tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 20, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
interest from the audience, from ahead,e, looking thinking about where we can expect to see movement in the next four years. i know we have touched on that, but related, in whatsoever civil rights issues have we seen the most progress in recent years, and also the least progress? >> it goes to the body cameras. president obama said, for the first time, everyone in the world is seeing that these communities are not making this up. communities of color have known for a long time about the fact that they were more likely to be arrested, stopped, searched, to face use of force, to face excessive force. the body cameras have shown the entire world that what all of these communities have been saying is, in fact, true.
i think we have made enormous progress sibley by bringing people together to say what happen to some of these people should never happen to a fellow human being. where i do not feel we have made enough progress is on improving the national data. i think we have taken some good, solid steps there, but until a newark police chief and a camden police chief and compare what they are doing to an oakland police chief, los angeles police chief, until we have good, solid audited, national data on crime, we are just going to continue to struggle to answer the question of why people are committing these crimes and how we can enhance public safety. that should be urgently done, mandated around the country, that everybody report good numbers, and we do so in a timely fashion. not looking at numbers 11 months after it has happened. data.gree with regards to
i think i would probably put the question back on people in the audience, people watching, about what the next four years looks like. nots up to us to help frame only the question but also the response. when you look at the last eight years, you have an administration, in my opinion, who was very responsive to not only the current challenges that also looking ahead to 20% three policing. there is a good roadmap for a new administration to platform off of. but i think it will be guided by the people, people saying what they need and want. on one hand, to answer the question, if you look at the work of the last eight years, you can still demand there is accountability. officers are receiving training. in 21st century policing are not exclusive rights of one administration. these were developed by the field, best practices that we should all embrace.
policing agencies have to do that. the national data, it has to be there. i like the way roy put it with the comparison here and have to have that comparison if we are going to embrace a profession that has the most significant power in our society, the power to detain without judicial oversight, the power to take life. there is a lot of power that goes with that. we have to always accept and never be shy to be sure -- and i carried that for 30 years -- that they are held to the highest standards of the profession and community. there is nothing wrong with that, and data helps us do that. the last couple of years have mentioned, aroy concern floating around the country. some people will say that this police,relations and the worse they had been in 30 years. for those of us of color know that this is not even close to being true. the president took a band-aid
off of a wound that has been festering for decades. now that we see it, it is time to heal. to only way to do that is acknowledgment it is not all about the individual officers. is heard today perfectly, it about the systems, a policing system. even a good officer can have a bad outcome. it is making sure that prosecutions are not inconsistent. the question may be that we have to disrupt the system, reform it , so that good cops have good outcomes, good communities can and with those officers, when people whiling the law, they will be held accountable, whether they have a badge or not. until we get to the data where we can start comparing and look at it, it will not happen. , for me, itst say is pretty extraordinary to see
the trajectory of criminal justice reform in the national conversation. i have been working on these issues for summer between 15 and 20 years. there was a time when those of us working in criminal justice a littleve to squeeze panel on an agenda that would focus on the criminal justice system because everyone else was looking at these civil rights issues. thing that i sometimes have to pinch myself to remember is, we are witnessing the change trajectory and momentum on his issues that for many of us were so front and center, but we could not get people to care about, who was in the criminal justice system, what was happening in the criminal justice system. that is a result of the pushing and sometimes lonely pushing that has been done by many of you in this room. i'm proud to be part of an administration who made this a top issue, got to be part of a justice department that was unrelenting in the use of our tools and tactics and resources
to push that envelope, recognizing the moment that we have. i don't know what will happen in the future, but i know that we are all going to continue to push, to be a will to redefine public safety in a way that is respectful of people's rights, that is fair, that does not result in the racial inequities we have seen plaguing our criminal justice system for far too long. we will encounter roadblocks. i don't know if we will go to steps forward, one step back, what that will look like, but there is so much happening on the state and local level. there is also such a generation of community and activism to push even on the federal and national level, and the onus will be on us to keep these issues front and center for the country so that we cannot go back. over time.we are sorry about that. your serious and thoughtful discussion today and for the work you have done. look forward to working together
missed any of this discussion on criminal justice, you can find it archived online at c-span.org. later from the brookings institution, a conversation on economic growth and inequality. that will be at 5:00 eastern here on c-span. at 8:00,eek, tonight jerry greenfield, cofounder of ben & jerry's ice cream, talks about creative and responsible business practices. that we could not sell enough ice cream in the summer in vermont to stay in business, that forced us to look for other markets. wednesday night, former vice president dick cheney and leon panetta, on the future of the defense department under donald trump. great challenges are very and i think we have,
unfortunately, over the course of the last many years, done serious damage to our capabilities, to be able to meet those threats. >> there are a lot of flashpoints. a new administration will have to look at that kind of world e policy.usly, defined po then develop the defense policy to confront that kind of world. >> thursday, a look at the life and career of mike pence. >> we have stood without apology for the sanctity of life, the importance of marriage, and the freedom of religion. friday night beginning at 8:00, farewell speeches and two piece to ongoing senators including harry reid, barbara boxer, kelly ayotte, and dan coats. this weekend in prime time on c-span.
♪ >> the presidential inauguration of donald trump is friday, january 20. c-span will have live coverage of all the days events and ceremonies. watch live on c-span and c-span.org and listen live on freere-c-span radio abp -- c-span radio app. recently joined the army chiefs of staff, commander of the u.s. pacific command and to defense contractors to talk about the future of u.s. deterrence strategies with most of the focus on china and russia. this was part of the reagan national defense form at the reagan library in simi valley, california. it runs one hour 10 minutes.
>> welcome, everyone. it is a really amazing privilege .o be here i think the reagan national defense form for the invitation. we have extremely important questions to address today, and to get to the first, which i will limit to admiral harris and general millie, it is who will win the army navy game next week? >> i think the navy will win. >> this is my 15th time on a -- actually the 15th army navy game that we have won -- >> > i tried to be diplomatic. navy did not cover ourselves in glory today against toledo. if you have any toledo fans, good on you. temple.
temple fans. >> we are playing the first annual army navy hockey game as the same week as the hockey game -- football game following the caps off previous week. be coaching the army team. we will see you prevent is in that game as a prelude. fighting will be authorized. harter's callsign as an aviator is slap shot. >> yes it is. we will see. >> now that we have gotten these major affairs of state taking care of, it is a privilege to be here at the forum and with an amazingly distinguished panel. the personalities here are well known, but to start briefly, work, theght, bob deputy secretary of defense,
after a long career in the u.s. a leadingps, and thinker, of course, on the future of competition, the third offset. admiral harris is the commander of u.s. forces in the pacific. general mark milley is the chief of staff of the u.s. army. mark chinese, ceo of l3 communications. joey tomorrow, ceo of the i.d. ae systems.b we have been asked to speak challengesurrent facing the u.s. in a way, it echoes the third offset. i suggest we are now in a third modern era of deterrence. if we say the first was the 1930's, which did not go well at all in determining aggressive, dangerous adventure -- behavior by nationstates.
the second would have been the cold war, which is generally seen as a success of nuclear deterrence, although there were some exceptions around the korean war, and the like. then we had the post 9/11 moment where it was question whether classical principles of deterrence even applied dealing with non-nation state actors, suicide terrorism. where itgs us to today seems we have returned to a classicalr of deterrence considerations, of course, defenses in the environment and give abilities that distinguish our error from the past, whether the nuclear otherwise,er, a and but it is helpful -- i find it helpful to look at the historical context and to see the ways in which there are key differences. the key difference with the cold
war, where that was a deterrence environment that looked overwhelmingly at one adversary in the soviet union, today, the united states looks at a diversity of deterrence challenges. we are speaking today chiefly about china and russia but there is also a rand, north korea -- -iran, north korea. requiresthat diversity also a diversity of the turns approaches. one deterrence approach is unlikely to fit all. one way i look forward to discussing together in which the current environment is especially challenging, it seems , is that china and russia are, of course, different countries with different governments, different institutions, different histories, different things that motivate them, different vulnerabilities. it would seem that requires the
united states to tailor its deterrence approaches, and with a particular focus on the different individuals who lead these systems, the split systems. to speak about capabilities alone talking about determinants would run the risk of missing the personal and psychological aspects are just as different individuals are motivated differently in affairs of the they are also motivated differently in perceptions of risk, national interest. it seems with kim jong un, shooting pain, vladimir putin, in the case of china and russia jinping, vladimir putin, in the case of china and russia, it's important to take individual personalities into account. it's not just business, it's
personal. i'm looking forward to speaking with all of us about the capabilities of the terrence and the personal ones, the industrial ones, and others. we have an absolutely first-rate panel. it really is a privilege. so i will open it up to all of us with the basic question of what is most important to understand, and not to misunderstand, about getting , given theseght rising powers in russia and china in particular? first of all, you heard a chairman say, you heard secretary carter say, essentially we have to address before you are state powers -- four state powers and one nonstate problem. powers, china and russia are rising importance of the department of defense, focusing its attention on.
john defines a great power, a large state that could take on the dominant state in the world, the united states, conventionally, and have a survivable new year deterrence. a very simple definition for a great power from the department of defense's perspective, because it focuses on capabilities. whether or not you agree that china or russia is a great power, by any definition, they are really going to cause the united states to expend a lot more strategic capital than it has the last 25 years. both are very large nuclear powers. both are starting to really challenge us conventionally, as the chairman said, today, our competitive advantage is intact, but the trend lines are not all that encouraging. we want to take care of that. both, to a greater and lesser degree, disagree with a liberal
order that united states has been working with since world war ii. the russians believe they have been humiliated since the end of the cold war, and china still smart from the century of human lesion that drives so much of their thinking. both of their un security council members, even without militarily, and both are especially prickly there and abroad. militarily, and bothwhen i think about competitn -- deterrence, i think of it in terms of, look, the west for some reason think the term competition is an inherently negative term, which would lead inevitably to conflict. the russians and chinese believe competition is just a natural state of affairs. so within that competition, three things we have to have. we have to have strategic deterrence. we have to make sure we have that right against both of those two large nuclear powers. conventional deterrence.
we have to make sure we have a competitive advantage on the content as conventional side so that the likelihood of a conventional attack or conventional war with these two powers would be minimized. then a third thing is we have to minimize the strategic competition on a day-to-day basis. i would argue, if you think about strategic deterrence at the top, confessional the terrance in the middle, managing strategic competition at the bottom, the link between the two is crisis management and between the top two, escalation control. not a unified field very. it only focuses on conventional deterrence within this framework of comprehensive strategic stability. i look forward to the questions allhat but we have to get three of these things right, managing the strategic competition, conventional deterrence, and strategic deterrence. >> here we are in the reagan library, and president reagan bed one time that we cannot
innocents abroad, because there is no innocents abroad, or something like that. that kind of lends itself to how i look at deterrence. i read all the deterrence theories, thomas schilling, all of these guys, it is pretty complicated stuff, more complicated than obvious to articulating, because i'm from the south, if you cannot tell already. i kind of boiling down to my own idea of deterrence. to me, deterrence is an equation, capability times resolve times signaling. that becomes deterrence. if any of those things on the right-hand side, capability, resolve, or signaling, r zero, then you have no deterrent. you could have the greatest military in the world, which we do. you could have the greatest resolve to use that if threatened, which we do.
but if you don't have the signaling, or if you signal incorrectly, then you have no deterrence. that is my sort of idea of deterrence. deterrence is in the eye of the beholder. deterrence is about the person you are trying to deter, and how that person or country or entity views your capability, resolve, and signaling. eyes ofance is in the the beholder. the last thing i will say about the terrance from my perspective military, the capability part of that equation, the military is only a part of the equation. the terrance is a whole government thing. and that is kind of where i fallout on deterrence. as the secretary said, we are talking about china, russia,
work powers and how we inside the international system with them. i look at all of that carefully, from my vantage point in the .acific, through a dark lens everything we do is aimed at giving the national command authority the ability to manage that in a complex way. millie.al harry is saying, we are here in the regular hisary, and i would requote peace through strength. if you want to deter opponents, you have to first have the capability, that first party did equation harry is talking about. you need the capacity and the
size and also the skills and the readiness, and you need the right type of capabilities. then you have to demonstrate that will. the adversary has to know that you have the will to use it. but the baseline of the whole thing is you have to be strong to begin with. i think, frankly, our capabilities, u.s. military capabilities, are exceptionally strong, but they have atrophied over the last 15 years when it comes to the two adversaries that secretary work was talking about, russia and china. significant state powers. that is true in the army, air force as well. i will not speak for the navy except to say that it is true for the navy and marine corps, too. [laughter] on a single focused typology of war. counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. we have optimizes our forces to do that. we have sub optimized other parts of our core structure. those capability gaps that have
emerged, we still have a competitive advantage in the aggregate, but there are cap that are clear and dangerous, and they are closing fast. and there is also proximity issues. with the case of russia, they have the ability to operate faster with interior lines. china is a different situation as well. while it isine is, true the united states military is strong and is very good, very capable, you will not hear anything different from me, let's be careful about beating our chest on that stuff. the world is a very serious place. there are some dangerous actors out there. those actors need to be deterred . there are currently, in my view, in the long scheme of things, there are significant threats to the international order that has been getting enforcing the bretton woods. we as a nation needs to come to grips do that, and we need to continue that international
border or not, because it is under challenge by those in russia, china, north korea, iran, and terrorists. we will have to come to grips with that. that means maintaining capabilities in order to ensure our allies and to deter our adversaries. in my mind, a difficult science project. it is done through strength, which is a combination of size and capability. we have some work to do on that. the current leadership of the department of defense has acknowledged that. i think the future leadership will do the same. i think part of that story is , in restoring the conventional deterrence, restoring the technological capability that seems to have eroded or atrophied over the last decade or so. that is industry job and .artnership with our customers
in our system, nothing is made in the pentagon. it comes from private industry. yet, our adversaries are generally running state owned companies, where there is a lot more speed and capability -- bucks ability doing what they need to do. we, on the other hand, are dealing with stakeholders, , ather it is shareholders host of others, in a highly regulated environment. it is just how we work. part of restorative technology is going to involve the will to adequately fund the budgets. we have gone through a terrible situation known as sequestration , thathe past 7, 8 years has done a lot of damage not only to the industry we operate, but also to the perception of the u.s. willingness, seriousness about maintaining .ts technological advantage it was always the objective to own the night. now we seem to be sharing the
night because others have caught up with us. we need to get all of those advantages back. we in industry are very committed to that. just how bad were the last seven or eight years? lost industry, we probably one point 7 million employees just because of all of the downsizing. not only do we need to attract that workforce back, so we are able to surge, if we needed to again, but we need to get young people attracted into the s.t.e. m. program so we can get the best and brightest into these industries. one of the way we have been dealing with it is partnering with some smart companies here on the west coast, bringing some of those commercial practices into the aerospace and defense industry, to help us get innovation and technology inrted into our oducts faster to help close this cap. that is part of how we are
looking at the problem. said,ending on what mike industry's role is really to beat arsenal for the military, whatever that vision is in the national security strategy, whatever the military needs, essentially, relies on a free market that we have in the united states on the aerospace industry to be healthy, our customer needs to be healthy and mike talked about the certainty of budget and that has been problematic. i think we have heard that throughout this session and all of us spend some time on the hill see some bipartisan recognition that at a minimum, there needs to be greater stability, if not increases in the budget so we can get at these readiness issues and the mid-and long-term equalizing of the threat where perhaps we have
lost some ground. first and foremost, i would say for industry to be able to help our customer and help the it needsf deterrence, to be robust. get rid of the caps so priorities can be established. then establish the kind of initiatives mike has talked about where we have streamlined. statistics show the top five or six aerospace and defense contractors since 2008 have reduced 15% of the workforce. if you carry that through the second and third tier, you get to mike's numbers. we send a man to the moon and have the most advanced weapons in the world. i'm confidence our customer can get stability and robust funding, they can set priorities that collectively in a partnership, we can achieve what they want to do. this morning, we heard from
several panels about reform or rebuild. it is both. was discussed by two members this morning. that wehas to recognize have to focus on dod and we have to streamline and get rid of these regulations or reduce people. dod operates in an echoes system that starts with congress and they operate in a political and legal framework in an ecosystem. congress has to understand there with itscations discrete and granular management of the process and reporting on the process. it has consequences. similarly, we would offer dod, an opportunity there to look at the industry at its model and we all here how many signatures it takes to get through a j rock
process. whether it is to two or 28, with the quality of that decision be any better if it had 52 incidents 26? i don't have the answer, but that regulatory regime affects quality of decisions and we have got very transactional in our business looking contract by contract, regulation by regulation. the most recent rule without understanding the implications of that for industry which operates in competitive capital markets as mike alluded to. sometimes, we see actions that have the reverse effect. incidents supporting the innovation for the third offset and providing the capital to do that, we need to carefully consider that ecosystem.
resources will have and we have demonstrated the agility as a team to work on these difficult problems. lastly, i think it would behoove in of us and assist industry helping the department meet its goals if we could look at the or the export regulation regime. it is obvious, the interoperability gains in the solidification that comes in our alliance when we share the equipment and it strengthens the coalition, which we can bring those economies of scale back and assist in the investment of new technologies, price reductions, more effectively supporting our customer. >> admiral harris, i would like to circle back on the definition of deterrence that you offered.
you put it forward as intent timestimes signaling. i have heard others put it similarly, but with the distinction capability times intent of times belief. it's the belief of the other guy and our willingness to act. that gets to the point that you made about the terms of being in the eye of the boulder. i wonder if you can contact -- can talk about whether that's an important decision about the way the united states act and how the adversary and potential adversary calculates risk? aboutif we could speak how that belief part of the equation looks in china and russia today and how the belief of china, russia and the u.s. deterrence compares today to a few years passed. >> i think we are talking about the same thing in the sense that deterred isf the
affected by the signaling of the deterring power and the resolve and capability. , if you will,ower is going to look at all of that. power's belief determines whether you determine the deterred power's actions in the spectrum of conflict. we have been successful as a nation in determining great powers using the secretary's definition of a great power in terms of russia's actions on the global stage and china's actions on the global stage. i would say we have to keep at it and continue signaling part of that in order to affect their
belief and continue to deter in the great spaces, if you will. >> just consider this for a minute. we are on the 75th anniversary year of the japanese attack of pearl harbor. before the japanese launched that attack, they knew the capability of the united states and they knew they would lose a war. they knew that. they consciously made a strategic decision to attack when they knew they would lose a war. backknew we would fight and a new our will was there, but they believed it. history has several cases where countries understood the opponents capability, understood the guy had the will, and they believe it and they still attacked. there are some other things to
consider, like myths of short the japanese thought they would knock our fleet out and the war would be over and we would negotiate a peace. they thought it would be over in six weeks. we are also subject to that and thought things would be pretty sure in iraq and so on and so forth. it is not an exact science, the whole idea of deterrence. and itmatter of judgment is something that is different in every single case. there is no uniform, cookie-cutter stuff. deter is tog to maintain very strong and capable military forces. until such time as a universal government, maybe someday 200 or 300 years from now, the world by
definition is in arctic because there's no over no -- no overarching force that can overrun the rules. strong, to maintain large, capable forces to terror. andou used the word intent harry used the word resolve. it's the capabilities you bring to the table plus the signaling of what you can and cannot tolerate and the resolve you show. our is different in strategic competition with china and russia is our national strategy values allies. the president has said, every president since world war ii, article five commitments are ironclad. there may be other areas where we may decide what we do, but in terms of article five
inc. anyone i don't in russia or china doubts our resolve to nato and our allies in the western pacific and i think that's a very big help or deterrence against these great powers. you for the correction on resolve and intent. i did not mean to put words into the admirals equation. if i could ask more on how china at the u.s. ins a deterrence ballasts -- deterrence balance and a capability resolve, how do you on ourtheir views .tanding compared to years past we had the crimea episode, ukraine generally is not risk to
-- we have seen thatmoves and a presence is growing and growing. how do you understand the chinese and russian view compared to let's say 10 years ago? the know for certain that chinese conception of turns on demonstrated capabilities and the chinese and russians are trying to complicate -- trying to copy and duplicate our version of deterrence. i'm confident both russia and china believe the united states, as the chairman has stated has a competitive advantage today. at they be looking trendlines and we are looking at the trendlines and we are trying to make judgments on how to ensure american overmatch
remains, but today, i believe they do believe in our resolve for article five and commitments to our allies and i believe they believe we have an advantage. the irony is that's forcing them to put a lot of money into capabilities, so the trendlines are what concern the department of defense. how do we keep track and make sure the trendlines still have us thinking we had a competitive advantage? if we could step back and look in a strategic sense about would we russia, what say their goals are? i think you mentioned this in your opening remarks -- two what extent are they impatient powers or patient powers?
how do their economic and political circumstances shape their strategic thinking? what should that mean for u.s. deterrence strategy? >> i would defer to harry. he's been thinking about this for a long time in the china strategic initiative started in 2008, we are really trying to understand them. although the chief worries about providing forces in the pacific and europe, he has been thinking a lot about the european problem. i would ask them first to see them from a military perspective and ask what their judgment is. and have spoken about china we typically attribute patients to china but i have spoken about how china has become a nation in a hurry and how the president
has become a man in a hurry where they try to ramp up their military development and all of that. there island reclamation, there aggressive actions and assertive actions in east asia in a hurry, i have testified before congress that i believe china seeks hegemony in east asia and their view is to push the united states out. that's where those military capabilities that we have come into play and where the government view on deterrence comes into play. statesink the united enjoy certain asymmetric advantages over every country on earth that would challenge us. advantagesmetric include anti-submarine warfare, jet propulsion, our culture of innovation and our ideals.
those hardware aspects of those asymmetric advantages are at risk if we don't continue to invest in them and resource them. overcome thatg to asymmetric advantage cap we enjoy quickly and they do that through cyber theft and everything else because they are not constrained by law, regulation and policy as we rightfully are. we have to be sensitive and be post of the threat that is by a closing of the gap. the chairman talked about we don't want to go into a fair fight with our enemies or adversaries. i have said before i want to go to a knife fight with a knife -- a knife fight with a gun and a gunfight with a piece of artillery.
>> why is china in a hurry? asked china why they are a nation in a hurry. seem to have put aside any sense of strategic patients. there is a saying that war is a cause of fear, honor and interest. there are other interests, but those get to the heart of the matter. in both china and russia's case, i think fear plays a big part. have ina's case, they living memory -- are people who surround dinner tables or the leaders of the sons and daughters that have living memory of a nazi invasion and that was brutal. parents fought in
world war ii. my dad hit the beach at iwo jima. at the united states has not suffered anything like eastern europe and russia did. that is living memory. putin is the son of survivors of leningrad. just a butte -- brutal 900 plus day siege. people need to remember that, that what russia went through. that's the first time in terms of big invasions. you have the mongols who occupied for three centuries doing everything you see isis doing today. of external invasion is a palpable narrative in russian internal politics. it is not fake. they view nato, rightly or wrongly. they think nato is an existential threat.
fear is driving some of their behavior and their political leadership believes it themselves and exploits that for political gain. they want to defend the russian people. they want to defend mother russia. is part and parcel. the idea of defending against an external fear is very real in their mind. there is also pride. russia was a great power starting with peter the great all the way up until the fall of the romanov dynasty and the russian revolution. and a greatat power empire and you have the russian revolution and then it becomes a power in its own right eye making the greatest contribution
to defeating not the journey and and becomes germany a superpower drink cold war. all that came shattering down between 89 and 90. putin himself called at the greatest catastrophe of the last century. it was something that ripped apart at the self-esteem and pride of a country that was fed propaganda about how big and tall they were. they want to regain russian nationalist pride in themselves and there's a lot of interest involved, not the least amount of money and so forth. those three factors are significant to the russians and that is translated into behavior. along comes a guy who gets in a horse, takes his shirt off, says i will lead you to restore your pride and defend you. i will take care of your fear. trust me and i will be the strongman. it has been done thousands of
times in history and it is entirely believable. so, they rally around the flag and modernize, reform and rebuild their military while we are involved in a campaign in iraq and afghanistan. then, their behavior follow suit ,ith attacks on georgia, crimea threatening and intimidating against the baltic states. you see what they have done in syria. they want to be on the same laying field. that kind of deter further behavior, further aggression, that will require significant strength. china is slightly different but essentially the same in my mind. they published it, by the way. there's no great super secret. they called it the china dream. by 2049, they want the united states out of east asia and want to be the regional hegemon. they would prefer to do it
peacefully. they want the united states to peacefully retrench and withdraw and let the chinese be the dominant power in asia as they have been for five millennia. between the opie moors of any 1840's and the chinese communist revolution, they want to restore what they think is their rightful place in the world. they are on a roll since 1979 in their economy following economic shifts in power like that. the modernization of the chinese military is incredible and incredibly fast. they want to do it peacefully, but they are preparing to do it violently if they need to. want to deter, there's a lot of diplomatic action but the baseline of deterrence is a
strong, capable military, peace through strength. >> the only thing i would like to add is what the chairman said at lunch, i hope they understand what he is saying. i hope they have deterred russia and china conventionally. competition below the action and russians are expert at this. both the russians and chinese are investing a lot of effort trying to break our alliances because both in europe and in asia. adversarial competition below the threshold of action goes back to what harry was saying. really have a strong strategy deter to approach and both of these powers.
>> i would be interested to have you expand on your remarks about the differences or similarities between the american defense industry and its relationship to innovation and government and the russian and chinese cases. how do they compare and how are they organized in how they look to create capable platforms? >> i think our advantage is the great people we have that work within our industry in terms of their technical capability. there is a lot less of an impediment to achieve -- to achieve the objective if it is state run. gps dividecreate a environment and we wanted in six months and you will do everything you need to do to make it happen. if we have to get to companies are five companies working on
it, that's what they are able to do some a control the ways and means and production to achieve their objectives. whereas in our systems, many of them are publicly owned companies and we have shareholders to answer to. when things don't go well, you have shareholders and activists to answer to and it becomes a dicey environment. we are all very aware of our environment and it's not the end of the world, but i think they can get things done a little quicker when they need to. how do we going to be develop technologies, weapon systems and the like that can operate the gps divide environment. force projection was the carrier group and the chinese have developed missiles now that negate the carrier
groups. they can keep them so off sure that the effectiveness has been somewhat impacted. >> i would challenge that. >> i'm just repeating what i read in defense news. the point is there have been challenges made over the last eight years to places where the u.s. has perceived a technological advantage, whether it is going after her stealth and better developed radars, longer-range missiles and the like. we need to respond in kind and work with our customers to develop systems that will offset those capabilities being developed. we had a panel earlier today on cyber. it has become a terrible problem. it keeps happening over and over again and seems there is no solution at hand right now but
it is something that will have to be dealt with and we as an industry cannot drop everything and everybody focus on one problem because we have multiple customers and other obligations to deal with. the model does not necessarily work as fast as theirs does at times. i would offer to expand on mike's point, we are looking at eight, 9, 10 year time frame where we have had to adversaries who have been very focused on what they are trying to address -- what the threat is, what they want to accomplish technically, etc.. , the admiral in general have said we have been immersed in other activities, not the least of which is a huge downturn in the economy that has caused other restraints on the system and i have every confidence that as has happened before in our industry, most of
the great discoveries are here and the fundamental reason is the free-market enterprise system that we have drives innovation and incentives. we need to focus on those things that will allow us to establish priorities and a reasonable planning horizon to stay with them and the regulatory regime that facilitates rather than restrict that innovation and, just as we do in the pharmaceutical industry through financial instruments that are created to a credit default swaps and those sorts of things, that kind of free-market approach, when you provide the right environment and reinforcement is tremendously powerful and will be again. let's institutionalize in the budget and in the process so we can drive to whatever priorities come out of a long-term budget,
whatever those critical things moon,e put a man on the there are many things that could be unleashed. we need to set the fundamentals in place and let this model work. up toore we open questions, i would like all of us to weigh in on the aspects of predictability and unpredictability in deterrence. asia-pacificat the and in europe, we see article five covers the nato countries, secaucus as and the president obama clarified. not clarified the philippine holdings in the south china seas are necessarily covered by that. is no treaty, of course.
is well-known that mulled over and other countries are outside of any article five. affect thee issues deterrence calculus and what is the role of verdict ability and unpredictability for good or for deterrenceblishing against powers? you can leave aside surprise phone calls to taiwan if you like, which was an unpredictable move. >> i will leave behind the call. really like harry's three words. it really has to do with signaling and resolved in a way russia and china believe in our
resolve and ambiguity is very helpful in some places, not helpful in others. it goes to managing strategic competition, knowing the competitor you are trying to deter and understand the signals and how you demonstrate resolve. within the context of the third we will reveal capabilities for deterrence. we want chinese military planning -- planner's wondering what kind of military keep abilities the u.s. could bring to bear if, god for bid, we got into a military confrontation. ambiguity is useful in some cases but it is not universal. sometimes clarity is very, very needed, but it is certainly
something we want in our arsenal of deterrence. >> a related deterrence question about the differences between deterrence and provocation. you want to touch on freedom of navigation controls in the south china sea. >> sure. of particular the and unpredictability, there are predictableo being in certain circumstances and unpredictable in others. states only has five bilateral defense treaties and they are all in the asia-pacific region. the others are nato and real pack.
they should not worry about america's commitment under those treaties and those are treaties and thean, korea philippines. they should not be concerned about our resolve in meeting our treaty obligations. i think the president clearly signaled for example where we stand as a nation with regard to our treaty with japan over the issue of secaucus and the fact that they fall under the provision of the treaty with japan. that was clear signaling to china. with regard to freedom of navigation operations and the like and the issue of deterrence freedom oftion, navigation operations are not
designed to deter anybody from doing anything. freedom of navigation operations are designed to do just that -- they are designed to exercise a nation's freedom of navigation in international water or over it. so if you don't exercise the freedom of navigation, then, under international law, you might lose that freedom of navigation over whatever issue it is. the secretary of defense has been very clear that the united states will fly, sale and operate wherever international law allows and that means we that and it is the purpose of freedom of navigation. it is simply to exercise our right to operate wherever. agree. sometimes ambiguity is good.
,ometimes being clear is good but at the strategic level, i think clarity is more helpful than lack of clarity. i think the question that needs to be asked and answered right now is what is america possible role in the world. general dunford was asked at lunch if you had a magic wand, what would you ask for? he said i would like consensus as to our role in the world. why is that so important? because the answer to that ofstion derives all kinds things like the sizes of your forces and capabilities and so on. critical question and has been answered for seven decades. in a hotel ind new hampshire in bretton woods when we just suffered 100 million dead between 1914 and 1945 in the first and second world wars. the united states said that is not happening again.
the diplomats at that new hampshire hotel and everyone hung out for a couple of weeks and they all wrote paragraphs and chapters to essentially the rules of the world. going post world war ii to be run? we just did it twice. america wrote those rules. all the other diplomats signed up to them, but america wrote them. were the rules of the western world of until 1989 and then they expanded to the rest of the world. some people don't like those rules were that international order and they want to revise it. they are out there right now today. so the question we have to ask as it relates to deterrence is do we like those rules? are we comfortable with them and do we want to keep them? if the answer is yes, that is an
expensive proposition and we have to have the capabilities and forces to enforce those rules and you have to have the will, posture, the presence, the capacity, all of it if you like those rules. if you don't like those rules and you are ok with someone else writing the rules, that is ok. it not asked and answered by the military. it is asked and answered by presidents, congress and the people of america. it needs to be asked and answered because from that commie figure out what you are willing to fight for and we have made this mistake before. the end of world war i, britain was the enforcer of the rules. got in the 20's and 30's and ended up in world war ii and then we got it again post world war ii when dean acheson comes out and says south korea is not important.
then grandfather calls up stalin and said green light, go and you got the korean war and truman jumps in. it started again when saddam was told to wait is not important. so signaling and being consistent at the strategic level matters and knowing what you are able to fight for, knowing what you stand for what your role in the world is is fundamental to deterrence and to our military. i personally think we need to ask and answer it and clarify it. normally, that happens every four years in american politics. one wayen answering it for several decades that i think it will be answered and we will be in good shape once it is answered. >> what opera pretty debility and unpredictability in procurement, budget and r&d? what about the surprises we have seen with difficulties with major platforms coming online?
how does that affect deterrence? the predictability of pledges is essential to execute what we need to do in an effective and efficient manner. it allows us to hire and retain the people we need and it will show future workforces that is stable industries come to work, it's not one that will experience layoffs every few years because of contracting depending on who is in office at the time. itself,that in and of the will to fund it is a deterrent. it makes it more predictable and efficient and in terms of the system's proprietary data, companies have addressed that but in many different ways,
it did reside in a safe somewhere and for now, that's what it will have to be. the crown jewels will not be exposed on a vulnerable network as far as i can see. i think that's how most companies are dealing with right now. aboutarly, as we talked predictability through the budget provides stability in the industrial base. if you don't have it, it undermines the industrial base and undermines the will to invest. can dore four things we with earnings -- we can invest can givel,, we dividends or buy back stock. i would argue it's the lack of stability that is a function of that.
it's not the determining factor. industry have come to appreciate our obligation in the cyber building. and we areut space part of that battle and part of the defense infrastructure and we are working hard and clever tivoli with intelligence agencies and the defense to do everything possible to protect those assets. >> let's open it up. we have microphones. we have one here and if the questioner can identify and make sure their comments have a question at the end. >> how concerned are you about china's self manufactured naval base in the spratly islands?
what, if anything, can we do about it and have a effectively deterred the west through their strong resolve and signaling? >> thanks for the question. will answer it quickly to give the opportunities for other questions. i think a lot about the islands. i think they held seven new bases. i don't think of them as islands. i think of them as bases. three of them have runways of about 10,000 feet in length. i have two as a military commander think about those bases. i do not think they have deterred us at all. us sevenhey have given additional targets, if you know what i mean. but as i have said in opportunities in the past, a continuing buildout of chinese
capabilities in the south china sea will give them the ability to control the south china sea and $5 trillion worth of trade that travels through the south and it will give them the means of controlling the south china sea against any scenario short of war against the united states, which no one wants, including us. we have to continue to work with china on that and our friends, allies and partners to assure them and we continue to build buildal combat power and a network of like-minded friends, allies and partners to ensure that we can operate internationally. >> let's keep the questions brief. i thought i would ask about the military officials on the panel. have you seen any tangible
benefits from this initiative? to the members of industry, how do you view this? having an unfair advantage with this fast-track acquisition tool? >> i was out there a few weeks ago to check on exactly what you asked. early init is a bit terms of tangible benefits. this is not the kind of stuff these wrinkle magic dust on and get magic solutions. good idea.s a very i think there are some tweaks to it. ideank it's a very good and should be sustained in this initiative because we need to accentuate and accelerate products for the military. the da a little space, give them some running
room before we start parading them out. sparkshing that innovation and brings news thought to the problems that we are trying to solve we would welcome. the aerospace and defense industry does not create a lot of the technology. it integrates and applies that technology, whether it is integration or whatever it is. butink it is early days stimulating more people to come into the industry can't be anything but good. >> both of the four stars might have a thought on this. of energyut a lot into this offset strategy and i remember you telling me about a
year ago that your hope was to set up options for the next administration to choose from. at this stage, how comfortable are you that there has been time to set up good options and hands them over to the next administration across what is going to be probably a more turbulent transition and most? >> we need to run a two minute drill here. if we can get the other questions, we will answer them as quickly as we can. is primarily for admiral harris. how realistic do you deem an asian equivalent of nato? could the united states reassert itself to leverage the regional politics? here with the alexander
hamilton society. seems to be a growing concern and skepticism on an activist foreign policy and ,ooking at that resistance especially russia and to an extent, iran seems to be exploiting that. would you say this is a fair assessment and how should it be resolved? >> the third offset, this is all about trying to maintain our conventional advantage and whatever you call it, that is what it is all about. have right now as many, many demonstrations laid into the budget. we are talking about a $3 trillion program.
it is a $3 trillion program and we have about $20 trillion late in right now for a lot of different menstruation see incoming administration can elect to either pursue were not. it goes back to what the general said -- there are an awful lot of things going on right now and we are seating a lot of innovative approaches. the ttp andover asian equivalent in nato, but i don't inc. the data shows the american people are resistant to an activist policy. we have to have the debate of american roles in the world and the american people will take part in that debate and tell us. mixed onnk that is
whether there is any indication. who do we want to deter, how do we want to deter them, who do we want as allies and who will we protect? all of those questions will be answered. i know we are running over time, but let me say as far as deterrence goes, this is what the russian and chinese military planners worry about most -- the american soldier, sailor come and men, marine and coast guard. military, nother in the history of our planet that is as innovative as these people. if i was a chinese or russian military planner and started to model andeterministic say it's time to take on americans, sooner or later, the model is going to freeze up go some young american is going to say why don't we do it this way and they will whisper something
say the generals here and yes, let's do that. it will ruin their day. [applause] i have to tell you, be rest assured. >> i want to talk about nato and asia. i believe scares our potential adversaries is the fact we are having this kind of are a societywe and questioning nation. i cannot imagine this kind of venue where you have military, civilian and industry leaders together answering whatever questions come up in the ways we are trying to do for all of you. i do not believe we are ever going to see a nato in asia. nato was formed when there is a
single focus threat and is countries that were aligned with the soviet union and lined up against those that were not and we formed up with nato for all the right reasons. in asia, there's not a compelling, single focused entity. china is part and parcel of asia life.rt of our economic we are not going to see a nato in asia. see a multilateral framework, i call it partnerships with a purpose. natural, trilateral linkage between korea and the united states. there are countering extremists in southeast asia and natural grouping would be the u.s., , maybea, indonesia
bangladesh and certainly the philippines. we should be going after these kinds of naturally forming multilateral organizations to get those advantages. have elsey on that exist the ofa defense pact -- the regional form, ars, and those things that are useful to go after, piracy, kidnapping for ransom and all of the issues we see. view multilateral defense instructors in asia. thank you, john, thank you to the reagan foundation, and thanks to all of you. [applause]
>> we have more live programming coming your way later today with the conversation about economic growth and income inequality. the brookings institution will host here in washington live at 5:00 eastern, here on c-span. >> this week on c-span, tonight greenfield,ry cofounder of ben & jerry's ice cream talks about creative and responsible business practices. >> the idea we could not sell enough ice cream in the summer in vermont to stay in business
that forced us to look for other markets. >> wednesday night, former vice president of cheney and former defense secretary leon panetta on the future of a defense department under donald trump. >> i think the challenges are very great and we have unfortunately, over the course of the last many years, done serious damage to our capabilities to be able to meet those threats. >> there are a lot of flash point in a new administration is going to have to look at that kind of world and obviously define policy that we need in order to deal with that and then develop a defense policy to confront that kind of world. >> on thursday, a look at the career of vice president-elect mike pence. >> amid the shifting sands of culture and law, we stood without policy for the sanctity of life, the importance of marriage, and the freedom of religion.
>> friday night beginning at 8:00, farewell speeches to several outgoing senators, including harry reid, barbara kelly ayotte, and dan coats. >> here is a live look at florida where president-elect trump and his family have gathered for the holidays while he relaxes and continues his operation. property -- preparations continue up north for the inauguration. thisis a look under way on cold day in the nation's capital with the stands being constructed outside the white house.
>> now, a discussion on water infrastructure in the u.s. and a look at the cleanliness of the nation's drinking water. ,ungar joining us from louisville, kentucky, and investigative health reporter from usa today. found ifer colleagues you live in a small water utility, your chances of having toxic chemicals in your water increase significantly. there is the headline. 4 million americans could be jerking toxic water. laura ungar, who are these 4 million americans, where do they live, and why are they particularly impacted? guest: first of all, thanks for having me. a lot of these folks are people that live in remote communities, poor communities, rural communities, a lot of
disadvantaged folks who already face a lot of difficulties, poverty, that sort of thing. this is one other problem on top of that for them. a lot of these people are very disadvantaged. host: when we talk about toxic water, we are talking mostly about lead in water. correct? guest: we focused on lead in water but we also focused on were nottems that testing properly, either skipped testing or were not testing properly. a lot of times you just don't know what is in the water because it is untested. we focused on lead in the series of stories. host: give us some of the numbers you came up with, how many water systems did you look into, what did you find? we looked at basically all the water systems in the united states but focused on the smaller systems which are more than 90% are small.
we focused on those small .ystems we are talking about many 9000 smallalmost , thats that we looked at had testing issues, that sort of thing. host: 100,000 people getting their drinking water from utilities that discovered high lead but failed to treat the water and remove it. i think that number will concern a lot of people. once this lead is found, why are some of these mueller water systems unable to remove it? guest: a lot of times, they are very resource poor. you are talking about poor communities, and a lot of times they don't have the resources. sometimes it is lack of knowledge about what to do in these sorts of situations. some of the people running these water systems are amateurs, , in the very small
system. there are many reasons why this doesn't happen. those are just a couple. host: in this segment, we split our lines of regionally. if you live in eastern or central time zones in this , if you (202) 748-8000 want to talk about this >> 8001 is the number for you. we are talking about some of the water smaller systems in the united states. one other staff that laura and her colleagues put together is that if you live in a community that serves less than 3300 customers, your chances of having led in your drinking water go up significantly. ofting shows about a 9.8% those communities have led in the water.
they served grave than 100,000 people. that number decreases to about 3.9%. laura unger talked about the testing systems here and why there seems to be different tears or what is allowed and what is not allowed. laura: the justification for the different rules are the resources that i talked about. these large systems have resources that are vast by comparison. they may have full-time staff. operators. firste talking about that the small system, may be an amateur person is running as a part-time venture. not getwho may be did there are someg
requirements that are different for small systems. do not have toey treat for corrosion to prevent coming out of corrosive pipes into the water. unless they have had two consecutive six-month periods of led the book -- below the federal on it. the large systems always have to be treating for the corrosion to prevent led from bleeding into the water. >> one of the cities you focused on was ranger, texas. they showed some of them talking about this problem on the discovered and how they dealt with it. he was a little bit from that video. >> about 100 miles less -- west of dallas, is ranger, a city
struggling to provide water that their citizens trust. it is unusual to find anyone breaks water quality loss. >> i have been here for a very long time. we have to buy want to drink. and to cook with as well. the community does. >> we do not have that. we didn't get any notice until september of this year and we have been your sense november. from here on out, what will the lead will keep rising. adam would -- we would have to dilute his juices. he is already a year old. he would just required to keep him hydrated. there was a population of
about 2500 there. the oil -- area possible income and drinking roles have made it difficult for them to keep up aginganger's infrastructure. >> it is a challenge. we don't have a lot of money. we have a pretty thin budget. we try to work and do what we can with the small out of money that we do have. >> in viewers want to see that full video available on usa today's website, 4 million americans could be dragging highly toxic water. what struck me in that video was the mother of the child talking about when she was informed about the lead in her water. is there some kind of apartment about informing these people in the systems? how many do you think know about the water?
laura: there are different requirement as far as notification. tested and you are supposed to be notified of the results within 30 days of the results coming out, the rest of the community, all the customers are served by a water system. they are supposed to be notified within 60 days. every year, there is the whole customer basis that supposed to be notified as well. there are various notification requirements. in this particular case, this know abouty do not the citywide problem of led until september when the city put out a communitywide letter describing some of the water problems over the past two years. they actually did not know about taskssults of their own which were especially high.
i told him that in november. >> you are sitting in louisville, kentucky. can you compare the infrastructure and the size of the louisville water system and the number of people who work on it? oft to give people a sense what you're doing here? laura: they have hundreds of employees. there are over 400 full-time employees. you have people with phd's running the system. youlaces like ranger texas, have less than 10 public works employees who have other jobs within the public works department. there is a really different expertise level in small communities versus large communities. >> we are talking to laura under
trapping rural areas with poison or untested water. and an investigation into systems around the country. we want to hear from you if you are in the eastern or central times on. if you're in the mountains or pacific region, -- we're taking your questions. and,. >> big of a taking my call. it seems to me that part of the problem is that the decision-makers in this country are divorced from this problem. they buy all the water in bottles. so they are ok with something like fracking which contaminates groundwater. this doesn't affect them. tap water is for poor people.
civilizations decline when the lose contact top with everybody else. i've lived that is what is happening with this country. laura, is that it back in here? the decision-makers being disconnected from what is on the ground? i have heard that again and again. one phrase that was repeated is we are forgotten. there the forgotten people, state doesn't care about us. the government does not care about us. i think a lot of people in rural america feel very much forgotten by those in power. >> villas and sebastian, florida. still, you are on the floor under. >> good morning everybody. with theholeheartedly
last caller. fred i believe his number -- name was. the middle class and the lower are getting stiffed investigativek of -- investigating fracking in what is doing to our environment. the incorporations that are endorsing the fracking as well. which isld be nestle taking the water for a penny a gallon from michigan and selling it for a dollar a gallon. it is the comments. it belongs to the people. water velocity people. not corporations. that is people who are fracking. they are diluting everything.
>> laura can you pick up on that? laura: we didn't really look into the fracking issue. that is not something i can really speak to. the fact that water is a necessity for everyone. i heard that also. again and again from everyone i spoke with. this is a necessity. this is an something that depends on class, and was income you have, this is basic like. water is life. people needed no matter what their income is, no matter where they live. it is just a universal need. >> this chart in usa today shows state'sentage of each small water utility customers who draw water from a system that has failed to properly test lead since 2010. states chart, the darker that are in black here, for the
20% of the small water utility customers draw water from systems that have failed to properly test the darker the color on this map. percentage, they are drawing from those kind of systems. laura unger, is there money from the federal government to fix the system? to pay for this testing? to pay for this problem? laura: there is money available. there are some own problems -- programs and grant programs. but it is not enough because the need is so large. the loan programs can be difficult for a lot of these very small water systems because they can't pay them back. theyare situations where may be eligible but they can't afford to pay back his loans. they really can't get them. know where may not this money is.
where it is going. there is not enough out there according to everyone i spoke with. the federal government a ballot is that as well. that the amount of money available to help the systems is not enough to actually help them in all the ways they need help. it,o put a dollar sign on and epa assessment estimated that infrastructure needs to be totaling $64.5 billion over 20 years. the revolving fund from the epa, the 2016 allocation for systems of all sizes with less than $1 billion. that is according to the research done for laura unger, taking your questions with her for the next half hour. james is in atlantic city in new jersey. james go ahead. james: we should get used to this because trump is going to
destroy the epa. what pollution in the water, i am glad you showed that for inpple -- or people down texas have been drinking water. most conservatives believe that it is a minority problem in minority neighborhoods. also plenty of places to get money. you can get trillion dollar tax cuts but we can't fix our water systems. i don't buy it. this is something that we will see much more of now that trump is in charge of the epa. he is putting in a guy that doesn't want the epa in existence. i don't think how this will get any better anytime soon. thanks for taking my call. certainly, some environmental activists i spoke with agree that it is going to be a really tough thing to solve because there is a lot of issues here. about -- i caller said
is not just people in urban america. it is not just point. it is a lot of these small communities. it is fun to michigan. as far as the epa, i have heard from environmental activists saying that the epa need to do more to enforce this. states need to do more to enforce water safety. there also needs to be a stronger water safety legislation. you mentioned flood, michigan. flint has about 100,000 residents. you are finding that 100,000 people in these small utility systems around this country get
there high lead but have to treat the water. tell us about a place called cold mountain, west virginia. it is a very remote community in west virginia and wyoming county. you have to really travel up the mountain to try and get there. it is far away from pre-much everything else. it is tough to connected to existing water systems. a well and ae is shed near the church. there is actually no owner or operator of that. poured in residents china to try to drain it every once in a while which we learn from some other residents who used to do that, that is pretty much what their water system
consists of. obviously, we go back to louisville, earlier. we have professionals and a very large water system and then they have no one in charge. a neighbor trying to do what he can to help out, and get the need for good water is he same here as it is there. when finding these malt water ?ystems bring in prosecutions would that have any impact on making the systems better? laura: i talked to some state officials about that issue and in these sorts of cases, it is especially difficult in places like home mountain. mountain. but i've heard is who do you prosecute? you have a difficult situation there.
again, another issue is that if you can shutown, them down. but then what happens to be people? they don't have water. it is a very tough situation. with the next 25 minutes or so. don is in west virginia. don: good morning. the epa just a butter office. intoput all their money nothing. they have done nothing for the people. then he to cut them back, trim them up and you're going to get a lot more help from trump, either he will be one of the greatest presidents we have ever had in a very long time. people just need to cool down, relax, give this man a chance. do trust your water system and new cumberland, west virginia?
>> i have well water myself. bless them assess it was five years ago. it was in good shape. >> going to david in salt lake city, utah. it is true that there is some testing sometimes but these wells are put in by the septic tank people. i guess my question is how many people in the united states are in is well systems at home? i do not have the answer to that. i do know that they are not subjected to the same rules, these are public water systems that we wrote about. so if you are on your own well, you do not have the same rules that you have to abide by.
i certainly have talked to water experts who say that it is important to test your waters if you have well water. know what is in it. that publicof rules water systems have to abide by. this view are set my water company sends out. statement of what is found in testing. do all water utilities have to do that? >> yes they do. that is a requirement. i think it is annual. they have to do that. leadey find something like , they do have other notification requirements. but yes, they need to give you what is in the water on a regular basis. and small both large systems? is there a penalty for missing those notifications? >> there are penalties. ofis a public in the system various penalties.
those other requirements for matter what the size of the system. >> carol is waiting in northampton, massachusetts. >> happy holidays to you all. i look into the people speaking today and one of the things that , thet to point out sequester cut a lot of money out of the epa. they haven't been able to keep up with all the oil spill's, less more the lead in the water in the cities. at the same time, i think about this, this is our tax dollars. they're going to be spent on we the people. then i go to the fact that we have an epidemic of autistic children. about by water different ways. 80% of the water
when we take a shower or bath. so that badwater is to going into your system whether you know it or not. the body can only take so much lead without getting sick. it will fight it off but it is hard to remove metals out of your system. i do worry about all of america and we do deserve. we pay a lot of taxes in this country. i want washington and all the rest of them to know that the services of this country need to remain high. as they bracket we are the richest country in the world, will fix it. when it comes to the people, there should be nothing that we country. have in this otherwise, stop calling it the richest country in the world. because we are moving toward a third world country. are all the sicknesses that will come about behind it. i send that message to republicans and the democrats.
>> laura, if you could pick up on that. she was talking about the intake of lead. can you remind us what the health risks are for having led in water? >> there are a lot of health risks to ingesting lead. especially for children and infants. they could have irreversible brain damage drum ingesting too much lead and having high blood levels. there are all sorts of problems. adults also suffer various issues, kidney issues and other things. we are talking with children. points, you iq could add language delays, developmental issues. there is an array of problems that can result from high lead. of yourrt on the bottom story, talking about lead in drinking water, the epa's goal for lead in drinking water is zero per million -- zero parts
per million. through some of the well-known lead incidents in this country and the testing that found numbers on lead and water for that flint water crisis. it was found that there was somewhere between 104 and 13,200 parts per billion found in the various testing that occurred in flint, michigan for that family, the walton family in ranger, texas, the testing that occurred at their home down 418 parts per billion. the maximum allowable under the parts per, five billion. that is the walton family along with your story. turner, go ahead, you're on with laura unger. >> good morning, happy holidays. in that of the states
graph, how many of those states are republican states and how democratic states? because it seems like the republican states seem to have a lot more going on in the treasury department compared to the democrats. i will take my answer off air, thank you. >> is there a correlation here? laura: we did a look at that, the one thing that is pretty clear is that when you look at the numbers of rural areas. of impoverished areas, there is a correlation there. when you're talking about rural and impoverished, those people are at higher risk of having a small water system that has problems. i know that texas is one that stands out. they have a lot of remote, rural areas with small stuff like that. >> mike, go ahead.
: good morning to both of you. reporter,stigative with the coming administration, you certainly will be a dying breed. i am sorry to say. to get to the subject, i'm a retired operating engineer. i have worked for various expediting contracts, contractors throughout the cleveland, ohio area. northern ohio. i cannot tell you how we have ignored our infrastructure in this country. i have seen it myself. in the cleveland area, i have dug around a large water main up to 36 inches diameter and larger. these things were put -- installed in the late 1800s. main feeder lines to the city of and i can tell you
that all the joints that connects the pipes together are -- full of light. i installed the myself up to the 1890's -- 19 days with leg joints. this is contaminated the water and we have ignored it. now it has become a terrible health problem that will be seen in flint michigan. see what hassad to happened there. these people, especially in west virginia and areas like that, they are considered darwin people. these are citizens. to poison your own people, think about it. the people of michigan voted in a governor sibling because he was a businessman and he will run the government as a business. as we all know, most businesses are inherently sociopathic.
not to denigrate them, there may concern is money. not the people. a government's function is to take care of their people. not worry about the money. the money certainly has to come from somewhere but to ignore infrastructure is a horrible thing. , even known about lead reading history books about the roman empire. believe it or not, that used to sprinkle lead on their food. it was a seasoning. any history will tell you what damage it did to the roman empire. lead affects the brain. >> laura unger, i will let you pick up on that. on the infrastructure, i have heard that again and again. in his communities, the water
infrastructure has been there almost 100 years. you are talking about possibly lead pipes, lead solder. certainly, i spoke to congress people after the story came out to get their reaction, find out what is happening. what i heard again and again is that we really need to maintain our infrastructure in this country. people think of infrastructure has roads and bridges. it is also the underground, water infrastructure as well. and to not forget that. remember that infrastructure is not just roads and bridges. it is the water infrastructure as well. >> when lead does get into drinking water, where is it most likely to happen? >> what do you mean? .> in terms of the system
the water system. at what point is it most likely to get into your water that comes out of your part? >> it can come from the distribution system. the fight that would be run by a water system, a small water system guest: it can come from the distribution system, like a small system run with very old pipes. it could be from that. it could be the pipes from a 's house. they could be lead pipes as well. anyplace along that distribution line, but the pipes basically are a major way that led gets into the water. host: here is a look at some of mountain,in the coal
west virginia, a picture along with this story, a small shed housing components for cold mountain. one of the residents put bleach in their system every so often. jim is in north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., december 20, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable thomas j. rooney to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, the reverend harles shakorsky, divine mercy university of arlington, virginia. the chaplain: heavenly father, we thank you