatment facilities. we've got the president's budget before congress and i hope that
they see the wisdom of funding this as priority because there's a lot of conversation, a lot of rhetoric in congress about this issue. as of today, not much in the way of resources. at the end of the day, to get results you have to get resources. hopefully when they finish their budget work there will be adequate resources to expand treatment options. i think if they do i'll be confident that the time i spent away from jake and ella and my grandson i saw this weekend, will be the perfect compromise. >> if hillary clinton wins will you serve as her chief of staff or any other place in the administration? >> i have to be careful answering this question. it's an official -- with all due respect, i don't think anyone should talk about what jobs are available and what happens after the election, i think everyone should focus on selecting their candidate of choice and at the
end of the day people are proud of. we've got an amazing political system in this country. and it's one that i think, i guess it's easy to be critical and easy to make fun of. but it's really hard running for office, let me tell you, it's run aing for hard. hard because your family has to watch those commercials that have nothing to do with what you actually are, but a perception created about you. hard it because it is physically exhausting. just on the way in here i was -- my scheduler chris, there he is. chris, good young man. i was giving him heck because i've had up with full day off in the last three weeks. that's me. and i'm not, you know, your remarks me being in the
presidential campaign were about as long as the campaign itself. so the reality is, it's hard work. so you know, and then the question is, well you know, what other system would you like to have? what other system would you like to be under? it's messy but it's the best that we've got. and it involved a government that far too frequently is criticized unfairly. 99% of what's happening today and every single department is positive. there are people working today to expand exports for farmers. there are people today making home loans to people in rural eara. that's government. there are farmers who are are struggling through tough economic times who were on a wait list because we dpt appropriate enough money for their credit needs. they get their loan today.
that's government. there is something doing conversation work somewhere, preserving soil and water for all of us, that government. there's someone inspecteding whatever it is we ate today. making sure when we consume it and our families consume it, it's safe. see reduction in food born illness this this administration. that government. there is somebody out there protect willing and tighting forest fires. putting themselves on the line in one of the most dangerous circumstances ever. that's government. protecting 70,000 community inner facing the urban wild land inner face. that's just one department. just think about all of the other things going on today. so with due respect to the question, public service is noble. and i will never apologize for it. and i will be proud of p.
and anyone who has the opportunity to blessed. that sees up this question, sir. >> do you see yourself getting involved in my politics in iowa. perhaps a seenate seat in 2018. >> well, you know, this is my theory, and it's only my theory. probably not accurate. but it is for me. i have been a mayor, state senator, governor, now a secretary of p here is what i know about myself. i'm an executive. i like it make decisions. i like to implement decisions. does that answer your question? >> you are saying there are -- >> there are people who are really good at legislating and compromising shape and bills and that kind of stuff. i just doesn't enjoy my six years as state senator as i did
as eight years as governor and eight years -- >> do you use any private e-mail for government business? >> the reality is that a lot of folks who know you back home know your private gmail account or whatever account you have. >> which is? i'm joking. >> well, everybody's got it so they'll send you an e-mail. i got an e-mail the other day from a guy that's got water issues it's a construction site around they're pumping water into a wetland or something and he's saying, hey, what about this? that's government, right? you can't help that, but you transfer it to the usda account and then you delegate the responsibilities and because of the nature of people who have
been in your life before you got this job, you're not naturally going to have e-mails like that. >> can we switch subjects like that? global food security is increasing worry and going into the future will become more of a worry. what can americans do to help? >> the good news is when i started this job we had a billion people that were food insecure globally. today it's 875 million. that's 175 million fewer people that we're dealing with. the long-term is a challenge because we're going to have increase of food production. anywhere from 50 to 70% in the next 35 years to meet the growing world population but the first step and the one way the usda can provide help and assistance is to expand on the issue of food waste. a third of the food that we grow, raise and consume is wasted. it ends up in our land fills as
solid waste. in our land fills food waste is the single most largest component of solid waste in land fills so first and foremost america can stop wasting food. we can reduce portion sizes. we can have a more informed consuming public. usda is providing an app that allows you to go online and figure out if something has been in the refrigerator for a couple of days is it still okay to eat and that sort of thing and if we can't reduce it or refuse it we need to recycle it. we're working on that with the epa and 4,000 partners. we challenged all of us to cut in half food waste. secondly we can work as we do with our partner agency with what was referred to as food the future is successful. we can train farmers from around the world to utilize more productive agricultural practices. we can eliminate food loss, not
waste but loss because the storage facilities are in need of significant enhancement. we can do research so that folks can figure out how to grow more with less. whether it's drought resistant crops or things of that nature so they're engaged in that activity and making sure that we properly store and handle food in developing countries. the feed the future initiative has been incredibly successful in terms of the number of farmers that have been trained, millions, the number of children who have been fed. tens of millions and the number of opportunities to have a better understanding of what they need to do in order to meet their food needs and i think trade is also part of this and the reality is if you can move food one place to another through trade that's also going to make a big difference. >> can you discuss more the benefits of ttp and exports.
>> 30% of american agricultural gross income is related directly to exports. 20% is directly related to exports. you'll have a difficult time in a foreign country. if we don't think it's today it will be significantly lower if not for the fact that we'll have the top ten trade exports even though it's down a little bit. certainly the 8 years have been over a trillion dollars in sales. so when you look at ttp, when you look at the asian pacific area what you see is a growing middle class consumer. you're talking about today 525 to 530 million middle class consumers projected to grow by 2.7 billion in the next 15 years. that's ten times the american population these are middle
class consumers and these are people that want to buy and can afford to buy american products. that understand the american brand of agricultural reflects great quality and safety and affordability in supply. why do we juan to cut ourselves off from that market? number one. number two, if we don't do this, we can't find the will to do these trade agreements, the rest of the world is not going to say oh, the united states is not going to do this so we'll just stop discussing trade and we'll all just sell to ourselves. that's not what is going to happen. what's going to happen is they'll go off and do bilateral trade agreements that don't include the united states we have one of the most open in the world today and we want the rest of the world to open up their markets. pretty tough to do without trade
agreements we also want the world to do a better job on labor environment. well in order to do that you have to have provision and agreements that are enforceable and in asia in particular the question is, if you had a choice between the united states leading that effort to a higher standards agreement and things of that nature or china, how do you feel more comfortable writing the rules of the future? us or china? because china is attempting to negotiate an all asia trade agreement that does not include the united states. so it's really important for the united states to be in the game here. i think there are direct benefits to american agriculture through trade and it's important for the united states to be engaged in that part of the
world because that's where the action is and we need to be leading that effort. we can't be a follower on this and frankly, the agricultural industry has done a tremendous swrob in advocating for trade. i think that the rank and file farmer out there understands and appreciates trade. now there may be a disagreement on specific trade agreements or specific aspects of a trade agreement but on the concept of trade american farmers almost universally say yes, this is a good idea. i don't think that the rest of american business and industry does as good a job as agricultural does promoting the benefits of trade which is why it's easier today for us to hear a lot of negative talk about trade. and the challenge, i'm sure that american business does a fantastic job. they haven't. it's easy to talk about a plan closing and that's a result of
trade. and maybe has something to do with globalization on trade and it's easier to conceptionally understand it. and another small business adds 10 jobs and it's not aggregated. it's not accumulated so therefore it doesn't carey wrat the headline. it doesn't create the news story. so the result is that american business has an even heavier responsibility to get out there and explain to the workers and the customers and to our supply chain, hey, we're all in this together and we rely for our economic future in part on trade. if they did a better job of doing that maybe these discussions about trade wouldn't be as difficult as they are today. >> thank you, sir. before i ask the final question the quick reminder it's the world's leading professional organization and more information about the club
please visit our website at press.org. plus we'd like to remind you about a few upcoming programs. on friday the director general of the world trade organization will speak here. on october 12 the secretary of the neighbor will address it. i think i'll need a step stool for that one. our traditional press club mug. >> thank you. >> you probably have a set of those now -- >> the last question. >> one for every member of the family. >> the last question as part of your tenure you had numerous appearances with children's characters such as elmo and alvin and the chipmunks. of the characters you have worked with, which one was your favorite. that's easy. it's one that the first lady is not going to be too happy about. cookie monster is my guy.
the next president making appointments to the supreme court of the united states will be president donald trump. >> with hillary clinton in the white house, the rest of the world will never forget why they always looked up to the united states of america. >> cspan's campaign 2016 continues on the road to the white house with the vice presidential debate between republican fwov nor mike pence and democratic senator tim kaine tuesday night live from longwood university in farmville virginia. beginning at 7:30 p.m. eastern with a preview of the debate and then at 8:30 the predebate briefing for the audience and then live coverage for the debate the 2016 live presidential debate. watch live on cspan and live any time on demand on cspan.org and listen live on the free cspan radio a. >> our cspan campaign 2016 bus
is traveling throughout new york this week asking voters what is the most important issue to you in this election and why? >> i am a masters student at the university of albany from buffalo new york and i'm the president of the student assembly and trustee on the board. i'd like to see addressed in this campaign higher education. diversity of inclusion. mental health, student loan interest rates and campus safety are critical now more than ever. what are you going to do to ensure these issues are not only addressed but that the student voice is at the table? >> i'm a member of congress from the congressional district of new york and the most important issue in the election for me, the presidential election is the candidate's plans for economic growth and for america's place in the world. the united states is the most generous government in the history of the world and i think these are the kinds of issues that we need to discuss in a
debate forum. >> i'm jonathan peters and i'm a student at the university of albany. my biggest concern is who is going to take care of our foreign policies. i believe that both of our candidates have very opposing views on our ally with russia and china and issues going on in syria and i want to see a strong leader being able to take care of that effectively. >> voices from the road on cspan. >> joining us from capitol hill with the u. s. supreme court in the backdrop, lawrence hurly that covers the court for thompson reuters. good morning, thank you for plead guilty with with us. >> good morning. >> let me begin on a couple of points you have been making about the supreme court. you have to go back more than 100 years. 1864 when the court was last time not fully staffed. how does that impact the fall
term. it was 1864 that we went into election day on the court so that does mean this is unchattered waters for at least the current member of the court and never experience anything like this. going into the term it means that they have a sort of incentive not to take any issues in which they think they could split 44-4 because obviously they're just as short and they, you know, it's unclear yet when the next justice will be appointed. so it's a lot of uncertainty and
more technical disputes on intellectual property. on the issue of ip cha cawhat c chases will the court take up? >> the biggest case involves samsung and apple, they're fighting over a design patent for the iphone. that case will be argued next week. and the other ip cases are slightly less high profile. all of these high must be stakes is that one. one they took up last week is a trademark case. despite having a history of a rational slur. and trademarks and patented trademark and the historical connotations.
and it's been a big story over the years here in washington defendant c. what could the court decide what impact could it have on the nfl team? >> if they rule in favor of this rock band they would effectively strike down a law that prevents people from trademarking terms deemed to be disparaging. that would mean the redskins mean their case.
>> and that's one that comes out with people posting videos of youtube and kids dancing to music and so on which i think a lot of people have done and the issue is whether, when the record company told this woman to take down the video because she was using a prince song, whether they mislead her because they said she had to take it down when, in fact, you're allowed to use snippets of materials if it's not key to what the issue is. >> one of the issues the court decided not to take up resulting in a loss for ohio democrats. ohio is a key battleground state for democrats and republicans. hillary clinton is going to be there later today. what did the court decide not to do? >> well t courts actually had three emergency actions. one from michigan and one from
north carolina and in all three the come mon theme has been caught wanting to stay out of it. and split 4 to 4 and devicive issue like voting rights. they're keen to stay out of those. >> let me ask you about the nomination, i want to share with you what the washington post wrote about the president's choice of garland and the politics behind all of that. as another gop operative put it that was involved in the court fight, garland, quote, did nothing to inspire the left wing of the democratic party which was already vocal and restless while mitch mcconnell picked a fight and united his base. it's increasingly rare that the gop grass roots is united with party leaders but this did it. so talk about the garland nomination. why they chose him.
and behind mitch mcconnell and what might happen after the election before the next president is sworn in. >> it seemed like when judge fwar land was nominated maybe there was a sort of needle that the administration could thread that would have got him on the court it was a high stakes move where they thought if we picked someone uncontroversial and well respected moderate that that would put pressure on the republicans to let him through. senator mcconnell within hours of his death within february he said no way we're not going to appoint anyone this year and the next will get to choose and nothing the democrats have been able to do will dislodge that and most of the republicans stayed behind that message as well and it's just been hard going for them to kind of break through. and so, at this point it hasn't really worked in the short-term but, you know, in the long-term,
still got the election to come obviously and the theory, you know, various people watching this say maybe if hillary clinton wins the election and the democrats gain some seats in the senate then that might put pressure on the republicans to move in the lame duck session after the election before the next president takes office and that could be the next chance to get on. in that scenario. and hillary clinton is free when she takes office to pick whoever she wants. and can dems run out the clock.
how if that were to happen, if the republicans say okay we're going to move on the garland nomination after the election before the next president is sworn in what should senator mcconnell have to say to his republican colleagues. >> i think just speculating. and before republican members other than mcconnell himself but i'm not sure and republican senators and indicated at points that they would be willing to do something in the lame duck session after the election if hillary clinton wins because they all know who garland is. he is well-known. he's well respected and known as not plead guilty a particularly left wing judge. they might think that's a better option than having hillary clinton come in and potentially get to pick someone that's more
liberal. >> explain what this is all about? >> this is a case out of virginia and it's a national issue now and this case is to come up about a high school student that was born a girl but is now living as a boy and wants to use the boy's restroom and and the story i wrote was talking about the reasons they might want to skip it at this point partly because they have other cases that they can take up when they have another justice and also this case only
effects this one student in virginia. >> writing about the vacancy and what a hillary clinton presidency could mean. writing a win would set the stage for a liberal majority on the supreme court. something not seen since the retirement of chief justice early warren in 1969 and lead to a number of appointees by president richard nixon. your comment. >> that's right.
and three are the others are 78 or older you can follow him online and he tweets at lawrence hurly. start of the new term of the u.s. supreme court. he is joining us from florida. good morning. good morning, you stole my thunder a bit. what hasn't been mentioned is the senate under mitch mcconnell has done something here that is on the face of it unconstitutional. there is nothing in the constitution that suggests a president cannot dominate a supreme court justice in his last year of office. it's important to remember that
the senator that's not a fire breathing liberal indicated prior to this debacle that took place that garland was the best nominee that the republicans could hope for and i'm also wondering about this court that approved citizens united. something has to happen to reverse this absolute aberration where corporations now are people and we have to, we have to cow down to this particular situation where billionaires control our elections. i'd like you to comment if you would sir on those particular aspects. >> ken, thank you from florida. >> so on the issue of who, you know, who gets to decide who the next justice is, obviously it's the president's job to nominate a justice but it's the senate's
job under the constitution to advise and consent on those nominations so the position of mcconnell and the republicans is the president can nominate whoever he wants and what they have done is not do anything on the nomination. it's also true that it's unprecedented to take the hard line hah no president can appoint a justice in an election year because it has happened in the past and has happened quite a lot in the past. so you know, both sides have their points and with these political issues there's no one to referee the disputes so it goes on to the election. >> let's go to lee in new york. republican line. good morning. >> good morning. i was up sit about the supreme court for one thing because the
justice got on five different media out lets and demonized donald trump even though she apologized later. we see where we're going there. as far as swris garland is concerned, even though he he is more respected, i understand that he is against the second amendment and he's more multiple epa rulings and it impose down the line with with loretta lynch and so forth with the irs investigated. and we were told that if there is any confidence and not a criminal offense when hillary clinton was investigated. they said that she was not liable for criminal offense either. and it seems that it's just going down the line. and in 2012 romney might have
been the next president except for the irs. i'll take my comments off line. >> lee, thank you from grand gorge new york. >> judge garland's record he has been on the appeals court from washington for almost 20 years. the court in washington he has a lot of administrative law case which is is a lot of regulatory cases so he ruled on things like environmental regulations and has been fairly supportive of government regulations over that time. as is fairly common among judges on that court of both party, nominees from both parties and his record on guns, the gun lobby has seized on one vote he had which doesn't really tell us a whole lot about where he stands on guns because he hasn't ruled or written an opinion and a key case that came before him.
>> the arch bishop of washington d.c., that presided over yesterday's catholic mass, the traditional mass that took place at st. matthew's cathedrals, he walked down the steps with john roberts joined by the chief justices and what is the history behind the mass and tradition? >> it's been going on for quite sometime where they have this kind of legal community kind of service before the supreme court term and in recent years the court has become more and more people by catholic justice or whatever reason. and it's 6 of the 9 so now it's five. so this is that strong tradition there. >> we'll go to david joining us from new jersey as we look outside just a few blocks from
the white house. also by the way, the church where president john f. kennedy's mass took place in 1963. go ahead david. >> thank you both. what's the most realistic projection of the number of supreme court justices that could be replaced within the first term of the next president. >> thank you. >> thank you david. >> as i mentioned earlier three of the current justices are over the age of 78 and obviously there's the current vacancy of the court. and one might think the justice could be thinking about stepping aside and then more difficult would be justice kennedy but he is the republican appointee so he may be more keened to be replaced by the republican president. justice bryer is the other one.
he's 78. and player on the court and might wish to continue doing that as will the justice. >> let me ask you about him as the chief justice of the united states. the on going question of cameras in the courtroom that don't appear as if anything will change in the short-term but has he been more transparent in what happens inside oral arguments?
that's not important to me. >> thank you, don. 15 years later still debating bush v. gore. >> it's interesting coming into the election with only 8 justices on the court where if something like that did happen you could be looking at a 4 to 4 split and when people look at these issues that can't be resolved in congress or the white house or the ballot box this year maybe the supreme court isn't going to be doing that. you have another branch of government that isn't going to be able to dissolve a dispute potentially. >> joining us next, good morning. >> how are you doing? >> we're fine, thank you. >> okay. what you normally consider when you're looking at the supreme court is liberal versus conservative. or that's what i always thought
of. the people we have for president this year we need to be thinking globalist versus nationalist and that worries me. >> we'll get a response. sue thank you for the call. >> i wasn't quite sure what the question was. >> let me ask you about the justices on the supreme court. we obviously see them publicly or hear them during oral arguments but most of the discussions of the meetings behind closed doors. what are the relationships between the justices. and a lot of it is behind closed doors and what i can say is in public they always talk about how they're all best buddies and thr respectful of each other. and in public, on the bench, and in their writing sometimes, there's some strong feelings that come out and the justice always say that's only in a small number of cases and but,
you know, we can only go by what we see and what we see is sometimes, you know, some back and forth on the bench and certain justices that perhaps don't see eye to eye with their colleagues too much. >> 202 is the area code. 748-8000 if your a supporter of hillary clinton. and you can send us an e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. join us on facebook or send us a tweet at cspanwj. i want to get your retox what senator mitch mcconnell said earlier this summer on the fact that senate republicans would not take up the garland nomination. >> we already made it very clear that a nomination for the supreme court by this president will not be filled this year. >> he has been addiment since february as you pointed out lawrence hurry. >> that's right.
nothing has changed as far as mitch mcconnell is concerned and the only questions we discussed earlier is whether the election result could change that. whether it's hillary chin on the winning the election and the democrats winning the senate or both and the question then is whether they're willing to hold out and see whether hillary clinton is going to reappoint garland or whether she'll pick someone else or whether they have second thoughts about this precedent. they have set a new precedent about filling supreme court vacancies in an election year or even going the other way if hillary clinton wins and the republicans retain control of the senate. whether they actually take their position they have now a step further and just say, you know, we're basically going to hold -- this is so important. we don't want to appoint any clinton justice and take it even further. >> and just follow up on something that we have been
talking about during the course of the morning f there is a 4-4 tie how the lower court decision spans true. >> that's right. so this happened four times last term after scalia died. it split 4 to 4 including the big immigration case where the obama administration was trying to revive it's imdprags plan. that split 4 to 4 which meant the government lost and it's the lower court decision remains in effect and there's no national precedent on it and in certain cases that means you might get a liberal result because it's more liberal leaning and sometimes you might get her the other result. and in some cases it's a decision about that an that stayed in effect. and this term coming up maybe
we'll get some 4-4s and they could submit 4-4. >> how big of a void has the death of justice scalia been on the decisions we have been seeing. and in his cases but his voice is descent or majority opinions. >> as everyone knows, justice scalia was a very lorful character and lively in oral arguments. and his voice was certainly notable by his absence and some of the big cases toward the end of the last term including the big abortion case and immigration case and one might have thought he would have been descenting in a couple of decisions that came out toward the end of the term and his vote was also notable by his absence on some of those cases although the abortion case actually because justice kennedy ended upsiding with the liberals it was a 5-3 decision and wouldn't
have effected the outcome of that one. >> good morning. >> good morning. i'm wondering the supreme court and obama and biden has turned the pages out of the bible, our creator god said it's an abomination for men to sleep with men and women to sleep with women and we turned our faith so far away from god that the only hypocrites that can even bring the pastors in is when they open up the session to the senators of the house of representatives. he's out. there's no prayer. it's nothing but a crime to even mention the word jesus christ because obama's afraid we might make the muslims feel too bad or out of sorts. >> we'll get a response.
>> well i think actually the supreme court in recent years has actually had quite a lot of pro religon decisions pushed by christian groups including one on legislative prayer a couple of years ago. it's unclear how much that would change by scalia's death but it's quite possible it could continue in that trend because even if judge garland came on we don't know his position in those things. >> we begin our program this morning asking our viewers and listeners whether they can see on the court and how they vote in the 2016 election. obviously it's much more the supreme court and not politics but do you have a sense of how big of an issue or how small of a electorate. the supreme court is not mentioned by the candidate and
that tells you something. this is not the key issue is sort of for a broad number of people. i think there probably are small groups of people that do feel strongly about this as some of the callers you've had on the show have indicated some of the christian conservative people who have strongly want to have a justice that will be in the same line as justice kennedy. and people also very keenly aware of how the supreme court is because they have been following the abortion issue for so long. for a lot of the american people the supreme court is a lot less front and center in their daily lives and they tend to only pay attention to the decision that comes a few times a year in june and people aren't thinking
chosely about how important the supreme court is and despite the efforts of how important the supreme court is and what a big deal sit to have a vacancy on election day. it hasn't resinated that much with the american people. >> a live look at the outside of the u.s. supreme court on this monday morning and lawrence hurley joining us on capitol hill as the sun begins to rise behind him. also behind him the u.s. supreme court on our facebook page we're asking you that question whether or not the vacancy on the supreme court will impact your 2016 vote. you can join in on the conversation on facebook.com/cspan and jodie has this tweet. if the senate stays republican after the election can they go four to eight more years pfr a justice is seated if hillary is he elected? >> well, i mean, the assumption would be no. but just senator mcconnell has said before that the next president should get to pick the
appointment so you'd think that means it would be hillary clinton if she is the president or donald trump if he is the president. and with the abinstructionism that has happened in the senate and both parties have been in the senate and stop things happening. and it's interesting to see whether there's more of that to come or whether -- not just in this year but perhaps when the democrats control the senate and there's a republican in the white house they could site this precedent to block a republican president from appointing a justice and then it can escalate that way where it might be -- well, maybe not a year before the election. or 18 months before the election and could go from there. >> this is walter jackson. can the senate be forced by the courts to undertake the nomination process for the scalia vacancy.
>> no. >> let's go to richard, democratics line, good morning. >> good morning, we're fine, thank you. >> i want to say something off color from your supreme court that donald trump is using politics so he can break his opponents and i want to tell you something. i will take all my money and put it against him and then hillary will win the election. what bothers me is i saw mitch mcconnell over there saying that the only reason that he is postponing, i repeat, postponing the supreme court is because he doesn't want hillary to get in and the response from my constituents are the only reason that donald trump was so quite at the dinner party with 20 minutes of -- i've never heard them speak like that.
obama ridiculing -- what's the guys name. donald trump is because he knew he was right and politics couldn't save him. could you respond on that? >> richard from massachusetts, thank you for the call. any comment? >> i think just go back to mitch mcconnell. i think that it's true that they -- the republicans felt like their constituent sy cares more about the supreme court than democrats and it was more important for them as an election issue to prevent the nomination from going through to keep it open for the election. not just because it would help the republican nominee for president and also help senate candidates across the country. to show that they were going to stick up for their principals and try to keep the seat open for republicans to fill.
>> this coming from another viewer. the supreme court is not supposed to run a political playbook. it is the third branch. it's supposed to keep the other two in check. lawrenceville georgia. republican line. good morning. >> yeah, good morning. i would like to make an anlage. so the liberals will understand what i'm talking about. playing monopoly and follow the rules. and he wants to be the banker and then he changed the rule. he wants to buy a hotel. he can take money out of the bank and it's supposed to be technically a conservative branch and not supposed to be political. and supposed to keep the same rules and the person that called in and complained about citizens united. i would like to say that jeb
bush proves that citizens united is not a threat. and look at trump right now. he is hardly spending any money. and spending hundreds of billions to win this. and he is tied with trump so citizens united is is the dog whistle for the democrats. it's no danger at all. thank you very much. >> and thank you. >> i think on the supreme court, obviously people from each side of the divide always seems to find something political about the supreme court. and it's a case of what is in the eye of the beholder. >> lawrence hurley is joining us on capitol hill that covers for reuters. >> once again a citizens united
thing in here. citizens united is not doing anything. and the republican candidate now. and thank you dennis. did you want to respond. and citizens united obviously it's a decision as one of the callers mentioned and candidates from both parties can benefit from and there's another supreme court decision involving an aggregate campaign and some evidence that hillary clinton is approximate back from that and pams to different and totally legally and even though the democrats often complain about these decisions that they benefit from them just as republicans do.
he has written for the baltimore sun and the daily record and the lflt a. daily journal. het me ask you about the president's influence on lower court judicial nominees. how significant has it been. >> one of those little noticed elements of any presidential administration is that they do get to shape the federal judiciary even aside from the supreme court. the president that had two terms has had hundreds of judicial nominees confirmed including many to the appeals court and set new legal precedence and changed the law in a way that could influence how the supreme court rules or in the case of the court at the moment where it's split 4-4. if those decisions are left in place and that can set a new precedent thooes in that part of the country where it's covered by that appeals court.
and in the transgender bathroom case and ruled in favor of the transgender student. that was also the voting rights case in north carolina where a court with two obama appointees struck down the voter iflt .d. and if hillary clinton was to win the election you'd get at least another four years of democratic judicial nominees and you can really kind of shape the judiciary for a whole generation obviously because these are lifetime appointments. a lot of these nominees are quite young and they can approximate around for 30 years or more. >> j.d. joining us from spanish fort, alabama. good morning. >> good morning. great, great guest. your guest made the statement a
minute ago that i disagree with. that the average american doesn't pay much attention to the supreme court until there happens to be a decision. well i'll shopping at walmart and the people i talk to, every day america, i would say he's dead wrong. particularly this time around i'm hearing an talking to people, just every day people hike myself who are tremendously interested in the court and the reason is is they have begun to recognize that the court is essentially, so to speak in terms of politics. these people are there for quite awhile and can do tremendous damage or tremendous good for the united states of america. now he also referenced the issue of the roe v. wade decision. the life issue which is really regardless of whether obama has pretended that it's settled law which is categorically false, perhaps in his mind it is, but i can assure the president it's
not at all. that's the wolly mammoth in the room and most people know it and they like to keep it quite but it's here and we're not getting used to it. now we see, the question today for the guest is, who do we support? is it going to effect our decision? yes it is. because donald trump put out 11 name of justices that he will appoint if he is elected. now i don't like trump. i know a hot of people that don't. they find him morally reprehenceable but he's better than hillary on that issue. he will appoint strict interpreters of the constitution which is the task of a supreme court justice. not to legislate from the bench but to take the constitution and not find as they did in roe v. wade the law which is they declare a decision that is the shadow of the law. they made it up out of the right to privacy.
the right of a woman to destroy an american. >> thanks for the call. let me take his point and move it one step further lawrence hurley. if donald trump is elected president and the senate is controlled by democrats where does that put this fight? >> it would be back to square one again. obviously on the republican side there's nominees similar to d r merit garland which is saying they're conservative but donald trump is only going to pick from this list he distributed which helped to get senator ted cruz to support him. so he might be a little boxed in now assuming that he sticks to the list in terms of whom he would pick. so, you know, obviously a new congress and a new president
resets the debate a little bit but so it's hard to know what would happen but it would be a big fight. >> another hypothetical. hillary clinton is elected president, do senate republicans and democrats try to cut their losses and say let's move ahead with merit garland or will hillary clinton wait until january 20th of next year? >> regardless of when it happened i think garland would be back in the equation if the republicans retain the senate. because for hillary lynn on the it would be probably an easy lift to get him confirmed in comparison with someone that maybe would be more liberal and the republicans could block. so everything that mitch mcconnell and the next republicans said about being able to pick the nominee would help hillary clinton in that
regard. >> let's go to catherine joining us from springfield massachusetts. dell cats line. lawrence hurley that covers the court, good morning. >> good morning. >> i'd like to ask a question, was he talking to the supreme court or the constitution? who was he speaking to? >> and why do you ask that question, catherine? >> because he gave men laws to live by and if we live by his laws it wouldn't be all this mess going on. the first is our duty to him and then, particularly homosexual and the other is toward our neighbor and love one another. if a man set aside the laws, that's the reason this world is in a mess and i don't care who is giving that, it's not going to make no difference because he said the lowest of man and nothing is going to change and i
don't think nobody should set aside his laws. and all these laws have separated us from our creator. and that's the reason why this world is in a mess. he did it because they didn't want him to rule over him. they won a name for themselves and mankind still don't want the creator to rule over him. and i don't care who got in there. this world is coming to an end. if you all can't see it, it's pitiful. everything is gone. look around you people. have a good day. >> catherine from springfield massachusetts. just the passion some some of these issues. >> i think that's right. the caller that called in earlier about mentioning the supreme court being discussed among his people he knows, i don't disagree with that at all.
there's obviously people that care very strongly about the supreme court but as you have seen from the presidential campaign and the debates where it wasn't mentioned at all and there's a large segment of the pop withdrew lags and it's motte the key issue and that's also an opinion poll where people were asked what their key issues are. and people care more about health care and education and issues that effect them on a day-to-day basis where as i think the supreme court is maybe a little more abstract for a lot of people where they perhaps only really noticed what it's doing when it issues one of these big decisions on the front page of the newspaper. >> david is next from dudley, north carolina. independent line. >> yes, mr. hurley, i have a question for you and i wish you would tell the people what the constitution says is the
responsibility of the president and the responsibility of the senate and the congress when it come into the opponent of the supreme court. if you will tell these people what the constitution says because that is supposed to be american bible tell them what the constitution says. and let them go from there. because serve talking to everyone about different things. tell them what the constitution says is this supposed to be american bible. is this supposed to be american laws or is it a bunch of b.s. which ever one do you decide please tell the people of the constitution and quit blaming obama and hillary and trump and everybody else.
>> i don't really get to decide what the constitution means. that's up to the justices mainly but i think as i mentioned earlier the president gets to nominate people and then the senate has to advise and content on the nominee so the senate has a lot of power to either reject or as we've seen this year, to just not do anything. and there is not anything anyone can do about that. >> tj from little elm texas. good morning, republican line. >> good morning, mr. hurley and host. everybody has been aware of the things going on with benghazi and all of hillary's e-mails. if she would become president, isn't it a fact that she can pardon herself under article 2, section 3, clause 1, which means
any related articles that would appear therein or thereafter would be null and void. my question on that would be is there an override for a criminal misuse of that pardon power of clause -- i'm sorry. article 2, section 3, clause 1? >> thank you. the tj. >> that's a little above my pay grade, but as of the moment hillary clinton hasn't been convicted of anything. so there is nothing to pardon her for. >> david from cathedral city, good morning. >> caller: good morning. we're talking about the justice system and laws and how they affect us. i enjoy listening to these conversations because those of white house take the time to make a comment generally are paying more attention. but i want to address the issue
about wealthy people not paying income taxes. the 16th amendment to the constitution was passed to get the wealthy people to put money into our economy and help all of us. and we're rewarded for that because we become multipliers for income taxes. in a previous business, i had 100 employees. i had taken a risk to get up in the morning and make sure that those people got paid and got benefits. in exchange for that, i made it possible for 100 times my ability to pay income taxes to occur to benefit all of us. >> thank you, david. we'll get a response. lawrence hurley? >> again, i'm not sure if i can respond to that much. >> okay. i know you have to get over to the court and we're cognizant of your time. one quick call from robert in ashley, im. good morning. quick question for the guest? >> caller: it's crazy to sit there and think about how we've been running with eight supreme
court justices for how long because the republican party has had it their way for eight years now. since president obama came in, first thing mitch mcconnell says, we want to make him a one-term president. we will not vote on anything that he wants. an then they turn around and say look how bad the economy is, look how bad we are. we can't even get us a supreme court justice that leans more to the right than he does to the left. and your idiots on the republican party will not even put up a vote for him. >> robert, thank you for call. final comment, robert hurley? >> it's certainly a complicated and divisive political period with the court coming back today with only eight justices. and it's really up in the air as to when the next justice will be appointed. >> you'll be heading in for oral arguments coming up at the top of the hour. lawrence hurley, his work is available online at reuters.com. thanks for being with us. we appreciate it. >> thanks a lot. >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and
policy issues that impact you. and coming up tuesday morning, we're live from long wood university in farmville, virginia, site of the vice presidential debate. ryan stauffer is assistant professor at longwood and joshua from purdue will be on to discuss the history and importance and importance of vice presidential debates, the outcomes and what to expect in the debate between senator tim kaine and governor mike pence. also halle parker, editor and chief for the rotunda. then jay alex halderman, a computer science and engineering professor will talk about voting machines, security and vulnerability. we'll also speak with w. taylor reveille iv. watch 7:00 eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. the next president making appointments to the supreme
court of the united states will be president donald trump. >> with hillary clinton in the white house, the rest of the world will never forget why they've always looked up to the united states of america. >> c-span's campaign 2016 continues on "the road to the white house" with the vice presidential debate between republican governor mike pence and democratic senator tim kaine tuesday night live from longwood university in farmville, virginia, beginning at 7:30 p.m. eastern with a preview of the debate. then at 8:30, the predebate briefing for the audience. at 9:00 p.m., live coverage of the debate followed by viewer reaction. the 2016 vice presidential debate. watch live on. watch live and any time on demand at c-span.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app. now a look at naval readiness and maritime security with admiral john richardson, who is chief of naval
operations. he talks about technological advances that are benefitting the navy and the u.s. role in helping to calm regional disputes in the south china sea. from the center for strategic and international studies, this is an hour. >> my name is kathleen hicks. i direct the international security program here. i want to welcome you to our maritime security dialogue on maintaining maritime's priority. i want to share with you our building safety precautions. overall we feel very secure in our building. but as a convener, we have duty to prepare for emergency operations. so follow me should there be any fire alarm or something along those lines. the maritime security dialogue brings together csis and the u.s. naval institute, two of the nation's most respected nonpartisan institutions. the series is intended to highlight the particular challenges facing the navy, the marine corps and the coast guard from national level maritime policy to navy concept development and program design.
we are very fortunate to have the series sponsored with sport from lockheed martin and huntington ingles and we thank you them for that support. who better to talk to us than the chief of naval operations admiral john richardson. well look forward to comments from admiral richardson followed by a discussion between him and the chief executive officer of usni and my partner in crime pete daly. and thank you all of you for your attention today. and over to you, admiral. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. well, good morning, everybody. and i want to also just share my thanks to both csis and the naval institute for hosting today. admiral daly, thanks very much for all the work you do to kind of increase awareness of things
maritime and this dialogue has been fantastic as a series of interchanges, exchanges. you know, i was talking to somebody recently just sort of getting some advice about, okay, how you can be a lot better at cno if you just do these sort of things. and they said, you know, because listen, in terms of the messaging, you just can't do enough, right? because people understand armies. they generally understand air forces. but navys are just weird. you guys are different. so keep on explaining. so that's what we do. and i appreciate this venue. and i want to just start off rather than a general overview, which i am happy to do maybe during the q&a, something like that. i want to dive in and take a look, have a discussion about a particular issue. and, you know, i've been in my position now for a little over a year. and it's been a vertical
learning curve. in fact, i'm starting to wonder when that will stop, you know. i've got to be sort of the slowest kid in the class here because i'm just learning so much every day. and also relearn a couple of important things too. one of those is just the absolute critical importance of making sure your thinking is as clear as it can be. and that your communications follow. and they are a unambiguous and clear as well. and today i thought i would dive in to one important example. and i'll do so kind of in a -- i'll start it off with sort of a word association game. you know, when i say a word and you kind of give me a first word that comes to your mind. and so my word is a2ad. and so what word comes to your mind or what picture do you see? to many people, a2ad, anti-access area denial is kind
of a code word. a code word that indicates that some nation has established some kind of impenetrable keep out zone that forces can enter only at extreme peril to their existence, never mind their mission. to others, a2ad brings to mind some kind of portfolio or a basket of technologies. a particular suite of technologies. and then others will depict a2ad as a strategic approach regarding some employment of force or some national policy objectives or some kind of combination above the two. so in summary, a2ad for me is a term that is bandied about pretty freely and lacks the precise definition that it probably would benefit from.
and that ambiguousness sends a variety of vague or conflicting signals depending upon the context in which that term is used. either transmitted or received. i got to tell you that to me i appreciate everything through the absolute crystal clear lens of enhancing the navy's ability to conduct its mission, which is laid out in title 10 and discussed in a design for maintaining maritime superiority which states that the u.s. navy will operate at sea and be ready to conduct prompt and sustained combat to protect america from attack and to ensure the nation can project strategic influence around the globe wherever and whenever necessary in support of our national security objectives. and so ensure clarity in our thinking and precision in our communications, we in the navy
are going to refrain from using the term a2ad as sort of a stand alone acronym that can mean all things to all people or some things to some people or almost anything to anyone. i think that we just owe it to ourselves, to the country to be better than that. so i'm encouraging this approach really for four reasons. let me take each one of these in order. first, the concept of a2ad is not anything new. the history of military contests is all about adversaries seeking to one-up each other seeking to identify their foes at longer ranges and attacking them with ever more precise and destructive weapons. this is nothing new. as technologies change, tactics change toe react and leverage them. until relatively recently in our conversation about war fighting that we have discussed this trend as something new or something different.
but history has much to teach us about maintaining perspective on these developments. and that will give us insight into charting a path forward to address them. one only has to think of horatio nelson at copenhagen or the nile. admiral farragut at mobile bay. you can think of admiral nimitz and admiral lockwood in the pacific during world war ii to see that a2ad and confronting a2ad challenges is nothing new. indeed, controlling the seas and projecting power, even in contested areas is exactly why our nation invests in and relies upon a naval force to begin with. so that's the first reason. second reason is that the term "denial" as in anti-access area denial is too often taken as a fait accompli when in fact it really describes an aspiration.
often i get into a2ad discussions that are supplemented by maps, right, or charts. and these maps have these red arcs that extend off coastlines. and these images imply that any military force that crosses that red line into that arc faces certain destruction. it's a no-go zone, and we're just going to stay out of that place. but the reality is far more complex. it's actually really hard to achieve a hit. it requires the successful completion of a very complex chain of events. each link in that chain is vulnerable and can be interrupted. and so these arcs represent danger to be sure, right. something for to be thoroughly considered. and we're going to be thoughtful and well prepared as we address them. but the threats that they are
based on are not insurmountable, and can be managed. and will be managed. third reason is that a2ad in my viewpoint is far too inherently oriented to the defense. it can contribute to a mind-set that starts with, since these red arcs are so stark and impenetrable, when you have to start with, you know -- are we going to start outside, are we going to think about how we're going to work our way from the outside in. but related to my last point, the reality is that we can fight from within these defended areas, and if needed we will. we'll fight outside. and yes, we'll fight inside out. we'll fight from the top. we'll fight from the bottom. it's starting to sound like churchill at this point. indeed, we'll fight from every direction, all right. and the examples that i've given, the historical examples show that this is nothing new and has been done before.
finally, the fourth reason is that the a2ad threat is already actually pretty well understood, whereas in my mind, the real challenges, the vexing challenges that we face are right around the corner. longer range, very precise and more powerful missiles coupled with isr systems that can detect with precision and for longer ranges, those have been with us for some time now. we understand that dynamic. and it's true that the systems, the system of system gets more and more capable. and one generation will beget a follow-on generation which extends that reach just a little bit further. and it's also true that these systems are proliferating. they're spreading. but the essential military problem that they represent is largely the same. and we've appreciated it and understood it for some time.
and it doesn't mean, again, that they don't present a challenge. but if we fixate on a2ad, we're going to miss the boat on the next challenge. we fail to consider that thing just around the corner that will entail a fundamental shift and takes the contest and competition to the next level. just as an example. what must be done -- this is a question we're exploring. what must be done to stay ahead of our adversaries when essentially any place in the world can be imaged in realtime on demand with video? right? that world is right around the corner. so for those four reasons, we're going to scale down just the independent use of a2ad. the lack of precision has real consequences.
potential adversaries actually have different geographic features like choke points -- islands, ocean currents, mountains. different geographies dictate a wide variety of concepts and technologies that enemies will use to fight in those different areas. this variety has a major impact on how u.s. forces best seize and maintain the initiative. while there may be some universal elements to the tactics, the technologies, the concepts that we might use, there are just as many differences. and so we have to resist the temptation to oversimplify this conversation. the specifics matter. so what should we say instead if we don't like a2ad. what do we say? i'm afraid i'm just not going propose replacing one acronym with another, right. this is going to disappoint many. that's what we tend to try and force everything into an acronym.
and no matter what i say, we will eventually get to an acronym. but i will say since different theaters present different challenges, the one-size-fit-all term to describe the mission and the challenges creates confusion, not clarity. instead, we'll talk about the specifics, the specifics of our strategies and capabilities relative to those of our potential adversaries within the specific context of geography concepts and technology. so our focus must always remain on maintaining maritime superiority with a deep understanding of the interplay between tactics and strategy against specific threats in specific locations to achieve that end. our superior equipment, our agile performing concepts, our
teams will lead to better and faster learning, that will make us a better and more capable and adaptive force that will outpace any adversary, especially in a time of rising complexity. this is where our advantages really start to open us up on the competition. but it must go beyond words. we must act. and we are acting. we'll continue to up our game through training, experimentation, war games, and introducing new technologies. our scientists, sailors and strategyists are doing remarkable things to push today's boundaries and develop new ways to maintain our edge. we're forging deeper partnerships in the private sector and reaching more deeply into the worlds of academia and industry to bring the best ideas to the table and do that faster than we are now. similarly, we're forging deeper partnerships with like-minded
naval forces around the world. just about a week ago, we hosted the international sea power symposium in newport, rhode island. a gathering of 85 chiefs of navy, over 100 navies represented with senior leadership. these sorts of efforts matter. the pace of change is accelerating almost everywhere we look, and the margins of victory will be thin. and more than ever before maintaining our edge depends on clear thinking coupled with decisive action that is focused on executing our mission against today's threats and against those in the future. so have no doubt the united states navy is prepared to go wherever it needs to go at any time and stay there for as long as necessary in response to our leadership's call to project america's strategic influence in a wide range of operational scenarios around the globe. so thank you very much. i look forward to the discussion.
[ applause ] >> thank you. >> well, admiral, thanks for those remarks. you already alluded to the fact that you've been on station as cno just about a year and a couple of weeks. and it's worth asking one time, you know, when you took command of different submarines and different boats and different commands, you're always subject to conditions as found. you change your ideas. and is there something that you can point to after this first year that was either a surprise or just something that's changed that has caused you to either reevaluate or modify your design? >> you know, the design was issued sort of as version 1.0, right. and this is sort of -- it's like when you watch the end of a movie and you can sort of see
they're setting up for a sequel here, right. you can see that x-men, the next one is going to come down the road. and we built the design with that type of iteration in mind. so as we look for next steps, i think that, well, one, we're going to say some things i think a little more specifically about acquisition, okay. we need to just focus on that a little bit more clearly in terms of executing a set of authorities. and certainly expectations in terms of the service chief's role in acquisition. also, as i've had a chance to go out and meet with senior industry leaders in our business and maybe just outside our business, we found that there is a great desire on both sides of that relationship to speed things up, to clean out, you know, the bureaucracy, those sorts of steps to get new technologies into the system faster. so i think we're going to be a
little more focused on that with respect to the other lines of effort, the things are sort of built the whole design on the presumption that the pace is quickening. the pace is a consistent theme. and so we anticipated that this pace would be quick. but i would have to say that the developments, even in the past year are probably quicker than we even anticipated. it just highlights that sense of urgency to get going. >> right. well, thanks. you know, there has been at least one study and some literature out there recently that suggests that the u.s. overall that doesn't exactly point just to the navy by any means, but suggests that the u.s. overall is being outplayed in the gray zone, the area between peace and war. and i wanted to ask you, has
that -- has that caused you to take any additional actions? you came on board obviously strong for the nuclear deterrent, the need to regain proficiency at the high end of the war fight, which i think is rightful and just. but now we increasingly find ourselves in this gray zone area as another term where unconventional -- unconventional means may be required earlier as a response. i just wanted to get your ideas on that. >> yeah. that's just a terrific question. and if you think about certainly that the entire spectrum of conflict or competition is really i think what we're talking about. and so just like, you know, much of my opening statement really highlighted some of the classics, you know, the
fundamental nature of conflict and competition, you know, we've got competitors out there who are thinking. they're studying us. and they are looking for everywhere they can to sort of exploit areas in our capabilities, technology, doctrine, what have you, that they can use to you know, advantage at their end of the competition. and this is one area where it's been described and the chairman, the joint chiefs of staff has been terrific in terms of highlighting this new form of competition which at any scale of competition, you know, and conflict is no longer regional. it's very difficult point to any kind of situation right now and say hey, that's purely a regional matter. everything is transregional if not global by virtue of the new war fighting techniques, the new war fighting domains that are
not only on us, but people are becoming more skilled in practicing and competing in those domains than ever before. so it's multidomain. it's transregional, if not global. and that gives rise to all sorts of different plays in the playbook that we need to confront. and so that's what we're doing. we're sort of developing those plays in our playbook that are something -- options for leadership that are short of what we would call classical phase 3 conflict. so that we've got some options for our policymakers and decisions to exercise in that gray zone type of competition. >> it's just one more question. then we'll open it up to the audience. >> i'm sorry, before we go on. >> sure. >> just a big part of that is that this is not a u.s. only thing. and so i think part of the
solution must include regional security architectures and strengthening building capacity and like-minded teams in different parts of the world. and so as we work with our allies and partners enhancing each other's capability, we can help them in some ways. they can help us in many ways. but overall strengthening the regional strength, the security architecture in these regions i think is another big way forward to try and be more resilient to this type of competition. >> thank you. just this last question before we open it up. so you're working on obviously high-end capability acquiring the navy of the future. and yet you still have this relentless drumbeat of deployments and deployment cycle that has to be met, the near-term execution. i dare say that the navy did not
get the luxury of a time-out or a recess or a reset. it had to continue with a heel-to-toe deployments that the navy has been doing for some 40 some years. so could you talk a little bit about that, about the concurrencesy of focusing on the future new capabilities, new plays for the playbook. and at the same time, having to meet the demands of 1500 today and how that's going. >> you just sort of outlined the job description for the chief of naval operation, right? how are you going to balance the need to modernize for the future versus those urgent needs that are pressing us today, readiness, throw the manpower piece in there and you've got it all. and so it is a constant dialogue that we have. part of the solution, again is working with industry in as
collaborative way as possible to make sure that we're not missing any opportunities to bring that modernization to the navy and the joint force as quickly and at the best price as possible. as i said before, i think there is a lot of opportunities. and many of those opportunities are actually being suggested to me by our industry partners in terms of hey, we could go faster and we could get it to you cheaper than the current system allows. so we're exploring those areas. part of it is looking at new operational concepts. how do you improve capability beyond just technologies, right. we're not going to be able to buy our way out of this thing, no matter what approach we take. so as you think of new combinations -- in fact, many of the revolutions in military affairs were not dependent upon a new technology. they were dependent on new combinations of current technologies.
and so we're working particularly closely with the marine corps in this area to make sure our naval war fighting operations and concepts are as creative as we can be, that we're not trapping ourselves with intellectual structures whose time may be past. and so the air force and us are starting to talk about these larger networks. and if you stitch things together, you allow more combinations of our current capabilities. and those combinations can be very agile, very capable, very hard to contend with. so from a mathematical standpoint, everybody talks about moore's law. and that's an exponential curve. but as you start to look at different common things, you start approaching factorial type of curves. and those can be exponential possibilities. i think this operational concept is one that we have to continue
to be exploring. as i said, it's got to go beyond just ideas. you've got to get out there at sea. you've got to connect these things physically, operate them together. and that's exactly what we're doing. >> okay. well, great. and i'd like to take a few questions, if i could. that gentleman right there with the blue tie. >>. >> thank you, admiral, and thank you dcsis as well for bringing us all together. admiral, i wanted to ask since you mentioned the navy changing to a more region-specific playbook, does the navy at this time have any plans for the arctic region? any future thoughts on how naval affairs are going to be changing up there. >> yeah, that's a great question, and one that comes up. so climate change has really focussed a lot of attention on the arctic. the arctic icecap is as small as it's ever been in my time in service, which is probably longer than you've been born.
but the -- so what does that mean? well, from my standpoint, that gives rise to transit lanes that are open more often now than they have been ever. it gives rise to continental shelves and the resource on those shelves that are accessible, right, that were not accessible before. so how do we address that? well, we do so. one that's inform beside i the pace of things that are moving up there. and so while there are a lot of opportunities, in fact, we just discussed this. we held our staff talks with the coast guard just last week. and a big part of those talks, a big topic on those was the arctic. and so it's important that while there are things changing up there, they're changing at a certain pace. and it's not like there is a gold rush up to the north pole right now. and so there is some time to do
this smartly. and then we also have to be mindful that both the navy and the coast guard teams, sort of the two maritime forces that are up there, the marine corps also exercising up there will maintain the ability to operate in the arctic, but we do so on a priority basis. and so if we think of the other threats that we confront, we'll get up there as we can to make sure that we remain capable of operating up there. we remain aware of how things are changing and are ready to respond appropriately. >> i have to ask did the word "icebreaker" come up? >> icebreaker, yes, it did, of course. we're working very closely with the coast guard to work forward that in that. >> okay. this gentleman right here on the aisle. >> sir, in your design, you have
talked about achieving high velocity learning at every level. nine months into that, i'm wondering, how do you think the state of that is going for every level? and do you have mile markers of success to know the navy is on a trajectory that you want to it have? >> yeah, of all of the lines of effort in the design for maintaining maritime superiority, that green line of effort that talks about high velocity learning is probably the newest thing, the strangest thing, and the least understood thing to be honest. and so as with so many other of the lines of effort in the design, we have taken this year to sort of talk a lot about it, right. i mean, it's sort of like putting commander's guidance out when you put a document out like the design. and while there was a tremendous amount of thinking and tremendous amount of collaboration to bring it together an issue it, there was
a great ownership. certainly no surprises as we signed it out, as the navy's design for maintaining maritime superiority, now it hits the fleet at large, if you will. and you read it. and the words are as clear as they can be. but there are still a lot of questions in people's minds. just like you would do with any other example of commander's guidance, you start to talk to people and they start asking well, what does this mean in this situation? how does this go? what are your expectation here is? so we've been doing that in all the lanes of effort. but because this one is the newest, and people are most curious about it, that conversation -- to gain everybody's real deep understanding has been going on. but probably the most rich conversation in terms of actually forging the way forward. and so i would say that overall, i'd have to give us maybe a c in that area.
one, the navy, no doubt about it is committed to getting after this. and so there is that. just like with all of the other lines of effort, they don't exist as independent variables there is a lot of overlap. an influence of one on the other. the green line of effort, this learning one permeates into every. but probably most into the goal line of effort in particular leader development, and how do we train leaders to go out and instill this fast learning. and then learning at sort of the division work center level is a lot different than learning at the fleet level. and so how about that? so we're exploring all those questions. but the enthusiasm is tremendous out there. people are really attaching themselves to it. i've got -- i've got this effort to reduce administrative distractions out there. in this area