systems that use electrooptical phenomenonology in order to determine more about that system. so you can imagine the power of having much greater knowledge, especially knowledge that is relevant to the same sort of sensors that are on our interceptor kill vehicles. we want to get more knowledge about that system, and we want to understand it from birth to death so that we can discriminate and determine which are the two objects that we o ought to be shooting at. and so getting a more capable discrimination system here now would be a way to improve the number of shots that we have to take or reduce the number of shots that we have to take by reducing the number of thing that we might consider to be a credible object. so our vision here in the

technology exploration now is to look at ways to bring electrooptical sensors into this architecture beyond that opir sensor, that missile warning sensor that kicks these things off. and we're going to do that by capitalizing on the work that's being done in industry today. both on sensors, as well as on building unmanned aerial vehicles that fly at very high at attitudes. a high altitude platform is also key to one of the other investments we want to make. so if we go back just a few years here, we made a big bet on airborne layser in the light '90s and early 2000s. and that system that we built, although it was very effective in doing that one particular job we had for it, which is proving that you could shoot down a rocket at the speed of light using light -- a tremendous accomplishment.

although, it proved impractical from an operational standpoint, you can imagine have a fleet of 737s flying at 33,000 feet with a laser system in them. there is a lot of challenges in that. what we know now from that, the next time we do this work we are going to be looking at getting above the known atmosphere, where the aerosols won't affect the lasers and at at attitudes where the turbulence is significantly lower. so we want to fine a regime that's high above the 33,000 feet. for all of us who fly on 747s on a regular basis here, we know it can get shaky at 33,000 feet almost any time of the year depending on where you are flying. so we want to make that more like 60,000 feet, get to the stratosphere, where it will be a much calmer place for us to work. we're making investments in laser technology today that both

in our national laboratories and in our industry that goes beyond those chemical laysers that we looked at early whier to new solid state electric lasers which will be much more efficient, effective as well, i believe. and ones that we can scale up and reduce the size of the laser necessary to get that job done. if we can find a way to make that happen -- and we believe these technologies will lead us there -- that we'll be able to -- excuse me -- to get those lasers on an unmanned arrow platform at very high at attitudes and make that case for the entire logistics and infrastructure which goes along with that much much more simpler, and make the technical challenges less daunting than they have been in the past. i mentioned earlier, it might have been during our discussion at lunch, that there are other areas which we want to go back to. and so i'm sort of going back to

my past in this one. we left the rail gun in 1989 because there were challenges with getting a rail gun. and the idea that we would build a new launch infrastructure that would get these 2,000 or 100 ton satellites in orbit with rail guns on them was not achievable. however, the services have been making investments in bringing that technology along primarily for close-in engagements, and primarily for long-range fires. and so as they continue to develop that technology we are looking at that as a possible way to get at some of our missile defense challenges. again, having a magazine which is very, very cheap project tiles with the capability of electrically generating the power makes it possible for us to get away from this challenge

that we fine in terms of expensive interceptors against other rocket systems. so our goal ultimately is then to fine a way to get more capable sensors into the architecture, to improve the knowledge that we have from birth to death of this launch, and to reduce the number of credible objects by understanding what objects are there. with the ultimate goal of reducing the objects dramatically by destroying the rocket booster in the boost phase. that will revolutionize the capable for missile defense and dramatically change the calculus of many of our adversaries. we're working today with industry. we're working with academia, and we're working in our national laboratories to make that vision come true. we're shifting our -- the overall balance in our investments this year which had

been primarily focused on increasing capacity over the last few years for our regional missile defense systems and looking now at shifting the balance somewhat, ramping over the next couple of years, to get at the advanced technology challenges that we're going to need to build that foundation for the missile defense architecture i just spoke of. we hope to have that here in the next decade based on those investments. we recognize that just like in the past, it won't be a challenging en -- will be a challenging endeavor and we may not rush forward with continual success towards that goal, but we're excited about having u.s. partners and making that a true reality over the next ten years. thank you. [ applause ]

>> good afternoon, everybody. i'm arch macy. and now a private consultant. as many of you know i had a background in some of this for a few years. if you don't like ballistic missile defense review, you can blame me. i've heard it before. but go g. i was one of the coauthors. i'd like to talk about missile defense and thinking about next steps in missile defense from a somewhat different, perhaps look at rubic's cube. this panel was -- is about future directions, that's what it was titled. and so the question i'm thinking about is what are the future elements of missile defense that need to be developed, melded with each other, and demonstrated and made known to potential antagonists? let me develop that for a moment. we've talked today a lot about intercept activities. there's been some comment on left of launch.

i'll phrase the question this way, what is the right of launch activities and plans, other than that of intercept? my basic premise is that the missile defense system that is generated by mda and the services does not and cannot provide the overall defense of the nation against ballistic missile threats. we acknowledge for the moment that the -- a massive attack from china or russia, the only response is in kind. and that has long been our explicit policy and will not change unless there is some breakthrough in physics, which no one expects. but that's the everything else. we talked earlier about defending against ballistic missiles cannot be an inventory challenge. you are always going to lose, there is there are always going to be more threats than interceptors. at some point, in addition, the laws of physics, the laws of probability and statistics say

that even as you are taking on incoming threats, some are going to get through. i mean, no system is 100%. i am answer aerospace engineer by trade and experience, you hate to admit that, but you cannot build a perfect system. so there is no way to assure somebody i can get them all even if i have a perfect inventory. why do we have an bmds? you need to destroy threats. what it does is provide protection against critical assets long enough that the national command authority, the president and our leadership can take steps to end the threat by other means, get them to stop launching. if they don't launch, it's not a threat. as rich pointed out, if we can get them on launch, that's great.

at some point there, i would submit that particularly in a short and intermediate range scenarios, you are going to run out of boost phase interceptors or whatever your tech neck may be, and boost phase to me can include directed energy, light, rail gun -- i'm agnostic as to the technique. so the question is, what is does this thing need to do? the ballistic missile defense system, that capability produced by mda and the services, has to buy time, and it affords time to the leadership to take other actions and to make decisions. and they are going to have to have to happen in pretty short order. it gives the nca the chance to choose other methods. all of the elements of national power, the classic four that you learn in war college, diplomatic, information, military, and economic. and using all of them in whatever way is appropriate to get the threat to cease to occur. the strategic necessity is to protect the homeland, our own forces, friends and allies from ballistic missile attack. so the key word there is it's about protection. it's not about just flight

destruction. so ballistic missile protection planning must encompass a continuum of capabilities, plans, lines of authority and communications and training to negate or interrupt the ballistic missile threat sequence from its threat planning to preparation to targeting to launch to subsequently launches. so i submit that perhaps an idea for future discussion is that what we need is a ballistic missile protection plan of custom the ballistic missile defense system is an element. this to achieve and maintain a comprehensive all of government approach to negate potential or actual ballistic missile threats. today we've been talking a lot about systems. we started off with the sdi concept of ways to protect us from the missiles, to protect us from the war heads. that's a kinetic approach. to people like me in the department of defense that's where we tend to go to. we grow up that way. i'm an arrow space engineer, i think like that. since the advent of even the sdi concept we've been focused on developing and fielding the capability to perform threat

negation by interceptor destruction in flight. but we know that we can keep doing that because we'll lose the inventory game. it's clear that mda owns the intercept part of ballistic missile protection. who owns the rest? do they know that they do? do others know who owns what? then the question is, what is the rest? what are the methods, the techniques by which you are going to get an antagonist to stop launching? now, it can range from the absolutely terrifying to perhaps something less. i'll go back to that in a bit. but that range of action needs to be thought about and understood developed to prevent launch in the first place or prevent subsequent launches and melded with each other to provide a developed and understood comprehensive protection. the longest flight time of a

ballistic missile is icbm range of 40 minutes. assuming it's a one after the other, the best time you have is 40 minutes. it is probable, depending on what you think the inventories of limited number of launches may be, that the ballistic missile defense system could provide protection to a certain level for hours to maybe a day or two. that's how long you have in order to accomplish another effect, to end the launches. so i said what capabilities need to be developed to prevent the launch, to prevent subsequent launches? something that will have to be considered at some point is who is responsible for the attribution that can be made public to explain what you are doing in an unchallengeable manner?

who knows where it came from? well, we know where it came from, within the bmds and the overhead sensor systems. we usually tend to be loathe to put too much accuracy into our reports on that. but in the case where you are going to take action now, at some level you are going to have to convince the world, as well as your antagonist that in fact they are the ones doing and it you know where it's coming from and you can prove it. so we need a comprehensive basis for bmd protection. it can be intercept alone. the overarching goal, as i said has to be to deter or prevent launch in the first place. and if the launch occurs to inflict sufficient pressure to end further launches and do so? a timely manner. we need to determine what constitutes effective deterrence to dissuede an antagonist from launching based on two principles the antagonist must be led to understand. first the attack will not

succeed in its objective and that the penalty for the attempt will be too high to be borne. this is understood new concept. it's the basic statement of any deterrent strategy. the challenge for our discussion is what are the steps, the factors, the plans and capabilities necessary to accomplish these two principles in defending against ballistic missiles? the first principle is addressed in prime by the ballistic missile defense system, the intercept destruction capability. the second has to be addressed by a variety of means, depending on the situation. bmd planning, i believe will have to account for different categories of attack. i put them into four sectors or judgment. extensional, a violent statement, a rogue, or an accident. an extensiontial attack, which against the united states would

at this time be provided only by china or russia. we have a declaretory policy on how we will respond. we have been clear on that for many, many years. that is not a function of bmd protection, per se. a violent statement by an antagonistic state. a number of missiles, a limited attack. a rogue attack of a limited number of missiles are two different conditions. the roguish you being who do you pressure? if it's a violent state, if it's an act of state x, then you can pressure state x, you can figure out how to do that, one would hope. if it's a rogue attack -- and i would pick isis as a classic -- how and where do you pressure? if isis gets its hands on mrbms and uses them europe, what's the point of attack and what do we do about that? in some cases the answer may be no and that will affect your

response. and then you have the accidental one. and then how is that communicated? if an accidental launch occurs how does the owner of the missile after launch tell i'm very sorry, but i wasn't me and it won't happen again. he maine may be right, or he may be faking it. if anyone remembers the terrifying "seven days in may "that's a very hard decision. and then how do these questions differ between homeland defense and regional? are you going to, when a launch comes at you, a limited attack, are you going to take a massive, violent kinetic attack on that nation? it may be appropriate. it may not be. because then you run into issues of escalatory response. so we need to consider and preplan our responses to these other types of attack. as i said -- and i think i bring it up again -- there is a limited time line here. when this happens, we can't then summon the first national security council meeting about it. and going back to what i

mentioned about all of the government, whole of government part, is that the defense department tends to be very, very good at planning. they do branches and sequels, they do con plans and o plans and all that kinds of thing. the government as a whole does not. but you are going to have an interleaved way of political pressure, economic pressure, diplomatic pressure, steps you are going to take and they have got to be work together to be maximally effective. i said, one of the differences between ballistic missiles and other kinetic threats, particularly for the homeland is the time span from first action to war head arrival is shorter than other threats. cruise missiles, bombers, sea and land forces all are viewable in hours to days before arrival.

you can take steps to crank things up. but once the first launch has occurred, inbound is less than 40 minutes. so we have to have a method of response that starts to apply effective pressure in hours to a very few number of days. the capabilities and actions across the spectrum of necessary responses and responders must be prepared, equipped, and train before the threat situation develops to the point of requiring action. putting to the all the elements, the dime elements. the plan will need to consider, particularly in the area of regionol defense, interaction with allies and partners. how it may add to our defense or limb our ability. nato for instance has a detailed bmd plan for the intercept let me of missile defense protection of nato territory in europe. what are other elements that the nato alliance can bring to bear against an antagonist? they are a military alliance after all. they are not the e.u.

what sort of connections with the e.u., the economic deciders of europe need to be engendered in order to come up with an effective response? in the interleaving of these capabilities, do they fall under the nato command structure or some other entity? the e.u., council of governments, unclear. earlier we were talking about exchanging information, franks mentioned that. how do you coordinate this with other allies and partners? some of this can be very sensitive. again, some of it needs to be planned and thought of ahead of time. do we need to extend the concept of the phased adaptive approach to the whole of ballistic missile protection and not just intercept capability? so having asked all those

questions and posited a challenge, i have a recommendation. i warned elaine about this before she had to leave. she smiled. i recommend that we extent the bmdr, the ballistic missile defense review not as a revisit but as an extension to encompass the whole of government approach, to allocate responsibilities and tasks, and define the deturn points that need to be made and demonstrated to all who might consider threatening our homeland, forces, allies, and partners. in other words, to provide a ballistic missile protection plan. there have been and are still ongoing studies and plans addressing different elements of providing protection, including nonkinetic, nonmilitary. but i think it's time now to

bring those desperate ideas and analysis together. and again as happened in the 2010 bmdr to use a cross-government interagency consultative approach. and it really was, and i had the pleasure of taking part in it. much more so than i had experienced at any other time in government. to interleave the knowledge and capabilities of this requisite approach. i do submit that the original premises and results of the 2010 bmdr remain volumid. however, i believe it is time now to extend its scope and direction to the whole of ballistic missile protection. with that, i'll close and look forward to your questions. thanks. [ applause ] >> thank you, gentlemen. i think this was very thought provoking. i think i'll start off with a

question for mr. matlock. you laid out, and in the news really in the past discussion s there will be a lot of discussion of r and d for mda. but you laid out several key technologies. you talk about space, remote sensing and other things. you talked about fast enter sentors, multiple kill vehicles, things like that. airborne laser. first of all, i was hoping you might address, you know, what kind -- what's the -- what has been the fruit of these past investments, number one? speak to that. have these been experiments that we have yielded nothing from? what kinds of things have they given us now that makes the future possible? and frankly, also, given the relative reduction of mda's budget for r and d, how are we going to be able to do with current budget levels or during the lower budget levels, do these more impressive types of capabilities? >> okay. i think that what you see in our -- as i mentioned a little

bit earlier here, what you see in our system today is essentially the results of the technology investments that we made in the '80s and the '90s. and so much of the interceptor systems, the command and control system, the sensor network -- all of those things are a result of investments that we made broadly in that time frame. alain likes to use the seed corn analogy here. and so we it a a lot of our seed corn to get that. and in order to respond to the capacity, you know, the requirement for greater capacity across the -- across the regions, we have had to transition that technology and make those investments. and so what -- whenever you are faced with the sort of fiscal realities that we face today in terms of those -- that balance

of capacity versus capability and the need to look across government for how do we do that in sequestration, it tends to focus the mind a bit more on those things which have the most promise, and perhaps leave those -- the remainder to future investigations. so that -- that road map that i had laid out for you earlier here, tom, is based on some hard -- hard thinking and some hard choices that we made within the agency, as well with as with our partners in the war finding community, and in the acquisition community, and with policy. so we think that we've got a road map now that is going to get us on a path to make those improvements and enhancements in the missile defense capability over in the next few years. i take archer's point in terms of we probably need to go onthat just right of launch look and we

will probably be looking with greater consideration this year how we start to broaden beyond that. >> great. let me i think turn to you admiral macy. i like your extent the bmdr approach. it kind of reminds me, frankly -- i think it was the 2002 national strategy for countering wmd. >> uh-huh. >> which had those several pillars, what have you, i don't think that was updated or has been updated -- of course the national strategy has been updated since then, which dealt with consequence management, response and all that sort of thing. this seems to be really, this is where the rubber meets the road in terms of really maturing how we think about missile defense. how far along -- just so we have some clarity about -- in terms of thinking, and in acting, merely in the missile sponge, the catcher's myth, as it were, how far are we to integrating those missile defense capabilities and plans to

everything else? we've heard all day how this is just one piece of our larger national -- i think the bmd, ballistic missile protection plan that you articulate is a further step. first of all, how far along are we there? >> i don't think we are very far along, which is why i possiblitied the idea. that stuff has been talked about many times. how you put -- it's a classic problem of how you put whole of government approaches together. it's always hard to do. i try to argue that in the case of responding to ballistic missile defense events, to ballistic missile events, the time line is much shorter than almost any other each occurrence factor when you have more than one launch. so you don't have days or weeks or months, much less to say okay this is how i'm going to

respond. you know, the other end of it, of such a thing would be the classic force on force even that occurred in desert storm and we had the luxury of month to prepare our response. you are not going to have that here. so therefore you have to build your capability, exercise your capability, train the people in it much further ahead of time and maintain that level of training, that level of capability. my observation is we really don't have that. because this would encompass actions that certainly the deputy of defense will take, which is what general totooff. norad, sent com, pay comas appropriate. but it's also going to involve actions at the state department,

justice department treasury commerce, because you're going to need to apply pressure in a number of different ways in order to change the behavior of your antagonist. and i don't believe that we are very far along at doing that now. if we had to do it tomorrow, it would be a significant pick up game. >> excellent. shall we go to the audience questions, especially on the technology and you might say the full spectrum responses. i guess right here. >> good afternoon, charles new stead, state department speaking just for myself as a fist cyst and not for the department or mr. carey will fire me. although he is doing a great job. two points, in terms of the technology, mr. matlock talked about the various systems that we could have either terrestrially or in space. and as he point out, developing a capability in the satellites to shoot things down would be certainly better if we could do

it. now, in particular laser interests me because those are coming along very quickly. one not quite there yet. we don't have laser that we can direct and quickly take out an incoming attack. but the point is that you mentioned diode pumped solid state lasers, which are coming along very quickly now. and may be what we need. now we've got to be concern that this capability is being developed in a number of countries. the united states is doing it. and so is -- are the french for their stockpiled stewardship programs as you understand. but that doesn't have the strength that we need for knocking out a missile. >> what's the question? >> sorry. i'll get to the question. the question is this.

because china and russia are both russia at saroff and china in their defense establishment are developing what they call -- the chinese call devine light, and what the russians call -- i forgot the name -- but at these are supposed to be even stronger that what we had at nif and laser mega tool. >> what's the question? >> i'm sorry. i'll get to the point. it's a long road i'm trying to travel here. the main point is, how do we defend against the chinese and the russians? because they may well have the capability of developing these lasers before we do. >> other people are doing directed energy as well? do you want to speak to that? we're developing the systems, but they can -- other folks are developing directed energy at well. any comment on that?

>> well, i hope we are going to -- i hope we're moving more quickly. no, i don't mean to be flippant. but i think what we see here in the last five or six years is we were very successful in the airborne laser in terms of proving the physics and proving that we could generate power necessary to shoot down rockets. our big challenge there was that it was operationally impractical because of the nature of the system. so we're looking at the technology that the gentleman suggested there, the diode pumped laser system, which is primarily published at our laboratory in california. we are also looking at the fiber combined laser along with our darpa and air force teammates and looking at scaling those up. so we are finding that the technology is moving along fairly quickly. we won't be at lethal capability here for some years to come, but we're hopeful that we'll be able to focus that research here

along with bringing our industry into the picture very shortly to help us understand how we might transition that technology then to a effective missile defense system that could perform a number of missile defense funks. >> do you want to talk about the fy '16 uav proposal? the proposal for a laser mount on a uav that was alluded to? >> yes. we have -- we've seen in the last couple of years, as i mentioned, great improvements in these two laser systems. we also know that our partners at onr have been demonstrating lasers on ships for a particular mission. and the army has done some great work down at white sands missile range for -- with lasers. so we want to take the research that we've got in the laboratory as well as the research that's

going on today in our industry and look at the possibility of whether or not we can transition more quickly to an airborne laser demonstrator here over the next four years. and so we've made some bets in our budget, and we'll be awarding contracts shortly with industry to look at what that -- excuse me -- what that laser demonstrator might look like and how we might be able to put it together, and on what time line. >> great. other folks? mike? >> hi, mike greise with space news, mr. matlock, if you could elaborate more about sensor network and what you might gain from that, and what kind of time line there might be for that. >> which sensor network? >> i'm sorry. there was talk earlier about, i guess -- >> space based? >> right, space based sensor

that might be more elaborate than i guess what currently exists. >> so what we're doing right now is looking at space for -- in the current fiscal environments, access to space for our research has been challenges. so what we've been looking at is other -- other modalities that we can use then to demonstrate the technology that ultimately we might want to put in space. and so we have right now a program that we're working to modify some of our unmanned aerial vehicles with this new sensor capability. and looking at doing that in the field. we had some success just this past fall at the pacific missile range facility in conjunction with some of our egis ballistic missile defense tests in which we took a eoir sensor that's being used in the field today

for other purposes, mounted it on the front of a reaper unmanned arrow vehicle and moved the capability forward so that we could track missiles up in the atmosphere as opposed to look at targets on the ground. and with the stereotracking capability, with those reapers we found that we could generate the kind of track quality necessary to launch standard missiles against targets. tarts that were launched there at pmrf. we have a tech plan now to look at increasing that capability over the next few years with the primary goal of looking at the sensor capability as opposed to the platform and then making a decision down the road, depending on the success of that sensor whether or not this is something we would consider deploying in space or whether it's something that makes sense to deploy terrestrial, an

unmanned aircraft. >> sir? >> scott -- from inside the pentagon. i wanted to go back to the airborne laser on the drones. how do you reconcile that with that it will be attacking the missiles in the booster phase, and it will take a while -- they will have to be in enemy air space, deal with enemy fire and the lasers probably won't be powerful enough to destroy the missile instantaneously? >> i'm sorry, what was the question? i didn't catch the last part of that. >> can laser won't be able to destroy instantaneously the missile when it's in the boost phase. it will take a little while until the missile is destroyed. how are you going to protect the drones in an enemy environment whiler shooting down a boost phase missile. >> i'm going to leave that up to

my partners in the air force. my job here, and my goal is to prove that we can make the technology work at extended ranges. so our goal would be rather than tens or hundreds of kilometers, to get much longer range capability out of these lasers. so that's why i'm driving at these more efficient electric lasers to be able to scale them up to greater power so that we can laze at longer ranges and get more energy on target, which would reduce the time that you talked about that we would have to spend lazing each target. the goal is to get a more efficient laser that's more powerful at longer range. of course one of the challenges we are looking at here with this laser demonstrator is then taking it to the field and working with our war fighter come padres on what would be a

reasonable conons as we look at missile defense systems that use directed energy. >> i have another question question for admiral macy. you talk about integrating these things and frankly thinking about integrating them more heavily to buy time. what's the role in working with our allies on that? what to -- the qdr talks about one of the pillars being working with our partners and allies. on the missile defense mission how reline is the united states going to be on our own capability and how much in working and integrating with, being interoperable with other folks in the east, asia pacific and nato, what do you envision there? i think it's continual effort. it's to get more and more reline and more and more capable of, would go to the. nato has done this already. the decision was taken to make ballistic missile defense a mission of nato. and further, that the ballistic missile defense plans, the rules of engagement, the defended asset list and everything were

agreed upon at 28 in nato, which is as complete as you are going to get. and by force means some areas get more protection than others but they all agreed to it. so you work with your allies and partners for a number of reasons, one is particularcally in the cases where you have treaties you have a responsibility to them. nato is probably the most classic and the fullest one under article 5, wheran attack on one is an attack on all. we are fully reline on our systems, one is by definition and then you are reline on other people's systems to the greatest degree that they can provide them and you can agree to them with it. you want your allies involved not only because you have a responsible to them as they do to you for join defense and cooperative defense but for whatever assets they can bring to the table.

not just military, but economic and whatever, a completely off the wall but not necessarily idea is have part of the declared response toll policy that if a launch comes from a nation that the other nations leave -- the other economic power nations which would be the united states and europe and japan, australia, and so forth -- would immediately shut down all banking transactions. i mean, that would render any modern country essentially inoperable essentially in 24 hours because the world is interconnected on banking. that becomes part of what you would do. that would be part of a

cooperative agreement where allies and partners could join in with providing this effect. >> good. other folks? let's mix it up a little bit. actually, you know, earlier, you asked about the laser technology. i'd like to go back and frankly, this is for both of you. this was referred to earlier today, the memo about reassessing our mission, i think you spoke to that to some extent. >> i'd like to comment on that. >> i'm giving you the comment on the memo. it said a couple of things. it talked about budget constraints. it talked about the increasing stress on the services for the missile defense mission. and we heard earlier about of course sequestration. that affects everything. it affects command, and homeland defense and equity affects others. go at it. >> the reason that i'm personally convinced that that memo is written by the two primary providers of bmd capability among the services was that those two officers were

fulfilling their professional and legal obligation. when you are a commissioned officer in command, you are responsible to keep your superiors advised on your ability or lack thereof to perform an assigned mission. it doesn't matter whether you like the mission or not. i didn't read that memo as saying that the bmd policy was wrong. i read the memo as the chief staff of the army and the chief of naval operations were telling the secretary of defense, sir, i don't think i can do what you want me to do. so something has got to change. the mission, or the resources. but they were doing what one has to do in that position. in fact, they would have been seriously at fault had they not done so. >> very good. very good. i'm going to keep going. i'd like to kick back to the mkb, the multivolume kill, and now the m -- mok, the multiple object kill. what's theory real potential, the long-term potential, for miniaturization of the kill

vehicles? whether it's on today's interceptors or whether it's on something else, what's the long-term potential for miniaturization there? >> we've been through several cycles of miniaturization. so you work with your allies and partners for a number of reasons. one is particularly in the cases where you have treaties, you have a responsibility to them. i mean, nato is probably the most classic and the fullest one on article five. an attack on one is an attack on all. we're fully reliant on our systems, one is by definition. and then you are reliant on other people's systems to the greatest degree that they can ride them than you can agree to it. there is certainly a matter of trust. you want your allies involved not only because you have a responsibility to them, as they do to you for joint defense and

for cooperative defense but for whatever assets they can bring to the table, whatever capabilities, not just military but economic and whatever, a completely off the wall but not necessarily, idea is have part of the declared response policy that if a launch comes from a nation that the other nations -- the other economic power nations, which would be the united states, europe, japan australia, so forth, would immediately shut down all banking transactions. i mean, that would render any modern country essentially inoperable on the order of 24 hours because the world is so interconnected on banking. that becomes part of what you would do.

improved reliability is we're looking at modular open system to broaden the vendor space as well as for our contractors. in other words if you can design to this particular interface and have this set of -- meet this set of requirements, then you're a new vendor for the missile defense integrator. that will allow us to bring more to bear on that challenge. and so i think it's a combination of how do we bring a little bit more capability, perhaps a little more miniaturization. but i don't perceive it as going from one to 26. i perceive it going from one to some number much less than 26 in this next go around. we'll probably be making investments this coming year looking at how do we go from an rkv to an mokv and we'll be looking at our partners to help looking at our industry partners to help us decide what that -- what's required to make that

leap. >> good. any other comments from either of you folks or anybody else? [ inaudible ] >> twitter? >> for example going to poland. hi. you're going to poland right. who measures what? because i'm looking at it from the host nation standpoint and who sells that are a your rmd or the environmental assessment. >> i think these gentlemen are speaking to future directions more than the political considerations for hosting and that kind of thing. any final thoughts, things that haven't been brought out? you want to get off? >> i think it's been a very

interesting conference. my only encourage would be from my obviously demonstrated viewpoint is that we continue to look at the fact that we have to do more than provide a kinetic answer to an inbound threat. >> hearing a lot about that. i think there's a lot of nodding heads on that. i think we've reached our conclusion. i want to thank both of you gentlemen for this. i also want to thank our sponsor, the boeing company for making this possible, larger work on missile defense possible. hopefully we'll be continuing this conversation in the coming months. thank you all for coming out. [ applause ] >> thank you. coming up live tomorrow here on c-span 3, a program on global health issues. musician elton john who was the founder of the elton john aids

foundation, and rick warren, the minister of saddle back church will testify before a senate subcommittee. coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span 3. democratic presidential candidate hillary clinton will be in las vegas today. she's expected to talk about immigration. c-span will have her comments beginning at 5:45 p.m. eastern. on saturday declared and potential republican presidential candidates will be at the south carolina freedom summit. ted cruz and marco rubio will be joining potential candidates rick perry and rick santorum in greenville, south carolina. live coverage begins saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. presidential candidates often release books to introduce themselves to voters. here's a look at some recent books written by declared and

potential candidates for president. former secretary of state hillary clinton looks back on her time serving in the obama administration and hard choices. in american dreams florida senator rubio outlines his plan to restore economic opportunity. former arkansas governor mike huckabee gives his take on politics and culture in "god guns, grits and gravy." and in "blue collar conservatives," potential presidential candidate rick santorum argues the republican party must focus on the working class in order to retake the white house. in a fighting chance, massachusetts senator elizabeth warren recounts the events in her life that shaped her career as an educator and politician. wisconsin governor scott walker argues republicans must offer bold solutions to fix the country and have the courage to implement them in "unintimidated." and kentucky senator rand paul who recently declared his candidacy calls for smaller government and more

bipartisanship in "taking a stand." more potential presidential candidates with recent books include former governor jeb bush in "immigration wars." he along with clint bolick argue for stiffer immigration policies. john kasich calls for a return to traditional american values. james webb looks back on his time serving in the military and the senate in "i heard my country calling." bernie sanders recently announced i had intention to seek the democratic nomination for president. his book "the speech" is a printing of his eight-hour long filibuster against tax cuts. in "promises to deep," vice president joe biden looks back on his career in politics and explains his guiding principles. neurosurgeon ben carson calls for greater individual responsibility to preserve america's future in "one nation." in "fed up," former texas

governor rick perry explains government has become too intrusive and must get out of the way. another politician who's expressed interest in running for president, former rhode island governor lincoln chaffee. "against the tide." carly fiorina shares lesson she's learned from her difficulties and triumphs in "rising to the challenge." bobby jindal explains why conservative solutions are needed in washington in "leadership in crisis." finally in "a time for truth," texas senator ted cruz recounts his journey from a cuban immigrant's son to the u.s. senate. look for his book in june. remarkable partnerships. iconic women. their stories in "first ladies -- the book." >> she did save the portrait of

washington which was one of the things that endeared her to the entire nation. >> whoever could find out where francis was staying, what she was wearing, what she was doing what she looked like who she was seeing, that was going to help sell papers. >> she takes over a radio station an starts returning it. i mean huh? how do you do that? and she did it! >> she excerpted enormous influence because she would move a mountain to make sure that her husband was protected. >> "first ladies," now a book published by public affairs looking inside the personal life of every first lady in american history based on original interviews from c-span's first ladies series. learn about their lives ambitions, families and unique partnerships with their presidential spouses. "first ladies," presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women filled with lively stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house sometimes at a great personal cost, often changing history.

c-span's "first ladies" is an illuminating entertaining and inspiring read now available as a hard cover or ebook through your favorite book store or online book seller. last month former president bill clinton spoke about the importance of like in public service at his alma mater, georgetown university as part of what's called the clinton lectures. president clinton vad grated from the university's foreign service school in 1968. . well, good morning. it is my pleasure and privilege to welcome all of you to gaston hall for this in the third of the clinton lectures at georgetown. i wish to thank all of you for

being here and to offer a special word of welcome to our distinguished guests in attendance, including the honorable tom vilsack, the secretary of agriculture and congressman john delaney. we're honored to have you with us this morning. we've had the privilege over the course of the past few decades to welcome president clinton back to georgetown on a number of occasions. notably, for a series of lectures in 1991 while he was the governor of arkansas and democratic candidate for president. on the steps of old north for an address to the diplomatic corps in 1993 just days before his inauguration. and now for this series. in his first lecture of this series president clinton spoke about the significance of those 1991 lectures. now known as the new covenant speeches on responsibility and rebuilding the american

community, economic change and american security, not only to his campaign but also for his vision for our future. he explained that these lectures enabled him to "think about where we were, where we wanted to go, and how we proposed to get there." we've come together today and on two other occasions this this series to engage wisdom and insights of one of the most accomplished global leaders of our time and to hear his perspective gained from a lifetime of service to our nation. as president he presided over the longest economic expansion in american history including the creation of more than 22 million jobs the reform of the welfare and health care systems, new environmental regulations, peacekeeping missions in places such as bosnia, and a federal budget surplus. in the years since his two-term presidency, the first for a

democrat since president franklin delano roosevelt, he has focused his efforts on improving global health, education and economic development around the world through the bill hellillary and chelsea clinton foundation which he founded in 1991. a 1968 alumnus of our school of foreign service, a rhodes scholar, a yale law graduate, attorney general, then governor of arkansas. father otto hence long-time and beloved member of our theology department who taught president clinton during his first year here at georgetown has described him as someone who "thinks deeply." he explains, "speaking of president clinton, when people are well informed and deeply reflective, that gives them a security and freedom to listen to a wide spectrum of opinions.

clinton is not a man who is closed in his thinking because he thinks deeply. it's only fitting that for this lecture on the theme of purpose, father hence will serve as our moderator during the question and answer session that will follow president clinton's remarks. with this theme purpose president clinton turns to each of us as he did during those formative new covenant speeches, to speak to all of you -- future leaders of our nation -- to think deeply about our own responsibilities, about where we are, where we want toing, and inggo and how we propose together to get there. he 2013 lecture here how do we live in a world where service is important.

today we come together to try to understand our purpose and our responsibilities our service to the common good and to each other. ladies and gentlemen, it is now my privilege to welcome to the stage the 42nd president of the united states, and a true son of georgetown, president bill clinton. >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you for having me back. thank you, father hence for agreeing to ask me questions. i'll give better answers than i

did 50 years ago. i hope. thank you all for kompl ingcoming. students, faculty, friends of georgetown secretarivilley vilsack, thank you very much for being here and your long tenure. congressman delaney who is a shining hope for the possibility of bipartisan cooperation. he's got a bill to repatriate all this loose cash that's hanging around overseas that has as many republican as democratic sponsors sponsors, i think. some people think there's something wrong with that. i think that's pretty good idea. so i thank him for that. i want to thank my classmates an friends who are here. get the show on the road. two years ago i came here in april, intending to give a series of three or four lectures on composing a life in public

service. whether that's in an elected or appointed office or in the private sector or working for a non-governmental organization. in the first talk i said there are four essential elements to any successful service. a focus on people policy, politics and purpose. in that first lecture i was primarily focused on the necessity of understanding how different people view themselves and the world they're living in. without understanding people, it's pretty hard to develop the best policies and to build and maintain support for them. as i said then i grew up in a story telling culture, so i told you stories about people who taught me that everybody has a story and kept me focused on how

to help other people have better stories. i told you stories about my family and my teachers, beginning in junior high and running through georgetown, about people i'd worked with over the years and people i'd met who were dealing with their own life struggles. the second lecture covered policy making and the compromises that are almost always involved when trying to do what is called in machiavellian terms, to do the most difficult thing in all of affairs, to change the established order things. we discussed how policy making was done when i was president in developing economic plan in 1993 which reversed 12 years of trickle-down economics and gave us the only period in 50 years when all sectors of the american

economy grew robustly and the bottom 20%'s income rose 23.6% the same as the top 5%. we talked about crafting the welfare reform bill in 1996. what compromised were acceptable, what wasn't what's worked over the long run, what still needs to be changed. and we talked about the pursuit of peace in the middle east. i hope that talk convinced you that policy actually matters, that ideas, when implemented, have consequences and different ideas have different consequences. a great deal of political rhetoric is devoted to blurring that, to pretending that if something good happens and the other guy did it it was an accident, and if something bad happens and you did it well, it couldn't have been because you pursued the wrong policy. and because so much of our

voting habits today are determined by the culture in which we live and the conditions in which we experience the world, we tend to blur all that. so i hope i convinced you that whenever you're trying to evaluate policy you should try to ask yourself is there a difference between the story and the story line. always look for the story. sometimes it is in the story line, and sometimes it is not. there is a difference between the headlines and the trend lines. typically for perfectly understandable reasons, bad news makes better news than good news. but sometimes the trend lines are much better than the headlines. so -- and we may have occasion to revisit that.

today i want to talk about the purpose of public service driven by a concern for people manifest in policies one is advocating and about the politics of turning concern and good policy into real changes that fulfill your purpose. for obvious reasons i don't intend to talk much about electoral politics. but it's important to remember, as secretary vilsack and congressman delaney can tell you, there is plenty of politics when the election is over in trying to implement policy. and there is plenty of politics if you are a he not in an elected office. if you're working in a private business, or you're working for an ngo. that's the kind of politics i want to talk about. how do you have the skills to actually turn your ideas into action. in every public service success

leadership requires a vision of a better future where the purpose of public service is made plain in the circumstances of the moment. a clear, understandable plan to realize that vision and the ability to actually implement the changes. if at all possible by the inclusion of all the stakeholders in the process, this is becoming more important than ever before. in an interdependent world, whether we like it or not, inclusive politics is necessary to have inclusive economics. incluessive discussion with various stakeholders is necessary to affect social change. india has three very vigorous leaders at the moment. president of china, president xi, who's trying to grow chinese economy internally more by resuming population growth by

modifying the one-child policy and trying to eliminate some of the corruption that has been endemic to the system, and prime minister abe of japan who is trying to overcome his own country's reluctance to alter their culture by allowing widespread immigration by putting more women into the workforce and enabling people to work longer. and prime minister madi of india who biggest problem is it's grown like crazy for the last 20 years in and around its tech prosperity centers but only 35% of the people are being reached by that effort. and that india needs the ability to integrate and employ capital

so that 100% of the people of india can have a chance to benefit from the enterprise that's now driving dramatic prosperity for just 35% of them. so this inclusion issue is going to become bigger and bigger and bigger in the lifetime of the students who are here. but let me try to illustrate the success of leadership and the pitfalls with a few recent examples. recent in my terms, not the students' terms. helmut cole was the chancellor of germany. he had the experience of living through a world war ii of having a united peaceful prosperous

germany in the united, peaceful democratic europe. most of these developments may seem normal to you, they were virtually unimaginable for most of european history in which germany was not a separate country but a collection of city states, then united under bismarck. cole became the second-longest serving german chancellor in german history in the pursuit of his vision second only to bismarck. and he had a strategy which he pursued with extraordinary discipline. it was first to unite germany after the wall came down, which required very large transfers of money from west germany to east germany to begin the long process of equalizing the economic opportunities on both sides of the former divide. second to expand and strengthen

the european union. he wanted all of central and eastern europe to come into the eu so that germany would be in the middle of europe, not on the edge where it had been a source of instability and conflict throughout the 20th century. third, he wanted to expand nato and strengthen the transatlantic ties to the united states because he thought that was important to building a prosperous democratic future for germans and for the rest of europe. and fourth, often forgotten, he became the most vigorous supporters of russia after the end of communism. its economic recovery, its democracy building and its increasing cooperation with the eu and the u.s. it's hard to believe given today's headlines, but that was the order we were all trying to build then in the 1990s, and it worked for quite a while.

in the beginning it worked very well. but there were two central problems with implementing cole's vision after he left office. one is that much of the european union, although not every member adopted the euro as a currency. they had a eurozone currency, which was adopted before those in the eurozone had a common economic policy a common social policy and a common public investment policy. which meant it worked great when europe was growing well. and greeks could borrow money at german interest rates essentially. but when the economy turned down, it no longer worked very well. partly because the german voters didn't understand how much game they had gotten out of all those good years when greece and spain

and portugal and italy got to borrow money at common interest rates and buy german exports. and germany is by the way, still the number one rich country in the world and the percentage of its gdp tied to exports and tied to manufacturing. in no small measure but a good lesson for united states because of its dramatic success in involving small and middle size businesses in the export market, having a continuous lifetime training program and having a program that pays employers to keep people working instead of paying unemployed employees unemployment benefits. so it worked fine. but when greece failed and ireland failed, and spain had skyrocketing unemployment, all for slightly different reasons, although basically it was just a

real estate boom going bust in ireland and spain. and portugal and italy had their own troubles. the automatic response of the eu was to try to impose austerity on greece because they had governments that had for years made promises to people they couldn't keep. and because they had a country in which rich people didn't pay taxes. in fact, constitutionally the shipping companies are exempted from taxes. something very many -- a lot of people don't know. so that if you were a cab driver in athens or a fishermen in the aegean you'd feel like a chump if you did pay your taxes. but greece began a program of austerity in 2009. when they started their public debt was 120% of gdp. today they made all these payments and their public debt's

about 180% of gdp. which means that the fundamental laws of economics have not been repealed. if inflation is lower than interest rates there's insufficient demand and more austerity will get you in a deeper hole, not get you out of it. so that happened. and there was no provision made at the creation of the eurozone for how to get out without collapsing the hole our without spooking the markets. and that was probably an error. if they weren't prepared to have common economic and social policy and some sort of investment, they should have made an exit strategy part of the beginning. then the market hazards wouldn't have been so great. the typical thing for a little country the trouble of greece is to the value, take all the hard benefit and start growing again. what's what iceland did which is

not in the eurozone. iceland was a particular tragedy. its bank were far more leveraged than american banks but they also had more self-made millionaires with be mostly in tech and retail businesses than any other -- as a percentage of their population than any other european country. so they devalued and started building again and got out of this mess they were in this a hurry. so that doesn't mean that cole's european idea was wrong. it doesn't -- and the eu and the strengthening of it. and for many older europeans, even the boring and bureaucratic nature of the cumbersome machinery in brussels of the eu is a godsend. far better than uncertainty and war. and endless intrigue with destructive consequences. the other thing that happen to cole's vision of course is that

russia took a more unilateral and authoritarian term as manifest most vividly in what happened in ukraine and what continues to happen there. but, on balance, you would have to say he was the most important european leader since world war ii because of the good things that happen and the bad things that didn't happened. and i still believe over the long run we will return to the path that he advocated for so long. second example. the founding prime minister of singapore recently passed away at 91. i was asked, along with henry kinsenger

kinsenger, so i went. when lee took office more than 60 years ago in 1962 he was the leader of a small city state of a few million people with a per capita income of $100,000 a year. it had recently broken off from malaysia and there was a lot of uncertainty about two things. one was whether this little city state that was heavily chinese and malay minority and smaller indian minority and filipinos and others in its diverse state could ever make a go of it. and two, whether a state that small could withstand the debill dating consequences of the corruption which was an endemic to most of the asian rising countries. lee had a strategy. he wanted first his vision was to have a prosperous, unified,

secure nation. and he knew that singapore had the most important thing of all at the time he came of age -- location. it was located at a critical juncture for all the major sea lanes in asia who knew the asian economy was going to boom and he wanted to be there. so his strategy was, first to govern singapore on terms of equal treatment for all its citizens without regard to their ethnic background. there were ten speakers at his funeral. his son the prime minister spoke first about his leadership. his son his second son, spoke last about what a good father he was. in the middle there were representatives of every ethnic group in singapore who talked

about how he had made a home for them. inclusion. he also was so rigorous in the pursuit of corruption from cabinet ministers to minor functionaries overcharging people for fines that he allowed people who were part of his own political movement to go to prison. but he got rid of corruption. singapore soon gained a reputation as a place to invest, a place where people wanted to be, where everything was on the up and up. things were on the level. it made a huge difference. the third thing he wanted to do was to have an alliance with the united states for security purposes. but to get along with everybody in the neighborhood. which he proceeded to do. and finally, he launched a

constant organized effort to modernize the country, educationally, economically and to maintain social cohesion with methods most of us in the united states often thought were pretty severe including caning maldoers. but it worked. i remember once there was a lot of joking in the press about the fact that singapore banned chewing gum. they got mad because kids were leaving chewing gum under desks and under seats on public transportation and things like that. but they got rid of the problem. they built, by common consensus, one of the five best education systems in the world. few years ago a small country with only six-plus-million people allocated $3 billion to biotechnology research. same amount of your money i

spent to sequence the human genome. so did it succeed? when he took office the per capita income was under $1,000. when we celebrated his life at his memorial service, singapore's per capita income was $55,000. one of the most remarkable economic success stories ever. ernesto saddillo became sort of an accidental president of mexico. person his party favored for their presidency was killed early in the campaign season and he was picked to succeed him. but he was a very well trained economist and he wanted to build a modern economy for mexico and a modern political nation. that was his vision. so he set about building a

modern economy by opening mexico to competition an investment and promoting responsible more honest behavior. early in this effort through no fault of his own, they had a horrible economic crisis. they were about to go broke and the united states stepped in. i was president. it was 20 years ago. we stepped in and gave him a loan which on the day i gave it was opposed by something like 80% of the american people who thought about mexico's yesterdays instead of his tomorrows. sad sadillo repaid that loans five years early. it was one of the best investments we ever made. we still have disagreements with mexico but think about your own life. it is one thing to have a disagreement with a friend and another to have a disagreement with an adversary and the consequences are dramatically different. maybe more important he

recognized that his country could never fully become modern unless it was more politically competitive and his party, the pri, had enjoyed a monopoly on power for 70 years. he opened the field to competition and had an honest election. it was won by vicente fox and he handed over power peacefully for the first time in seven decades to a member of the opposite party. mexico's not free of problems but it is worth noting that one of his successors built 140 tuition-free universities and last year they graduated more than 100,000 engineers. and that the economic growth was significant to keep mexicans home. between 2010 and 2014, for the frs time first time in my lifetime there was no net in migration from

mexico. nelson mandela's vision was to build a modern democratic state that would survive and thrive after the end of apartheid and the end of his term. his strategy included -- his now famous reconciliation commission where people who had committed crimes, even murderous crimes during the apartheid era could come and testify, make their actions a part of the public record and then be reconciled to the rest of the country so they could participate in the future. it was an astonishing thing. he said we don't have time to build any more jails and worry about this. we got to go forward. something that was copied largely in a different -- slightly different forum through local community courts in rwanda after the rwanda genocide and a capacity that's beyond the culture of many other countries.

interestingly enough we are now seeing the ongoing efforts of the president of colombia, president santos, to resolve the last remaining conflicts there with the farc and the big hangup is who's going to be held responsible for what. and this is something we all have to deal with in our lives and we have to deal with in other cultures. but accountability is important but so is going beyond. and different people different cultures draw the balance in different ways. there's no doubt in my mind that mandela did the right thing for south africa. the second thing he did, which is arguably just as important, was practice the politics of radical inclusion.

that to most of you was was symbolized when he invited his jailers to his inauguration. but far more important was that he put the leaders of the parties that supported apar died in apartheid in his cabinet. you think that happens all the time. mandela ran for president with 18 opponents and got 63% of the vote. the first time black south africans had voted in 300 years. and his whole term occurred when i was president. so we had a lot -- we did a lot of business together. and i always let him call me late at night because of the time difference. he liked to go to bed early and he knew i'd stay up late so he'd call me late at night. so he called me one night and he said, oh they're giving me hell. and i said, who?

the -- i'm always kidding about the afrikaners and the history. he said, oh my, my own people. i said what are you saying? they are saying how can you put these people in government. they kept you in prison, they were shooting us, killing a bunch of us. now you're going to give them government ministries? i said what did you tell them? he said i said well, you know we just voted for the first time in 300 years so let me ask you can we run the financial system all by ourselves? can we run the military all by ourselves? can we run the police all by ourselves? is there one thing in this whole country we can run all by ourselves? the answer is no. maybe some day. this is not that day. he said if i can get over it, so can you. we're going to do this together. you'd be surprised somebody gave a speech like that in

washington wouldn't you. but it is important to recognize and not to be too sanctimonious here mandela had paid a remarkable price and learned astonishing lessons. and he had the stature to do that and not fall. there was a third now often overlooked part of his strategy which is why that hasn't worked out yet. ep named as his deputy president a much younger man, tabu nbkei who is the most gifted economist in south africa because he knew two take his entire term and he was determined to only serve one term. he was well into his 70s and he paid a very stiff physical price for the first years of his imprisonment. so the other part of his

strategy was to be succeeded by him so he could build a better economic state and increase trade and investment across africa in a way that would stabilize south africa. than part of the plan didn't work. for reasons beyond his control. south africa first became the epicenter of the world aids crisis. and was made worse by the troubles in zimbabwe and other places which led to even more people coming into south africa who were hiv positive. meanwhile, and still to me somewhat mystifying mbeki denied for a long time the dimensions, cause and remedies of crisis. i knew this because our foundation helped them to come up with an aids plan and they were doing fine in the cities.

they had prosperous cities and great health systems. but they really had to get out into the countryside. and when we celebrated mandela -- i can't remember, maybe his 80th birthday -- 80th or 85th birthday i was down there and we had 50 people who worked with our health access initiative dressed up and ready to go to south africa to implement a plan that the government -- the cabinet had adopted. and it all was canceled. and it was a bizarre story of local politics gone awry. the third most important person in south africa's political hierarchy after the president and deputy president is the treasurer of the african national congress. because he funds all their political operations. and it was effectively a one-party dominant state. his wife was a health minister.

she had been trained as a physician in the old soviet union. and she thought aids was sort of a western plot to make pharmaceutical companies more money. and said all this could be cured by eating native roots and yams. sounds crazy now but they believed that. and mbeki felt, perhaps accurately, that he couldn't let her go and hold on to power so even though he had a wonderful woman working for him in his office who wanted to do something about it they didn't. but the point is, it is another thing to remember in whatever you do. mbeki took office intending to build a modern economic state. he was gifted enough to do it. he knew enough to do it. but he didn't deal well with the incoming fire.

when something happens you didn't intend to happen -- aids explodes -- you can't play like it didn't happen. i always say, when president bush and al gore ran for president in 2000 nobody asked either one of them what are you going to do when the twin towers are blown up the pentagon's attack and another plane aimed for the capitol crashes in pennsylvania. he couldn't say i'm sorry that's not what i ran to do i ran to reverse bill clinton's economic policy. you're laughing but you see that's basically what happened in south africa. that's important to remember not just in politics but in anything. there's always going to be something happened you weren't planning for and you have to learn to deal with that and pursue your original vision at the same time. but mandela still deserves history's applause because south africa is still a democracy, it

is still operating it is still doing a lot of good, president zuma, who has his own problems has been great dealing with aids. really great. and mandela proved that inclusion is better than constant conflict. so i think all of that works. now let's talk about some non-state actors. wunduri matai. she was a good friend of hillary's and mine. she was an amazing woman. but she knew that the kenyan tree cover had gone all the way down to 1% of the land, that it was erodeing the top soil destroying agricultural productivity, that it was going to cause endless political

conflicts in the country. fuel corruption. and she had a vision of repairing that damage so kenya could take its considerable other strengths and grow in a way that produces broad-based prosperity. but what she won the nobel prize for was figuring out i need to figure out something everybody can do to advance this vision. i don't need to just be in the parcel rmt parliament, inso she got thousands and thousands of people to plant tens of millions of trees. single-handedly from the grassroots up she began to try to reverse a debilitating trepid, without which that we're still working on today.trend, without which that we're still working on today. so her vision as a citizen

organizing an ngo, she didn't have the power to do it all herself. but now the government has supported policies finally that are allowing us to map the country, to plan in a strategic way to do things and they ask my foundation to go there because of i think our long friendship with her and what we'd done. but that's a way to look at her life and say, she made a real difference and she did it by empowering individual people to do something that sounds simple and doing it on a scale that would catch the attention of the world. give you another example. a republican american businessman, now sadly passed away a few years ago. in the early 1960s, ken averson

founded a company called new corps. it was a steel company. his vision was to make steel, not in original casting the way it was largely done in and around pittsburgh but by melting down existing steel and then reforming it. and technology was developed so the steel could then be rolled in one-inch thick rolls instead of four-inch thick rolls making it much more malleable and conversion for a variety of purposes. that's not the important thing. iverson decided that if he wanted this company to last in the long run, and to be able to adapt, that 40% of their success would be rooted in their technology and 60% in their people. so he adopted the most radical egalitarian culture of any

company of which i am aware in america. i -- the reason i know this is because i recruited the company to arkansas and i liked him and i'm pretty sure he never voted for me because he was a really conservative republican. he didn't want the government to tell him to do this, but this was a communityetearian's dream. they rented office space in an office park in charlotte north carolina. they had a grand total of 22 people in the central office. with 11 steel mills. the workers were paid a salary that averaged 65% to 75% of the industry average but they got a weekly bonus based on production total. and the non-production workers got a bonus based on another formula.

in addition to that, there was a profit sharing plan of 10% of the profits unavailable to top management. everybody else participated. in addition to that if you had a child who wanted to go to college and you were employed there, they'd pay the equivalent of a year's tuition in community college for the child to go. one man in darlington, south carolina educated eight children working for new corps and had it no adverse effect on your pay or your bonus. in addition to that, they had a no-layoff policy. so i've still got the letter ken iverson wrote to all of his employees in the only year in the 1980s when nucorps made less money than they did the year before. they never lost money until the

financial crash but their profit margin went down. so he sent a letter which said something like this -- as you know, the world steel business is in a terrible slump and so our sales went down 20% this year. this is not your fault. you did everything i asked you to do. it, however, my fault. i should have been smart enough to figure out how we could be the only company in the world not to have our profits decline. as you know i have a no-layoff policy so everybody's income's going down 20% this year. but since it's my fault, not yours, i'm going to cut my income 60%. there was a big article in "fortune" or "forbes" of -- it was kind of mixed tone pointing out how he was now by light years the lowest paid fortune 500 company executive in america. he wore it like a badge of honor. when i was president he wrote a little management book called "plain talk."

still my favorite one. he said i can go down the street in new york where all these corporate offices are and i can watch people go to work and look at them five minutes at their desk and tell you whether that company's succeeding or not. and he said long before it became the problem it is today i don't want short term investors in nucorps. they want somebody committed to turn a quick profit they should invest somewhere else. we're in it for the long run. and it is very interesting to see, he had a very inclusive process. there were only three management layers below him and the employee making the steel. and every employee had the president's phone number and his. and you could call him on the phone but only if you had talked to your supervisor first. the point is he created a culture of radical inclusion.

and it worked and it's working today. they have the same culture today, except now in the education, benefit is higher around if you got a spouse who wants to go to college, your spouse is eligible. and if you want to go after work, you can go. and none of it takes a. penny away from either your wages or your bonus. so i would say that guy was a success. by the time i became president nucorps was the third biggest steel company in america. and he did it with a vision with a plan with execution and radical inclusion. and give you another example. bill and melinda gates. they have a simple vision. their vision is that every life has equal value and therefore we should create a world where

people have equal chances. that's their vision. simple. they have a strategy. we got a lot of money and we're going to invest it to achieve that vision. but we're going to invest it through people who do things that we can't do. we don't want to hire 100,000 people to implement all these things we fund. so for example melinda gates and hillary recently announced before she left the foundation that they were going to -- that all this data research they'd done on the condition of women and the disparities in the conditions of women and men in the united states and around the world. bill gates and gates foundation invest a lot of money every year through our health initiative

to -- iconoclastic. he just wants to do what works. he said the world health organization ought to be able to do this but it can't, and so we do it. but it's very interesting to watch how a person -- if you listen to him, you'll say we find it harder to give this money away than it was to make it. because our goal is simple and clear. we want to create a world of equal chances. and i think they have been most successful in their health investments around the world where the millennium investment goals have been declineing mortality and and any number of other measurements there. give you one or example or two

in health care because they're important. i recently went to heat where i've been working for many years to visit a project i supported on the grounds of the oldest aids clinic in the world. the first aids clinic in the world was established in port-au-prince, haiti by a dr. named bill papp who is a native of port-au-prince. haiti is a city built in a bowl for 100,000 people. a lot of people live essentially on a field. 100,000 people live in what should be out in the water. this makes the possibility of water born diseases much more likely. and that's what cholera turned out to be. actually when it basically entered the water stream in haiti. because the country doesn't have good sewer and water systems.

so bill papp took the money that he got from a variety of sources and built a modern cholera treatment center. most importantly, this guy spent his whole life treating aids. and then when the earthquake occurred, all the land he had around his little hospital he gave over to a tent city. but he realized that kol laracholera could be just as debilitating to his country so he designed a hospital to maximize the success of treatment maximum light sanitation, no infections, and he treated the water and the sanitation above the ground because of the characteristics i just described. he developed this absolutely beautiful treatment system covered in plants and greenery. which got 99% of the bacteria

out of the waste system. and then they covered it with chlorine and got up to 99% before it could ever be released into the ground. this one man in one place doing something at an affordable price that could be scaled and could save countless lives around the world. paul farmer, my friend he's on the board of our health programs, founded partners in health with jim kim, now head of the world bank. and he figured out how to serve an area of 200,000 with a health staff that would normally only serve 20,000 by building one good hospital and then satellite clinics, then beyond the satellite trained community medical workers.

and then he went to rwanda at our request and worked with our foundation and built a hospital in every region of the country. they'd all been destroyed except for one in the capital city during the genocide. the last hospital on the rwanda border is the only serious cancer treatment center in that part of africa. but they're all the same thing. a simple system that can be affordable, and repeated, by countries with income levels way below ours. if you have a vision a strategy, and you have the support of people at the grassroots level because you're inclusive, these kinds of things can be done by ordinary citizens. these are things we need to be thinking about in america as we work to restore broad based

prosperity. as we work to define our role in a world of competition from new and different forces to define the future. arguably the most interesting non-governmental organization today which proves the importance of inclusion by its shortcomings but is formidable is isis. isis is a terrorist organization, an ngo trying to become a state. that is they don't recognize any of the boundaries of the middle eastern countries that's legitimate. they were all established drawn largely by westerner after the collapse of the ottoman empire.

they set up their own judicial system, their own rule making they set up whatever their social services are going to be and the only thing is you can't disagree with him or they'll kill you. as we have seen. and sometimes they kill you -- they will allow, just as the ottomans did in the caliphate times, tlel'shey'll allow a christian or a jew to live if they agree to pay a fine or a tax every year to live within their hallowed kingdom. but if they decide you're in the postate, they just kill you which is why they authorize the killing of our muslims and they went after that tiny sect of

yazidis which were powerless. a book called "heirs to there are still 200,000 samaritans there. so, we surely there's a good samaritan, the parable. it's fascinating. but the point is, i said isis is the opposite. they have a vision. they have a strategy. they think they're right. but they are antiinclusion in the extreme. and people are voting with their feet and as you see. it will not be the future, but it cannot be ignored. it has to be countered. so, as america charts its course with the world and tries to

restore prosperity and opportunity at home tries to get back more in the future business to accelerate all these great technological and biological developments that are going on. it is well to remember that we need to make our purposes clear. with a vision that is inclusive of our own people and also gives other people a chance to be part of constructive rather than destructive partnerships. for me personally, i've always had a pretty simple purpose. i always wanted at the end of my life, to be able to answer with

a resounding yes three questions. are people better off when you quit than when you started? do children have a brighter future? are things coming together instead of being torn apart. to me, all the rest is background music and i tried to develop the political skills and the ability to constantly develop policy that would enable me personally to say that. which meant at given time, i might have a different vision for what the country had to do at this point in time or my native state had to do at that point many time. all of you have to do that. when i was a student here and i quoted this in 1992 when i came here and gave me lectures before i started my campaign. i was deeply moved by carol quigley's statement in the history of civilizations that the the defining characteric of our civilization was a simple

bloef that the future could be better than the past and that every person had a personal moral responsibility to contribute to making it better. that no one had the truth. so, the great joy in life was the constant search for the truth. and it was a journey that gave life meaning. so, i can't tell you what your purpose should be. but i can tell you you'll have a lot more fun in your life if you have one and if it's bigger than you. a couple of years ago right as the annual meeting of our global initiative was beginning, i was notified that a young woman who worked for our health access initiative in mozambique and her

fiance, a gifted architect, had been among those murdered by al shahab and the attack on the mall in nairobi. she was a dutch nurse. ironically in all these years i've been doing this work, we've only lost two people to violence. both dutch nurses. but this one was a dutch nurse who was so good at what she did and went back to harvard and got a pafd in public health and bent to take management position in africa. her name was ellaf. she was 8 and a half months pregnant. she went to nairobi because it's the best place in that part of

africa to have a baby. and she and her husband were just strolling down the mall and they were killeded. the people that killed her doubtless think they are righteous people. but if you believe in an inclusive future, it doesn't belong to them. nigeria has a new president because a majority of people in nigeria don't like boka haram. they don't think you have a right to kill everybody that disagrees with you. so, any way, when i was at the global initiative, i was very moved by this because i had been with that woman six weeks before she was murdered. visiting our projects. and she was beautiful and very pregnant. and we joked, i said i'm a lamaz

father, if you have an energy, just call me into play. six weeks later, she was gone. none of us know how long we're going to be here, what we're going to do, but her life had purpose. because she had a vision. and she developed a personal strategy to make a difference. which she did. so, i told this story. that i just told you. and when i told the story, another woman came up to me and she said, you know, more than 20 years ago, i was that young nurse. i was in kenya. i was working. in africa, ngo and i was pregnant and i went to nairobi to have my baby. she said my baby was born healthy. and i was blessed. but a few years ago, he was shot several times in the virginia

tech shooting. and she said thank god he lived and it changed his whole life and all he wants to do now is work in a nongovernmental group to give children a safer future. we all find our purpose in our own way. but if you work at it, it will come. i wish you well. thank you very much.

mr. president, the students have submitted some really excellent questions i think, very stimulating, but the first one is is a softball. and i can't let you talk too long on it. we have got to, it's going to be great fun, i think. there are some other good ones coming along. it's the teacher in me. what did going to georgetown mean to you? how did it influence your purpose? >> i'll try to give you a short

answer because i think i told this before, but when i wrote my autobiography, hi editor made me take out 20 pages i wrote about georgetown and there's stale lot in there about it. he said, you can't possibly remember all these people. and all these teachers and everything, but i do. it had a profound impact on me first of all because i met people from all over the world. both my teachers and my fellow students. that i would have never met otherwise. in our class, our class was the only graduating class in i think in american history that produced three presidents of three countries. when i became president, my classmate was the president of el salvador.

when i left office, gloria was the president of the philippines and the whole time i was there, our classmate was the head of the saudi version of the cia. later ambassador to the united states, the united kingdom. i was here with fascinating people at a fascinating time. but it affected me mostly because of the teachers i had. and the people i went to school with and the conversations we had about what was going on in our class we had. it was very different than now. we did not have, my class, foreign service, an elective course until the second semester of our junior year. a big controversy. but i loved it. it, i doubt very seriously if i ever would have become president