tv Navy Secretary Richard Spencer Comments CSPAN December 27, 2017 12:19pm-1:08pm EST
barack obama. and so we met him that spring of 2003, you just say this. the rest is history. >> q&a sunday night at eight eastern on c-span. >> navy secretary richard spencer spoke recently at a global security forum hosted by the u.s. naval institute. this is 45 minutes. [applause] will, it is a pleasure to be here. there are some familiar faces in the items under some interfaces even a look across always be with out this weekend at the reagan national defense forum, and for those of you in the audience might not have been there or had the chance to see the live version on television in which if you're watching it, i suggest you find a a life because it was a beautiful saturday.
you should not have been inside watching television but it was very interesting, and it was a timely topic. i want to thank you all for asking me to come and address this, i sincerely mean, august group. i saw the honorable bob work on my way in any standing up straight because that 4000-pound rucksack on his back was often you smiling happy. it's great to see all of you. it's interesting times we're living in as a chinese fortune cookie always says, but i'd like to kind of address with this group who i know in looking here you have been enduring endorsers of national security and forceful advocates for a strong navy-marine corps team. and i want to kind of address my thoughts on how we're going to take this institution going
forward. i will pause and give an update now. it's all restarted out to be a good week in the pentagon which doesn't mean it's going to keep on the same trajectory but today certainly is nice to because i swore in the new under secretary of the navy. tomorrow i get to swear in james kurtz as the assistant secretary for rdna. at a think we're really putting me on a frame that is really going to carry the organization forward in a very positive trajectory. i think one of the first things we do and we address the topic of national security is at dollars that we are a commercial nation here we are in maritime nation. we benefit from the use of the sea lanes that are open for commerce, and we are a protector of those sea lanes. we have a responsibility to
provide security and contribute to the collected safety and stability of a global nation out only for ourselves but for our allies. it's not only the right thing to do but as you all know it's in our best interest to do it also. an overarching theme to american naval policy has always been free to move sees. to support the open robust trade amongst nations. threats to global stability put our notion and our purpose of freedom of the seas at risk. and that we cannot abide. the united states navy-marine corps team as you well know was forward deployed around the world for the preservation of global stability. their presence is a deterrence to potential adversaries, and a reassurance to our allies whether it be that green suits of the navy onshore, whether it be the great ships in the harbor. presence provides stability.
it's my job to make sure our naval forces have the fangs, and the longer and the sharper is better. the navy-marine corps team needs to be ready to fight tonight and win. that's easy enough to say but clearly it's the challenge to do. i must be blunt. we have readiness issues in both the navy and marine corps. where getting at them but we have a ways to go. yet despite the fact the challenges we're we are facingm confident we're going to successfully tackle every single issue and right the ship. we are going to utilize the aid of some outstanding problem solvers we have within the organization and we're going to task some problem solvers from outside the organization. our seventh fleet forces under the microscope, and rightfully so. they see in those coverings of review is an example that leadership and problem solving within our organization will be done with focus.
it is given us a deeper insight into the systemic issues and is provided as a way forward to address the shortfalls that we see. my strategic readiness review has listed the outside aid that i just mentioned. it still forthcoming but we looking at everything and i mean we're looking at everything, have joint chiefs task our organization to global -- goldwater nichols and fleet forces structured as you're well aware there are a multitude of obstacles in our path, both current and emerging. let's go overome just to refresh your memory. fundg issues more of the budget control act and continuing resolutions have taken a toll on readiness, maintenance cycles and also cost is time and resources that we cannot buy back. the infrastructure needed to grow and support, refit, repair
our fleet as you well know are showing signs of strains and are woefully underfunded. technological leaps have put new affordable capabilities in the hands of our adversaries. a number of these adversaries have begun demonstrating renewed aggressions that we have not seen in some time. these points are simply the basis for the environment in which we operate. so when the challenging world, hack we maintain our advantage? the key is to remain focused on mission with three priorities in mind. people, capabilities, and process. people are our greatest asset. we don't win without them, and we need to keep the winners that we have. we need to recruit, train, empower the subject matter experts and hold these people accountable. our ships, planes, submarines, vehicles, they are all just hunks of metal.
they can't do much without the human interface. they need sailors and marines to bring them to life. our sailors and marines, our sons and daughters, are the best in the world at what they do. they are all volunteers and they have given holy of themselves to ensure that we can enjoy the freedoms that we sometimes take for granted. they are hearing the reinforcing message every single day now that they are our warriors. and that is their job. they deserve the right gear and legal platforms to deliver the fight tonight. i'm dedicated to ensuring our people, these war fighters, get the capabilities that they need. i am also dedicated to ensuring our servicemembers and their civilian teammates received the best training. because it's well-trained people at will employee their gear and extract capabilities in the most efficient and effective manners.
we must foster an environment where our sailors and marines are given the choice and paths to challenge them, and give them a career path that will keep them in our organization. we need to ensure that our peop have the professional and educational otuties they need to grow as leaders and critical thinkers. we must also ensure that families and loved ones of our sailors and marines are taken care of. those families are interesting as with the lives of their husbands, wives, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters. when we sent over the horizon they need to be sure that their loved ones are being taken care of at home so they can devote their focus towards the mission. when our sailors and marines can focus 100% of% of their attention on the mission, they will be able to effectively apply war fighting capabilities whenever and wherever they are needed. which leads to my second priority, giving the right
capabilities into the hands of our sailors and marines. you all know our sailors and marines of the best in class, and they deserve the best in class. they deserve it in a timely manner. to that and i have directed my acquisition team to do the pars in expediting our research, development, and acquisition process. our technological advantages are real. those advantages are diminishing. you can be sure there are some countries and some nonstate actors working hard to bridge these technological gaps, and that is why my goal is to never send our troops into a fair fight. i've learned from the world of business when you're facing competition you need to have the resources and processes in place to compete and win, and to stay ahead of the competition at all times. it's when you take your hand off the throttle that the competition begins to close. it's bad enough in business when
you don't win, but ladies and gentlemen, the stakes here as you well know are much, much higher. i can assure you that near peer potential adversaries are not just treading water. they are in full throttle and catching up quickly bigger spending the money needed to develop the lethal capabilities that will challenge ours and they have path that in many cases is much more expeditious than ours. but fear not, we will answer this challenge. we must respond on all fronts come into the research and development, rapid prototyping, et cetera and learning, and parted with industry to get the capability of our people need. talking about true partnership. we talked about this this weekend out at reagan. it's based upon the concept of shared risk. it will yield shared benefits. the u.s. government can't be the only entity when it comes to acquisition that takes all the
risks, but the majority of risk we must come back to a true understanding of partnership with our industrial base so we could have a sustainable acquisition process, not a transaction oriente process that simply grinds down the lowest common denominator. this is a partnership where we provide industry a clear line of sight to our needs, and we must provide them a clear line of sight to our resources so they can invest in the necessary research and development, and provide solutions to our challenges. the challenges we have in the navy-marine corps team signed our names. and there's no relief in sight that will have all the resources we need. we must leverage every single aspect we have. and as i said that's both internal and external partnerships. we must do this all the while by making sure we don't squander
the resources of our taxpayers. a component of the partnership i'm talking about requires that we be a responsible customer to industry and, frankly, that's something we have room to improve upon. we can start by focusing on our third priority, and that is process. to meet the threats of today and tomorrow we must reform our processes now that we've been talking about this for decades. we actually are starting to move the needle and you will see some of this come to fruition i believe in the near future. sometimes that needs to in with our fellow services to share expertise t meet common goal. we have struck a parership an example with the coast guard as they begin the acquisition process for a polar icebreaker where we are combining best practices. the navy knows how to build ships. so does the coast guard. we know how to build large capital asset ships and were teaming up to provide the best solution for our sister service. the navy will benefit.
the coast guard will benefit. the taxpayer will benefit. we've had success in working with congress on lowering costs through process improvement, but we have a long way to go. we appreciate the past congressional authorities for blocking multitier byes and we continue to use those to effectively find our programs. tools like these help us balance the economy's of scale while ensuring the health of the defense industrial base. i base that at the end of the day provide us our capabilities. i also appreciate the bipartisan congressional advocacy in defining a 355 ship navy as law or it's not just the ships would talk about growing the fleet. it's every asset across the border. we will work diligently to public the decision to rapidly and frugally with a resource provided by congress grow the fleet of the united states navy. as we press forward i'd
committed to expanding the fleet on the sea, under the sea, and in the air but we have to lay the foundation. we must ensure the health of the defense industry workforce are in place. large capital investments need to be made today to build the fleet of tomorrow. and to maintain that fleet the way that we should. so those that have these assets in future years have the capability to fight. i can't tell you exactly what the maritime fleet will look like in 20-25 years but i can tell you it will not exist unless we get serious about providing the funding needed to build those capabilities today. we can't buyback time, and we don't come if we don't invest for the future we will be in a corner that will be tough to extract ourselves from. the bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, urgency is about crim in addition to our efforts with
congress we're reaching out to her industry partners to spur innovations and efficiencies. i know wherever there's a challenge, so what else is almost certainly already addressed it. whether directly or tangentially. and if the insight on what works. we're looking for the best practices, the best practices of people of god through similar situations. i found out just by reaching out, talking about our issues produces amazing feedback from outside the building. and from some of the most unlikeliest places you could imagine. you will see that forthcoming in the strategic review we are going to roll out in about a week and a half. we've already reached out to industry leaders to learn how they have improved safety. i'm confident, i too am confident after seeing what these people can't achieve it we will gain from their valuable insight and approve our own culture as we move down the road
to work for sustainable readiness. so what is needed? we need the right processes in place to recruit, train, equip and organize our people in a sustainable and responsible manner, them the capability to win a any time anywhere. the challenge of doing this may seem daunting to some but i see opportunity. there is opportunity to enhance our partnerships that i just discussed. an opportunity to innovate, and oh, two with innovators. there's an opportunity to lead and there's the opportunity to properly address what is been the most harmful impediment to reaching our goal, the budget control act and continuing resolutions we've seen. and will continue to be incredibly harmful unless we address this as soon as possible. cr set said cost the departmenf the navy roughly $4 billion.
since 2011, we put $4 billion in a trashcan can put bite of food on top of it and burned it. $4 billion as you know, you are all doing the math, i can see it, or you are snoozing, for billy is enough to buy a squadron of f35, two hard to class destroyers, 3000 harpoon missiles. think about some of this, 2000 tactical tomahawk missiles. it's enough money that come by as the additional capacity and capability that we need. instead, that $4 billion of taxpayers money was lost because of inefficiency of the ways of the continuing resolution. each member of our all volunteer force makes a promise to protect our nation from harm, if called, and to give their full measure to do so. it's time for our nation and congress to keep the same promise t them as secretary mattis has said, our nation can
afford survival. another continuing resolution is a broken promise and one more chip away at our ability to survive. in closing i want to thank you all for the opportunity to stand in front of you. and i'm going to stop and take questions from the floor because that's where we find the most interesting things to talk about. so open the mics. [applause] >> thank you. >> good morning, mr. secretary. my question is this week at the reagan national defense forum the commander of your strategic command said when he was growing up he aspired to be a colonel program director and not the general. he said he had the responsibility and authority to deliver products and processes to the war fighter. he also said that when the
lieutenants and captains want to be the kernels again, that's when we'll have things right. my question is, how do you a secretary plan to fix the bureaucracy that were fighters deal with day in and day out, whether that's in fleet fhe pentagon to ensure that are in sins and other grew up wanting to be commanders and captains and not necessarily admirals? >> it is a timely question because there's a couple of things going on. i won't say it's an alarming rate, but the fact that there are one or two of these events really just shocked me completely. there are officers that are asking not to take command. that they would rather take another path then take command. when i was in the marine corps the ultimate goal that had immediately in front of me was to become a captain and to take command. we are doing something terribly
wrong if, in fact, there's more than one person who wants to check the box and say i would rather not take command. addressing in the strategic review, i told you we are looking at dogma. not to provide it we will provide the environment for our enlisted and are officers to have a career, a challenging career and provide them with the educational environment to actually progress. and will it take moving -- yes, it will take moving cheese. will we be able to do in four years? i don't know but we will set sail to try to do it. we have to do it. one example that someone asked me this weekend was, give me some context for this guy said here's a fine example. when i flew about a frog, you couldn't tune up on an fm frequency to an army frequency. we were talked about the senate
backslid. we're we're such a center of excellence we could speak to anyone else because we never thought that were -- they were never that excellent. just getting with now gone to jointly have to prime the pump to joy. what a mean by that is everyone, we had to set up the joint command. we had a good one think about joint. joint is in our dna. anyone does joint. can we now sit okay, have the understanding of joint at an early dna stage and now we don't have to have as many joint as without? that might be one avenue you might want to look at. but going back to providing the environment and the tools to extract the best from our people something were going to have to do. it's a a very valid question ad were focusing on it. >> mr. secretary, norman palmore. on the people he shot lead the navy short about 3000 enlisted men and women, of course. in that context the economy is
improving. unemployment is down. we see, and i can go through each ship type but looking to set submarines in the last 25-30 years there's been no reduction in crew requirements. how are you going to commit a fleet of more than 275 ships? >> another timely question. should have used you guys as my red team. i'll answer that question by back into something else. i think it was 2010, secretary gates asked, action is brought in by michael into the second his office to get an assignment for what the defense business might be working on picky to regret and all of a sudden since i was sitting there with my mouth shut i got assigned with modernizing military retirement, addressing the commissary issue,
a department of defense education. at that point he asked his chief of staff to go out and get mr. spencer i kevlar vest and send him on his way. one of the things i did do, remember we simply started the discussion which is what the defense business board does so well. we started the discussion on military retirement. and now as you all will know where the blended retirement system, the brs. i've had a couple of people come up to me and go okay, smarty, now you are the secretary of navy and you have to live with this thing. it enough people to walk out the door much easily as you walk out with some assets. i turned around and said you know what, good on us. because game on. were going to have to work to make it more advantageous and more challenging and more desirable to be in the naval enterprise then be moved out the door the competition. we will not win 100% of the time
but we will make an effort by the changes were talking about in the previous ask questions to make this people want to stay. that's part one. part two which is a question you asked with the economy bubbling along as it is, how are we going to find these people. three weeks ago i got an update on how we are recruiting. both navy and marine corps, to separate pots, don't get me wrong, are doing well. if we had the surge now, there might be some problems. the economy is strong. to grow 3000 i think we would easily be able to do that. do we also have to address manny? yes, we do. if you look at the lcs which i would like to stop right now and talk about the lcs. it's time for a conversation change on the lcs. it was an atrocious acquisition
process according to everybody who wants to comment on it. you can take either side of the argument. i'd like to find some on the pro side. the fact of the matter is we are getting feedback from the fleet, the commanders who are using these platforms. it's good feedback. that vessel as you know was structured for a more efficient crew. we have to start doing that going forward for legacy platforms, what we do. we will be somewhat limited but this is what we try to enhance the capabilities of the assets we have on board to possibly lighten the load in that regard. we have challenges. my only other point to the personnel question is we had to be careful with personnel. yet the most expensive asset that we have. when you compute the lifecycle cost of a uniform computer member, it is a very expensive proposition. roughly 50% of my budget is
benefits and personnel and i can't touch, and its increasing. i don't complain about it. what i could do is make sure we're getting the best efficiencies and effectiveness out of the great people who serve. that's the way we have to look at this, is take this on as a positive challenge. i truly believe it is a positive challenge. >> i'm a lieutenant. i have three sisters in law, a wife and her brother-in-law in the navy as well. as we listen to the conversation about strategic review and investigations, we see conversations happening and we don't see the inquiries happening at our level nor exploration of solution our level across, and there's a limit of cynicism the star to
set in when that gap happens in wondering in your view pross, how are you ensurin our company doesn't matter, are you taking down to get down to ensure the feedback that exist at the lower-level is reaching a higher levels unfiltered? i think there's opportunity for partnership, not any confrontational way that people are genuinely interested in collaborating. >> most definitely. one of the things, and of what you make sure everyone understands how the comprehensive review which is the cno in my review, the sr, it's a cr and it as far, the immediacy was the seventh fleet because that is where the issues resided, plain and simple. those were remedial programs are underway right now and that is getting the christmas tree lights to line up on green for all certifications. there's something media tactical things we are starting to do.
having the conversation is definitely what we have to do. my whole concept of people that i said earlier is who better to find a solution to a problem than the person facing off on the problem? someone asked me what my job is as secretary of the navy. in a simple since it is wearing the title can have two man, equip, train and deliver. but my true job is to clear maneuvering paths unless of the people that have solutions for problems. we have to engage in the conversation. the strategic review is going to be just that, more of a strategic level to have conversations about actual fixes that are going to take either a cultural shift or big process adjustments. the cr is out there tactically now working. you see it start in the seventh fleet and it has obviously overlays for the whole fleet, and marine corps by the way. this is not just an navy issue.
if i have to bring up an example of how we are attacking this on a different way, one of the people who ended up contributing some incredible insights was bowing. not aviation safety. this was bowing my submission they were the kings of making aircraft and knowing how to produce them. and the way you go from ten amongst the 15th of march is make people work faster. and harder and all of a sudden there and the actual accident rate just started increasing dramatically and they said stop. they did quite a big riew and they brought a couple of people from the outside and they did a multitude of tactical changes to how people worked on the floor itself. here was the cultural shift that they made. you will rarely see the word safety in a boeing plant. the word is respect, and the
concept is, john, i respect you. what are you doing on my floor without your safety glasses on? if you get hurt you off the team and you are not producing. i you to produce. i respect you. please put your safety glasses on. having been an aviation safety officer i can tell you our concept back then was the bigger you paid the safety sign the more you all into safety. there was no correlation how you roll it out. that's the change were talking about just to get a few and that's the conversation we need to have. i agree with you 100%. we have little time to let this language on the shelf. that can't can and do loop hase tighter. >> good morning, mr. secretary. i'm serving at the headquarters marine corps at the pentagon. >> thank you. >> my previous job was out in seventh fleet, and so the incidences that it happened hit
close to home. my question is, having worked in the portion of scheduling in seventh fleet how do we expect to meet the operational tempo in seventh sleep but also meet our readiness metrics? the schedule is so hectic in changing the also want to be a responsible partner to our japanese allies as well as her own sailors and getting them ready for the fight. >> look, not lost on anyone in this creditor an navy-marine corps team is an organization that is bias for action. sitting around and waiting is not something that we enjoy doing. also, this organization finds it hard to reach into the bag to find the word know i can't do that. but we have to come to a balance. we have to start weighing in a new word which is sustainable. we have to have sustainable
readiness and sustainable operational tempo. you heard me i think earlier when we talked about the strategic review addressing how the vice chiefs ask us. the fact of the matter remains is somewhat arithmetic that will have so much capability and so much capacity primarily capacity to do the tasks that we can do. it's a hoax law. we can stretch things and things are somewhat elastic majority to reach attenti with the object cannot g back to its original form. and that's what we're dealing with right here. you keep spreading, i can use tons of analogies. you keep spreading the mayonnaise thinner and thinner, you don't get mayonnaise on the toast anymore. we have to say these are our resources, these are what we can do. is it a pleasant answer? no. would like to fill all tasks that we required to do. but this is where will have to work in teamwork to increase our capacity to fill the bill.
we're, we're on the backs of the power curve but we are approaching, coming over the peak but we work to do. i'll be the first one to admit this this is what we're working on right now. >> the fat leonard scandal keeps reverberating throughout the active overtired ranks of leadership. in your time here so far has been able to glean any systemic causes of this scandal that this keeps grabbing more and more leadership, or do you view it as a failure of seventh fleet leadership or navy leadership at that time and just filter down? she is curious what your take is on this whole issue. >> might take right now is that the page is through the python. we have processed through and we're seeing -- the pig.
i issued a letter of censure last week. i think we are seeing the process do its job. but to answer your question, yes, i am concerned. i concerned across the board. when i see packages come across my desk asking for exceptions on retirement, seeing actions that were unbecoming of an officer or an enlisted person might get the board of inquiry says let them go with full, he or she go with full ruffles and flourishes. i have a real problem with that. we have to make sure that every decision we make when we are making decision for the naval enterprise supports and enhances the brand equity of this organization. we have a child that is given to us by the american taxpayer and the american citizen. if that corrodes or goes off
center, i can't even imagine what theath is to bring it back on center. one of the messages that we are getting out to the navy, marine corps team is when you are making decisions, whether in uniform or at home going down to 7-11 to pick up a quart of milk, think about the decisions you are making and what it does to your organization. it's that simple in some ways, but it's that expansive. because in today's world with today's media ever think you do represents the united states marine corps and the united states maybe. we have to get that message through. it is something we are definitely focusing on. the message is loud and clear to the irb not lost on anyone in this room which i will be the first one to say this is quite frustrating is when you cross the line from leadership to undo command influence, and it's something we have to work on and
it's something where to tell the american public so they understand and we don't have people in the middle interpreting it for them. >> we have been at war my entire career, if you really want to go back to 1990. we had some of the best people that we spend a lot of time and money as you stated into training. yet they leave early and we lose them. given the cost, given the ramifications of losing that expertise and not having it available to us, why are we continually decreasing the reserve side and why have we not further look at the congressional retired reserve, letting that door swings both
ways? so as you say we get the best from both worlds. they can go out, go to corporate, learn something and come back with maybe some ideas outside the box without being detrimental to their career. we need to really change that. >> i love softball questions or statements. that's not just the navy-marine corps doing that. that is coming down from secretary mattis. the citizen soldier he, the reserves, are an absolute integral part of the war fighting nature that we have. the institution has proven itself the last 16 years seamlessly. as we go forward and we look at the challenges that we have and let's address all of them count but i will address cyber as a blatantly obvious problem that we looking at. you really do have to have a revolving door, and the reserve component fits this argument to a tee. because if you're going to come
in and help us with cyber yet remain current. i would love for the building and so would secretary mattis the door to be swinging so our experts can go back out in the private sector and become current. then come back in. you can overlay that to almost every single talent we have with the coast guard, the marine corps and/or the navy. that is being addressed actively as we speak, starting with cyber but there's no reason that's not a best practice that can be put down to every single mos or specially. >> with the all volunteer military, what aspect seems to be that there is continued multigenerational families in to the military. the question is about any of the separation from our general population. what are your thoughts? >> a lot of thoughts there. hailing from wyoming, i am a firm believer that everybody
ought to serve the country in some capacity. it doesn't have to be and the department of defense for it can be in the post-office picnic to be and the department of the interior, but as i used to listen to my father who was a pt boat commander over in the pacific, he said it was fascinating. it's when harvard met i will. it's when washington met florida. this country had a a fabric bak then that was intertwined tightly and it superseded socioeconomics. it superseded ethical interplay. i mean, it was when america was america. are we getting polarized? polaroids is a wrong word because only 1% serve right now. you're right within that 1% 40% of legacy. i don't know what i can do as far as the navy alone is concerned. i actually, i'd like to put a footnote on the fact it's an all volunteer service.
it's an all recruited service. and that, we have to watch out when we walk away from the word volunteer and we start getting to all recruited because we start encroaching on professionalism. i don't mean that, everyone is not a profession but all of a sudden we are getting a dna strain of professional warriors, and are we taking from the american public and have a full span of appreciate for what we do. i don't have it answer for this. i have an observation, and i share your concerns. but on the other hand, if i'm to be completely selfish, i love the people that we are getting. because they understand the commitment. they understand the fabric. they understand their duty going in the door right away. so if i was to say the class half full to that, they are stellar contributors to our efforts here. >> last question i guess.
>> on part of the panel today and last night i went to dinner with my two cohorts, met for the first time. where all defense contractors and two things struck me. we are all working on some of the same things but we are coming at it from very different perspectives with different backgrounds and different solutions. at some point and rsd comes out and we retreat and compete against each other and one of us will win and the other one walks away with nothing. .. the for strial base. the private sector, it leans more towards winner take all when it comes to competition, but she can i second best
product when you come to lipstick on it you can also sell it. when it comes to the question you are talking about, we have to think about it. we got a piano in california it was fascinating. the department of defense was all based on capital inflow of capital for the industrial base and benefits and problems that lie therein. two of the feedbacks, let me back up. norm augustine was complaining about the industrial system and how acquisitions process is really quite painful. he said richard, remember one thing. you are dealing with a capitalist free market environment. they are simply mirroring the system they see and they will capitalize on it, human behavior. we have to change the system we
have and do not come in the question was how can you provide compensation for those taking risk. what i mean by that is you might all attack a solution from different angles and be very frank that's what i want. the most robust, tort, tested idea competitive produced idea that i can get and only one person probably will when. that doesn't mean i shouldn't keep score and if in fact you have a stronger suit somewhere else with a requirement that i have come a consideration not to be taking place and i'm not saying you strip away competition. this is done in corporate america all the time. it's called strategic resourcing. when you have those around you that provide solutions under regular basis that you can say okay, we have a sustainable long-term relationship.
>> traditional liberals on free-speech campus. they basically they themselves have the quality and what they see as justice and override of free speech. and the commitment of free speech as almost existential importance given history in the ways in which free speech is restcted historically by predictions of power.
on the conservative side, and almost every episode in american history, efforts at suppression and speech have been driven largely by political observer. with religious moralism or opposition of darwinism or the turn of the 20th century or a pack of the criticizing wealthy donors in world war i or anyone who criticizes the draft could be thrown out during the mccarthy era, for example. it's always been conservatives who have been in free speech. i find it annoying all this republican legislators are
championing free speech in a situation in which the people cited are in coulter and what it's really about in principle of free speech as the days the opposite that's been bored. so that is a matter of principle in terms of what this is all about. >> i've been attacked by everybody. i've been attacked by the right wing, the russians, the charm campaign. i've been at tact by the sanders campaign. now i cannot do though is the sanders campaign. -- now i can add the sanders campaign.
>> i was here in washington d.c. hillary was very excited. she had met this young meet senator who was running. she has roots in illinois. she met this young state senator. she told my friend mignon, we were in the third floor. she know barack obama. i didn't know barack obama. i knew bobby rush and danny davis and of course harold washington, rahm emanuel. but i hadn't heard of barack obama. and so, we met him that spring of 2003 and let me just say this, the rest is history. >> the second session of the 115 congress starts next week. the senate is back on january 3rd and will welcome two new democratic lawmakers.
alabama dow jones in minnesota tina smith or the house of representatives returns a few days later in january 8th. in the new year, congress needs to consider a government spending bill because current government funding runs out on january 19th. also on the calendar, and this year's state of the union address. house speaker paul ryan has invited president trump to address a joint session of congress on january 30th. when congress is back in session, the senate is life here in the stand to in the house is live on a companion network, c-span. the center for strategic and international studies hostea daylong discussion on security threat in north africa. first, we'll hear from the president that csi has come and then the security officials from tunisia, algeria and morocco appear later, conversations with s.