1,800 of the 2,100 behavioral health providers necessary for adequate care. it will help boost recruitment and retention. the other is utilizing nonphysician provider types.pra. do you support these tools? and do you have any other plans to address that gap that you had between 1,800 and 2,100? >> i do, senator. we appreciate your leadership. there's no doubt we have to get after it. i would say -- the embedded behavioral health teams. it's members of their own team in a brigade area where they're out there. there's 60 teams right now. but that race has been a game changer. when you talk about getting rid of the sigma of mental health. when you look at other things. when i was at ft. hood, they

couldn't hire certain folks because they didn't have the certain licensing. so we're looking at that. and there's potential if they have their masters degree but not a license, maybe they can be supplemented to break that. because if they don't have a license, what i found, that they can -- those same people go to tricare and tricare can hire those people. so, again, those things, you know, when i travel -- i ask those tough questions to make sure we could get these numbers up. because as you know last year there was 301 suicides. i write condolence notes every week to fallen soldiers including the ones who are committed into their families and their children. my first week in this job three months ago, we had lost ten folks in my first week. so it's something that weighs on all of us as leaders. but i think the army's really leading the way and getting after it but there's much more we can do. i look forward to look at that indiana university report and

looking at some of the criteria and certifications. >> this is to both of you, whoever wants to answer. in my home state of indiana, crane army ammo. this is in regards to de-mill technology. to try to provide the technology that's used for demill. i'm interested to know if you have idea, how we can produce efficiency? for example, transporting munitions from storage to demil locations. we can look at maximizing proximity of demil locations? i know that's a little bit technical but are those the kinds things we can be doing to help look at saving money as we move forward? >> right now, senator, we mostly store, as you know, which comes in at -- i forget what the exact numbers are but i think it's something like 2 million versus 20 million to demil.

from a technical standpoint, i'll have to get back with the team and get some detail and get back to you and i'll provide that to the secretary so he can get back to you. >> thank you. i am running out of time. general, i just wanted to ask you, while i was in iraq, it seemed moving isis out of town after town at the present time. things are moving in the right direction. the big action that's going to be taking place as we look ahead is mosul. i was wondering, you know, in your conversations with general mcfarland with other people in the theater there how you think that is shaping up as we look forward? >> i went over -- i took this job in august. i've served multiple tore mult there. went back in december. have been in frequent contact

with the commanders. things are moving in the right direction. there's progress. progress is not yet winning. there's a lot of work to be done. it is true ramadi. they're currently engaged in the battle of heat. there's also significant efforts being done up in the northern area, and the lines of communication have been cut between mosul and raqqah and our basic strategy shifted in october and we're seeing the results of that today with significant losses and enemy personnel, key leader, increased pressure on their finances and loss of territory and they are under a lot of pressure. we're doing that intentionally. multiple dilemmas. multiple problems. all simultaneous. we're hitting them in a lot of ways. all that's to the good. that's not exactly winning yet. the caliphate has to be destroyed. they've also chosen to displace

some of their forces from libya to elsewhere. it's by no means over yet. no one should be dancing in the end zone yet. there's a long way to go here. >> i met with a number of the sunni tribal leaders. one of the things they said was if i saw you to thank you for the cooperation and assistance of the u.s. army so thank you. >> thank you, mr. senator. >> thank you, mr. chair. my colleague here, senator sullivan and i, were talking about how much we appreciate your candor and giving us the information we need to be instructed in the job we have to do. i want to go back to aqcquisitin reform. for you, mr. secretary, or general milley, we made several recommendations. that was focused on improving costs, schedule, execution and performance. one question i would have is did you agree with or do you think that some of the things have actually been helpful or if some

have and some haven't, and then give me some specific examples of how it's changing your execution. general milley, we'll start with you. >> thus far, senator, i think it has been helpful. number one, it changed the tone. that's important. it changes people's views and attitudes. i think that's not unimportant. clearly and unbabig with usuall. that also alerts a lot of people as to some new rules in town sort of thing. for the army, we've instituted a new process. a really revitalized process of the army requirements oversight counsel. it's unambiguous within the army itself. personally approving and are approving the requirements for every single program. in addition to that, we've made that a commander central

program. because the united states military operates off commanders. commanders will be held accountable. commanders that are going to generate requirements and commanders that will approve requirements. one key thing in the legislation that is important is the role of the chief of staff. i think that was really good and we appreciate that. i would ask that you take those into consideration for enactment. thank you. >> senator, i would say there's no doubt we're going to. it's creditedicalitically impor. decreasing the amount of time it takes to put these weapons or these systems back. i think that's been the frequency from when you start one milestone to the next and the next has improved about 33% but it needs to improve much more than that. >> and general milley, some of the key acquisition programs.

the striker upgrades. the common ground system. do you consider them to be some of the key programs that we have to focus on for modernization and can you explain why? >> the mobility piece is very important because once light forces are on the ground and they've been moved strategically by air or sea for example, what we want to make sure is they have increased mobility to move around the technical battlefield. as you know, the humvee fleet has been around for a while. our ground mobility is going to be split about 50/50. 50,000 humvees. so that's an important system. the striker. when he talks about being outgunned, outranged, in direct fire weapons, for example, the striker just can't match a tank. it's a good vehicle. it's a great vehicle.

but it's not going to go toe-to-toe with any tank. so that's what general breedlove has. a striker regiment over there. he's got light infantry, foot infantry and strikers and very little else over there. that's why we're rotating in armored brigade. so striker fatality is going to up-gun that particular weapons system. it's critical and it's important to deterrence. i've taken a hard look at d-sigs. my rough assessment is that d-sigs is performing reasonably well at kind of echelons above big grade. we have to move it around and jump it from place to place. ease of use for young soldiers. there's a very high density training requirement, et cetera. taking a hard look at that whole piece on the d-sigs. i've got personal experience with it. very, very good system at the strategic level, operational

level. your ability to pull down national intel assets, et cetera. when it gets down to the tactical level, more difficult to work with. not quite as fast. difficult to jump from location to location in the mobile battlefield. those are important systems, yes. >> thank you. in a final comment, i share senator sullivan's concerns about -- first we appreciate what the risk is. what i think we also need to do. we met with a group of marines who -- almost matter of fact way, said this capability we have to cover threats in the region may be cut in half next year because of other competing priorities. in a matter of fact way, like, they had to do it, because of the pressures they're having on budget and limited resources. i think we need to understand this particular case. i'm going to follow up in a private setting.

but we need to do a better job. i told them. of give us that ghost of christmas future. give us a real meaningful idea of what your risk is going to look like if we're not successful and i know the chairman hopes to be successful with ending sequestration but we have to recognize it's a high threat we may have to deal with. if we do, what does that look like? if we're concerned with where do we go from here. with the chair's indulgence. >> i would say we know what the number's going to be. if sequestration, which is grave, we already are testifying today it's minimally adequate right now. but if you would go back to sequestration, if the congress does this, we're down on the active duty side at 4:20. that is not acceptable. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as the rebalance to the asia

pacific takes shape, while we do not stop training for the types of environments we face in iraq and afghanistan, we also look to enhance our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to perform in the asia pacific. one of these environments we have to be able to handle is the jungle environment. while our last official schools to perform jungle training were closed decades ago, there is an opportunity for our troops and our allies to learn how to perform in this environment. this would be at the jungle operations training course at schofield barracks in hawaii. can you talk about the importance of this kind of training for our soldiers readiness as well as the ability to train members of other branches of our armed services as well as those of our allies? >> thank you, senator. environmental training is very important. as i mentioned in my opening statement, the united states army has to be prepared to deploy anywhere on earth. there are many, many places that have jungles or heavily forested areas.

we did close our jungle school years ago. commander general set up the jungle school out in hawaii. it's a good school. but it's mostly locally used now. i think we can expand the usage of that to other forces so they can get environmental training. we do winter warfare training in alaska. urbanized training at the training centers. and world train at most installations. and jungle training in hawaii. it's a critical thing. environmental training is important to keep soldiers up to speed so we can operate in any particular environment. >> so is there any effort or any move to expand or strengthen the jungle training schools facilities? >> he's operating the jungle school right now out of his own budget. i did ask him, it's funny, yes. i said, sent me the full poi. i want to see the pro -- program of instruction. i want to see the program of construction you're using out there because i'm considering

anointing it is an official army school as opposed to local 25th division school. that would also -- there's some things that come with that for soldiers. you award a little center, so on, so forth. the baseline premise of what you're saying is absolutely accurate. it's environmental training to be able to operate any part of the world. we support that. i am looking actually at expanding that. >> thank you, also, general, turning to the utilization of our national guard, they are an important aspect of our total force. your confidence in their abilities for support. happening this summer, which the third and second brigades of the 25th infan right division will be a part. this pilot program will match one reserve unit within active duty counterpart unit which can lead to more formal training coordination, improve readiness guidance and closer coordination. can you comment on this pilot

program and discuss the attributes of this kind of coordination and work with the national guard? >> thanks, senator. the purpose is to increase readiness. and increase the cohesion and the bonding of the total army. just saying total army, just saying we're all one team, et cetera, is only so many words unless we, you know, walk the walk. we used to have a roundout program years ago. it's sort of a revised version of that. the benefits of it are the guard is exposed to the regular army. the regular army equally important. the regular army is exposed to the guard. and we break down whatever barriers there may be. and then secondly, is that each leverages the other's skills to improve the readiness of the force.

if that regular army goes, if we succeed in the program and we get it wired in the next couple of years. if there is a contingency, those guard units would be alerted and mobilize with those active units. >> we can talk about one army and all of that but you have to provide opportunities for them to interact and work together in the kind of cohesive way you're talking about. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chair. secretary murphy and general milley. i want to thank you for being a very active and cohesive team. you're really making strides. i will follow up with what the senator said. i appreciate your efforts with the national guard of course. i think we have a great relationship there. one team, one fight.

so thank you very much for that. i'm going to follow up on some concerns the senator gave us about the vehicle program for our infantry fighters. the rotation that you mentioned for the bcts through -- the armored bcts through europe. i'm concerned about rotating those units through europe and instead of permanently standing one up in that region, i'm just not certain that that will show the commitment that we need to have for our allies in that region as well as projecting that strength to russia as well. so just very concerned about that. and as you know, the national commission on the future of the army included forward stationing and armored bct in europe. that was one of the recommendations. i agreed with that

recommendation. general milley do you agree that rotating an armored brigade in europe is the optimum course of action to reassure our allies and defeat russian aggression, rather than having one permanently positioned? >> there's advantages and disadvantages to both, senator. i actually favor -- personally actually favor rotation and here's why. when we permanently station -- first of all, the infrastructure's been toned down over the years. it would be costly to rebuild some of that stuff for families and pxs to forward station a permanent force. also important is when a unit rotations, they have a sole focus which is to train and be prepared to destroy the enemy. there are no families there. your families are not with you. you're focused. you're mission focused. i think in terms of readiness and your ability to deter, usher and defeat, think rotation is a

better way of doing it. in terms of strategic intent to deter. if we go -- the plan is to go heel to toe. so the effect of permanency is being achieved. we're going to deploy an armored big grade for nine months. right on their heel comes the next armored brigade. there's never a gap between the armored brigade and this rotation cycle. the effect of a permanent armored brigade for general breedlove will be achieved. the disadvantages of forward stationing cost, et cetera, are not going to be incurred. battle focus, mission focus, that does get achieved. i personally think the advantages of rotation outweigh the disadvantages. >> i appreciate that feedback. i'm going back to something we've discussed many times over and that's the modular handgun

program. i'd love to have you visit a little bit more about this. it really has turned into a boondoggle. just to work on this issue has turned into something more than it really should be. i do appreciate your high level of motivation and attention to the issue. and we j want to make sure we're getting the program right and we're streamlining this so we can get a better pistol in the hands of our soldiers. if that's what's needed, that's what we need to do. can you give me an update on your efforts and where we stand in this process right now? >> i think you got a little bit of an update or some members of the committee got an update the other day from generals, et cetera, and they describe the various levels of pain folks have been going through. it's all good. we're going to deliver. we're going to make it right for the soldiers and the taxpayer

and make sure we get a new handgun. the 9 millimeter, it's more expensive to repair it than to purchase a new one. ridiculous amounts of time, two years of testing, $17 million to do a test, so on and so forth. we're ripping all that apart. we've hit the -- you know, we're just ripping that all apart. and we're going to make it better. so in short order here, i think pretty soon measured in weeks, not years, we'll have some decisions. we'll be moving forward. we'll be able to provide the joint force, you know, all the services lead for the handgun. we'll be able to provide the joint force with an acceptable quality handgun that will work and it will do what we need it to do in combat. >> thank you. thank you, both, very much for your service and attention. i appreciate your candor, general milley.

thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank senator mccain for yielding. just a couple questions pursuing the line of inquiry that senator donnelly began on mental health. the 1,700 of 2,000 roughly that are needed in terms of psychiatric personnel. is there a plan to fill those positions and what is being done to do so? >> senator, we'll get after it on this issue. we need to as an army. because it's all about our people. and our soldiers. when i give you the number, there's 301 suicides, that's the

total force. so when you look at those numbers, levels of certifications, do you really need a masters degree, can you have different things -- because we have to fill the ranks. we were not just competing out there in the market within the army. it's other source of governme governments, private industry. trying to get these recruiters. we're try to help make this push we need these young americans to go out there, get their degree, get their certifications, get this profession, so we can use them and bring them within our ranks. but as i said earlier, there's no doubt that a game changer for the army has been our embedded behavioral health teams. breaking down the stigma these professional mental health providersters are brigade areas. >> i understand that and i commend you on it. as you know, the va has a active recruitment effort using scholarship assistance and loan

repayment incentives and i wonder whether the army is doing the same. >> we are looking at everything, senator, and we will continue to work with you and your office to do this step. >> i think what's necessary is a plan with specifics. i understand that great progress has been made. i think you would agree that more has to be done. so i would welcome you working with us. thank you very much. general, have you received complaints about the eo tech site? it was a subject of recent report in "the washington post." i'm wondering whether any of the men or women under your command have raised questions or concerns about it. >> senator, obviously, there was something out there or you wouldn't be asking. no, personally, i have not. that's not ringing a bell. but i'll dig into that. >> i would appreciate you doing

that. and getting back to us. >> and you call that complaints at the equal opportunity -- >> no, it's a site used on rifles. >> oh, rifle sites. okay. >> made by a company named eo tech. >> no, i'm not aware of that. i thought you were talking about something else. yeah. i'm not aware of that. >> sorry to confuse you. >> yeah, weapons sites. now you're talking guns so i'm good. no, i haven't but i'll look into it and get back to you. i'll find out about the eo tech site. got it. >> i would appreciate it. you can look for reference to the "washington post" of i believe this week. there was a story on the front page. about the discrepancies and issues that have arisen with respect to -- >> i'll do that.

>> thank you. army and marine corps. >> yes, sir, got it, will do that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i take it, secretary murphy, that you are taking great effort to implement the clay hunt suicide prevention act? >> no, doubt, yes, senator. >> and i hope that that's an outline for -- i mean, i hope that members of this committee are aware that we passed unanimously the suicide prevention act, which calls for most of the things that we are concerned about. it's not perfect, but i'm sure that many of those provisions you agreed to unanimously are being implemented. >> that's correct, chairman. we've made great strides, over-doubling these teams -- >> you know, maybe you could tell some of the members of the committee that have questioned

it when you get a chance to talk about, get them a report on the progress that's been made. maybe you could just send a letter to all of us and -- so we can know what measures are being taken. thank you. senator. >> that would be very helpful, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you to witnesses. i want to also association myself with the comments of the chair with respect to the effects of sequestration and the need to find a better solution. a compliment and a question. so the compliment. earlier this week, the army made a decision, there had been an earlier temporary decision, but earlier this week, i actually think it might have been thursday or friday, last week, the decision to allow an army captain who is a sikh to wear both the beard and the turbin that is a foundational part of his religion as he served. he's a combat veteran with an

afghanistan tour. this is something senator gillibrand and i have been writing letters to dod about for a couple of years, and i wanted to just comment you on that. i'm very passionate about this issue. maybe just being virginia biased. the statute of religious freedom that thomas jefferson authorized that became the basis for the first amendment that basically says in our country you can worship or not and you won't be preferred or punished for how you worship and you can freely exercise your faith. was one of only two ideas that was unique to the american constitution. the rest of it was a great borrowing job. but free religious exercise and interestingly enough, that war should be started by congress, not the president, were the only two things that were unique to our constitution. so it's very foundational. i know there are issues of how you balance, you know, people's religious practices with, you know, how you can wear a helmet or a gas mask and you want people to be who they are without profitalettizing.

this is becoming more and more important. all over the world we see violence and even war that is driven by sectarian tensions. whether it's hindus and muslims in myanmar. whether it's atrocities against religious minorities. whether it's -- i said buddhists and muslims in myanmar. hindus and muslims in areas of india and elsewhere. you also see even when there's not war, rifts within armed services. one of the reasons the iraq military many cited as having been very ineffective against the initial waves of attacks by isil is because of deep tensions within the iraqi military that renders is less effective. and one of the virtues that the united states plays generally and in our military is

demonstrating that people can live and work and go to school together with different religious faiths and we can make it work. i was on a kodel that senator gillibrand led. in both nations, leaders said to us, wow, what's with the anti-muslim rhetoric we're seeing in your political space? what they sort of disclosed is, hey, we live in a neighborhood that has a lot of sectarian tensions but we don't always want to be that way. for us to get better, we have to have an example. the u.s. has been our example. so the decision to allow one sikh for the first time in history of the history of the army to wear a turbin and beard might seem like a small thing but it's actually about a deeply critical american value that, sadly, is really wanting and needed in the world today. and so i certainly would encourage the army and the dod

generally to look at this policy, the defense minister of one of our greatest allies, canada, who is a vet, who's been deployed multiple times in afghanistan. he's a sikh who's been able to wear his board and turban in service. i would hope that we would recognize that as not only true to our values but also as something where we can hold up an example in the world in a way that is really needed right now. the question that i have is about the european reassurance initiative. it's a little about the readiness issues. the tug-of-wars in putting a budget together. we've got all these readiness gaps. at the same time, the proposal is to quadruple the investment in the european reassurance initiative and to take it up to 3.4 billion. i just would be curious, as you talk about hard choices, how do you trade off the need to do this dramatic increase in the eri with the fact that we are still short in some of the

readiness investments that we need to make? >> senator, the eri is really important. and it trades off -- trades off dod made to make that happen in other accounts, you know, those are priorities set by the secretary of defense. i can tell you the eri is really important. is craa critical national secur priority. they've been aggressive since 2008. across all domains and by the whole government approach. this is important. deterrence happens because an aggressive perceives that the cost of further aggression is going to exceed the benefit of aggression. by putting a division's worth of equipment. rotating an armied brigade there, it will be clear, we

think, the cost of further aggression will come at a very high cost to the united states of america. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> on behalf of the chairman, senator mccaskill please. >> thank you. secretary murphy, as you're aware, the army has been investigating concerns regarding the guard recruiting assistance program. for years, in 2012, a preliminary report found that all expenditures made through the program, a total of over $400 million, violated ada. the anti-deficiency act. at the time the army anticipate add final report on the matter will be released by october 201201 2014. in late december, trying to be patient, i penned a letter to your predecessor, secretary

mccue, and asked for status update on this report. i need a date, secretary murphy. i can't understand -- there is no way this report is not finished. and i can't understand why what this stall is about. all it does is just incredibly air irritate me that we are this nonresponsive. and how do we fix problems if we're not willing to be forthcoming when we find problems dealing with the way that our military has spent almost $400 million? >> senator, i've been straight with you since the beginning that i will always be -- i will always be honest and straight forward with you. i will get you an answer within a week on where it is. i know i've been here for 12 weeks. i've looked at that. i've said, what's gone on with that. and said, it's come, it's coming. will get you an exact date. >> i don't want to camp out but it's coming. it's coming. it's been since october 2014 it

was supposed to be here. i need a date that report is sgog to be produced. >> and you'll have that date within a week. >> thank you. >> for the record, i have also taken responsibility. so mistakes like that will never happen again. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> general milley, i had the pleasure of a briefing from colonel ikoff, the command for u.s. army defense in europe last week. i believe she's the first woman to hold that position. and i was very impressed and proud and just wanted to convey that. i was taken aback when she talked about some of the european reassurance components that are in the budget, that they're all in oko. i think, you know, there aren't very many members left here, but this is like one of these embarrass things that we're doing.

is there any rationale reason why our strength of equipment and troops in europe wouldn't belong in the regular budget of the military? is there -- have we -- now have we gone past the rubicon? is there now everything we can stick in oco we stick in oco because of the unwillingness of congress to step up to its responsibility as it relates to sequestration? >> senator, i won't comment on -- i don't even know the techniques of whether it's right or wrong or indifferent. what i care about as a member of the joint chiefs of staff of the united states army, provide best military advice, is to deter russia from further aggression. where that money comes from is frankly somewhat less concerning to me. what is important to me is we get a division worth of equipment and other capabilities

over there to help general breedlove, general hoges, to det deter aggression from russia. >> you and i couldn't agree more on that. i just think this artifice we're using, this ruse, that we are performing on the american people, that somehow if we put it in oco it doesn't count as us spending money, is damaging long term for the military. we ought to step up, you all step up to your responsibility every day. we ought to step up to our responsibility and fund our military in a way that is forth right, transparent, that sends an important message to the world. us playing this game that pretending because it's in this fund we don't have to pay for it is i think beneath the honor and respect we should show the military. i just wanted to get that on the record. >> i would second your motion, senator. >> first, i want to thank both of you before i ask this question about your trips.

i know you went and i know, secretary murphy, you were just recently there. i don't need to convince either of you the importance of that institution as it relates to the generating force. say nothing of the other capabilities, of engineering capabilities and military police capabilities and the other joint operations that are so important. but i know as we try to get women into our military in all roles, women in the generating force are very important. because they are, in fact, very visible to women that might be considering a career in the armed services. so i wanted to ask, is there any plan in place to get the proper leadership at these training facilities as it relates to gender, as we try to encourage more women to say please take me, i'm willing to give me life

for my country? >> yes. we tried to encourage that throughout the force. as you know, we've got the infantry and armored recently opened up. one of the first principles is to put leaders, infantry, female infantry leaders in those units first. so not specific to leonard wood. but we're going to generate now coming up in may/june time frame. i think it's 44 women have volunteered to be infantry lieutenants. and if they meet all the appropriate standards, then they'll go through the various infantry schools. the basic office leadership course. then they'll do their follow-on training that is normal for infantry such as rangers school. if they continue to meet all those standards, they'll be assigned to infantry units

sometime about this time next year. you'll start seeing infantry, female infantry and noncommissioned officers and junior soldiers in those combat units. so the idea of starting with leaders is a fundamental first principle and there's no doubt in my mind that we want to take advantage of 50% of the world's population and maximize their talent to increase our readiness. >> thank you so much. thank you for your service and the hard work you're doing. >> when i was there, we had three females. lieutenant lynn ray. so that's, again, as the chief mentioned, we have instructed, initiated a leader's first program at these units where you have two women per company. >> and you all know how tough sapro is and the fact we've been

putting women through sapro for a number of years. we can learn a lot about the how to prepare women. so thank you for that, secretary murphy. >> on behalf of the chairman, let me recognize senator gillibrand. >> thank you. i'm going to continue with the line of questioning of senator mccaskill. before he retired, then south com commander general john kelly raised concerns that lowering standards was the only way to ensure women became infantry. that position has been contested by you and your fellow service chiefs as well as the commander of so com until recently general votel. yet general kelly's comments represent prevalence views. do you plan to allow the standards? how do you plan to deal with these views from leadership and junior personnel levels? >> absolutely not. standards are standards. those standards are developed through years upon years of

blood soaked lesson learned from combat. neither male nor female. they are combat standard. they're related to combat. if you meet the standard for combat, you pass go, collect 200 and move on your way. you don't, then you do something else in life. those standards are inviable. they're based on combat. we would place unit discipline, cohesion and ultimately effectiveness at risk. we must guard against that. all of us. members of congress, members of the executive branch, members of the uniformed military, et cetera, must guard against the lowering of standards. general kelly and the general, their comments exactly right. in the sense of raising the flag. a warning flag. that this initiative in the infantry and armored special forces has the potential to lower standards and the rest of us must be guardians of those standards. we must not allow the lowering of standards. those are related to cam bombat.

if we do that, we're actually putting into risk the unit and the women that would go into those services. potentially putting into risk the lives of their teammates as well. standards are inviable. at the must n they must not and will not be lowered. >> how do you deal with views of personnel you are lowering standards? how do you reinforce that these women are properly trained, are ready and have met everything and will do a great job? >> i think the -- i think there's a couple of things. one is, first, don't lower the standard. and then ensure that you educate people that they understand the standard's never been lowered. rangers school. i've heard a lot of commepds about rangers school. the three women, one of whom was a mother of two, that graduated ranger school. standards were lowered. i said really? i said, why don't you start walking 12 miles with 35 pounds on your back? why don't you run the swams of florida? those standards haven't changed.

those hills haven't changed. 12 miles is still 12 miles. it's still a five mile and 40 minute run. those standards haven't been changed. they met those standards. so part of it's education. leadership. making sure we have everyone understand the standards. the key principle of do not lower those standards, that's inviable. we cannot allow that. >> i agree it's a leadership issue for our army. we now can be more clear. first of all, women don't want those standards to be lowered. they weren't asking for it to be lowered. they met the standard. that's why they're rangers. so we're a standards-based army. we couldn't be more clear from the top. it is emanating throughout the force. >> i hope you have their back when they pass through these requirements. if they're getting feedback they're still not good enough, that's problematic. especially since you didn't lower the standards, right? >> i have huge confidence, male or female. they'll be mutually respected by

their fellow peers and soldiers. >> i do have a doubt in my mind they will not be respected so what i'm asking you to do is to be vigilant that these women who do pass and do meet the standards are then respected for meeting the standards. because you didn't lower the standards. >> that's right. >> and i just cannot tolerate this notion that after these women have been through hell and proven their mettle, that they're still discounted when given their mission. >> they won't be. >> okay. >> they meet the standard, they won't be discounted. >> good luck. i give you many blessings on that. i'd like to shift to cyber. last year, the army national guard announced the establishment of ten cyber protection teams including one in new york and new jersey national guards. this was a huge step forward for our national security and these teams, each located deliberately within nine of the countries, ten fema regions, can serve federal and state purposes including bolstering civilian.

new york has already experienced the hacking of a small dam and we're constantly alert to the threats of cyberattacks. yet absolutely no funding in the army's fiscal year '17 budget request was set aside for these new units. months after the announcement we're still left wondering how they will be supported. unlike the air guard cpts, they're not designated to the cyber mission forces. the army has not funded them. it is not clear when they might get trained. general milli, since becoming chief of the army, you have made it a priority to talk about one army and to look for ways to take advantage of the benefits of the different componencompon. how do you envision we can use the national guard to address cyber threats and do you know why there's no money al located in the budget? and can you tell us when we might expect to see it fully operati operational?

>> this 41, i think it is, 21 and 10 for the regular army, split up with offensive and defensive capabilities. and then there's ten in the guard and 10 or 11 in the united states army reserve. they're coming online at various paces. by 2018, all of these teams, across the total army, should be trained. this is a -- i won't say it's super long, but there's a process here that we have to go through a vetting or selecting, identifying and selecting and vetting, because the higher order of skills involved in cyber war. so that goes up front to recruit them and then organize and train and equip these teams. so i'll go back and double-check. think by 2018, all of these teams are online and -- at least have initial operating capability. i'll get you a better answer with a definitive date, if you don't mind, but i think it's 2018. >> thank you both for your service. >> i'm afraid general sullivan

has another question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a few to follow up. very quickly on lowering the standards. general, just to be clear, that's a joint responsibility, right? senator gillibrand's questions are about the military leadership. you also don't want congress to mandate lower standards, correct? >> i don't want anybody to lower standards. >> all right. >> just clear on that. >> regardless of of whewhere th. >> general, you've been very focused on this issue of the tooth to tail ratio in the army. this committee's been looking at that. are we there yet? in terms of what you believe is the proper balance between combat forces and tail forces? and whose responsibility is that? is that something you can work out through your authorities as the chief? or is that something you need

additional support from the congress on? because i think it's a critical issue. i commend you for focusing on it so much. >> senator, you're always looking tooth to tail, making sure you get the right balance in the force structure, et cete cetera. i think we have some room to improve, particularly in headquarters. i think our headquarters, they've been playing a very important function. today's different than it was 50 years ago. advances in technology, information, et cetera, et cetera. but my own observation is i think our headquarters remain still a little bit bigger than what needs to be for combat. for example, if you were to deploy a brigade or a division, say, the footprint of that -- the on the ground footprint, that headquarters, is very large. in today's environment and in tomorrow's environment. increasingly in tomorrow's environment. gr

if you have a large footprint. from computers and radios and everything else we have. given the acquisition and the capabilities of some of our adversaries, for russia, for example. we've seen they can acquire the electronic signal quickly, fly unmanened vehicles over there and mass artillery on you. so you'll be dead. what do we have to do? we need to pair down or headquarters to very nimble, mobile capabilities that can in fact survive what we think is the environment, the lethal environment that we would see in the future. that could mean increases in reachback, for example, where much of your headquarters foot prince, the processing of information is done at a home station at a garrison or a base here in the united states. given today's technologies and the pipes, the electronic pipes that are out there today.

we can push a lot of that information forward rather than put, you know, 800 or 1,000 man head kwaerts are some tactical battlefield in the future with nothing but a target. we're taking a look at that. there's some streamlining that needs to be down to reduce the tooth detail. in my professional opinion, especially in the future contingency we're looking at, large tails are going to result in significant amounts of casualties and potentially battlefield losses, the loss of a battle, a campaign or a war. >> you have the support of this committee on your focus and please let us know if there's statutory authority that you needs initially to what the chairman led on the headquarters. there's a lot of discussion on the in-strength, you know, when the chairman and the secretary, secretary carter were testifying and in your testimony there's a

focus on the conventional challenges, russia, north korea, iran, china, isis, other terrorists group. i think there's a notion -- i'd like for you to talk about it a little bit -- that a lot of what we can defend ourselves with, because they're certainly capable forces is our special forces. they get a lot of press, go a lot. they're all over the world and they're incredibly capable. but i think it's also very important to recognize that on certain of these threats -- in fact almost all of the ones that are listed right here, it's the conventional forces that are what we need the most. can you talk a little bit about the difference in their capabilities and how important it is to have airborne brigade combat teams that can drop out of the sky 5,000 soldiers in addition to the special forces? because i think sometimes there's so much focus on the sf forces that we lose the focus on how important our conventional

forces are. >> sir, i think there's several myths of war, so to speak, that are prevalent in various communities. one of those key myths, i think, is that you can win wars from afar, from standoff distances et cetera. another myth is that special forces can do it all. as a proud member of special forces, special forces cannot do it all. it depends on what you're trying to do. if you're involved in a war, if you're using the language of war and you're defining yourself at war, then you need to apply all of the synergistic i vents of the force of time and space to impose your political will. that's a lot more than special forces. that's everything from the domains of space, cyber, naval, air, marine, special operations

forces. all of that converging to rip the sleds of the enemy. if you're at war. you can do lot of other things. you may not define yourself at war but you want to impose cost or want to punish. those things can be done in a variety of stages. you can to that from standoff systems or perhaps special forces. but the idea that special forces can do it all is not true. and the professionals in special forces will be the first to tell you. one of the fundamental roles of the conventional ground forces whether army or marine is to seize and control the territory and deny that same territory to enemy forces. special forces does not seize and control territory. they were never designed to do that. but if you want to impose your will on the enemy, that's a key task that you's going to be to get done if you define yourself in a state of war. thanks for the question. it's a myth out there. it's be very prevalent. special forces has huge talents, love it to death and they can do

a lot of things. but winning wars in of themselves not capable. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> some of us think that that myth has been adopted into pentagon strategy to defeat isis. general, we will be doing more on this tooth detail issue. it's not only the size of the staffs and bureaucracies, but in many cases it's duplication of effort. different branches of the defense department have staffs that are all doing the same thing. and that is one of the, one of the aspects of reform that we will be acting on in this year's ndaa. secretary murphy, if you would, to each member of the committee, if you would send a letter describing what actions are being taken on this whole issue of mental health, suicide, i

would appreciate it. obviously from what you've heard today, there's significant interest in the issue, as there is amongst the american people. we have to work on the suicide rate not only of active duty personnel but we also know that 8,000 veterans a year are committing suicide as well and they has to be one of our highest priorities. so we thank you for your very forth right systetestimony. this has been a very ben initial hearing. senator reid sfl. >> thank you for your service and testimony. >> you're still too young, mr. murphy. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you sirs.

president obama returns this afternoon to the university of chicago law school where he taught constitutional law before entering politics. the president is going to lead a discussion with students, faculty and judges from the u.s. court of appeals for the seventh circuit which has jurisdiction over legal matters from illinois. they're going to talk about the supreme court vacancy and the president's nominee, which republican leaders are blocking, merrick garland. you can see that discussion live at 3:30 eastern on c-span. american history tv on

c-span3 this weekend. saturday night at 8:00 eastern on lectures in history. >> what we see is new factors making emancipation desirable, old obstacles falling by the wayside with the result that by august, if not earlier of 1862, lincoln decided that when the time is right he will announce a new aim for the war effort that would add to union human freedom. >> wheaton college history professor tracy mcsken zi on the war goals of the north during the civil war. then at 10:00on reel america -- >> how was it possible for america to achieve such production and at the same time build an army? then the amazing reports came in from our agents in the united states. 20% of american industrial manpower was woman power. legions of american women were

massing to stop my advance across the world. forsaking the round of revelry for war >> the film documents how women in world war ii helped the war effort alluding that the hidden amy of american women working in war manufacturing are a main reason germany lost the war. sunday evening at 6:00 on american artifacts we with visit the daughters of the american resolution museum to learn about an exhibit marking the 125 anniversary of the organization. >> one thing this stands out in this time period is the creation of the imagery of the apotheosis. and the apotheosis is an old con tept going back to ancient times where a warrior is made god-like by lifting him up and celebrating him. >> on the presidency at 8:00.

>> those washington and jefferson are the two most prominent examples of slave owners. it's worth highlighting key facets of their success ares who owned slaves, especially those who did so while they occupied the white house. james madison who followed jefferson as the fourth president of the united states owned over 100 slaves holding a large percentage while he occupied the white house. he's responsible for proposing and expanding the three-fifths compromise which guaranteed the south held a proportionate influence on congress. >> tyler perry, african american studies professor at california university fullerton on the 12 american presidents who were slave owners, eight of them while in office. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to c-span.org. ♪ our c-span campaign between bus continue to make stops

around the country visiting winners from this year's student cam competition. recently we were in phoenix arizona to present awards from the west division for their first prize video rethinking reform, prisons in america. their classmates won second prize for their video on gender wage inequity in the workplace. and then our campaign 2016 bus stopped in los angeles for a ceremony for third prize winner jerry sun before heading to plal, oak grove and rockland to present winners in those areas with awards. a special thanks to our cable partners, cox, time warner cable and comcast for their help in koords na coordinating our visits. be sure to watch one of our top entries at 6:50 a.m. eastern

before washington journal. a look now at philanthropy and american prosperity. karl zinsmeister spoke for about an hour and 15 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm a senior fellow at aei, and i'd to welcome you to tonight's bradley lecture. as always, we're very grateful to the line foundation, and they've generously supported this lecture for a quarter century. it's a special pleasure to have karl zinsmeister back at aei.

he held the jb fuqua chair at aei. aei is a launching pad for many talented individuals, and karl's career since aei is one of the best examples. he's the author of 11 books, including a cookbook called the finger lakes feast. he was an embed in iraq, and produced two great books, "boots over dawn" about what he wrote about when he was there. marvel comics invited him to write a nonfiction graphic novel about his experiences there. he is also a fill maker. along with his wife he produced a documentary for pbs. he then became president george w. bush's domestic policy advisor. he has private sector experience as well having worked for the

stickley company. i remember the townhouse he single handedly renovated on capitol hill many years ago. he's renovated a total of seven properties, and now lives on a houseboat. today karl is president of the philanthropy round table where he oversees the magazine, book publishing and website. and he started a program for veterans and service members. the book on which tonight's lecture is based, the product of years of work. the almanac of american philanthropy is the guide. it has shaped his thinking about this lecture tonight. please join me in welcoming karl who will be signing your books after the lecture. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. we're going to itch vise -- imp vise a little bit today on the av.

that's how it goes sometimes. you can't be a reporter without being able to improvise. i'm going to make it work here. i want to apologize for my voice. i am suffering from that dangerous malady, final four fever. it has zapped my voice. i wasn't thinking last night when i was screeching my voice out. my children are seventh generation residents of the county of upstate new york where we raised our kids. aye been a skeer kus basketball fan since they played basketball with peach baskets and birch balls. and i did a little bit of barking last night, i'm sorry. but i think i'll get through it here. and i want to thank aei for hosting me. we go way back. in geological terms i think we're bront saw russ here. i started working here in 1982, i think of it as the devonian era, when the fish were starting to crawl out of the seas

starting to question some of the liberal pieties and walking around in washington, d.c. for the first time. i was a data researcher, and my job was to strip mine information out of the census. i was putting in long hours. some of you might not believe this, but the plus real estate in aei in 1982 was the gerald ford office. he was just out of having brought new kinds of excitement to the white house. he had a house here. he had a couch built for the contours of an offensive lineman. i'm here to tell you, ford had big hands, and big cushions on his couch. i spent many on overnight on the gerald ford couch. i've never confessed that until now. but there's no one here that can fire me anymore so i can tell you the truth. the story i'm going to tell you today, i have to figure out how to click these.

the story today is about private philanthropy, you don't see it anywhere else in the world. and i have a high goal, i am hoping to persuade you that in our skoun t triphilanthropy is more than a nice coat of paint. it's a deep part of our foundation and structure. i'm going to produce some ed to you that philanthropy is crucial to making nerk the unusual country it is. let's start with some numbers, our nonprofit sector employs 11% of the u.s. work force. and the 6% of gdp is also quite representative. and this skips volunteer labor. if you put a monetary figure on the volunteer labor, it would be

even larger. and to give you a perspective, here's the number for the fabled military/industrial complex. often used as a shorthand for a formidable industry. the charitable sector passed that in size way back in 1993, and continues to grow beyond it. information like that, alas, is often missing from discussions today, public discussions, from journalism, academic analysis, from politics, certainly. so, many are surprised when they encounter realities like this, which show that america's most generous cities are not new york, and cities that they expect, but really the communities of the mormon america and the bible belt. this is a fair comparison. this is giving as a percentage of what you have to give. obviously, new york will be

bigger than anybody because it's a huge city. but this is giving as a percentage of what you have available to give. and trying to make the point, all kinds of essential facts about philanthropy are not reported. as a result, the citizens don't have a true sense of the size of the structure or the consequence or role that it plays in our national health. and when i was at the roundtable, we decided to do something about that. we produced this book, it includes all kinds of things like a philanthropist's hall of fame, which has never been produced before. there's about a thousand of the greatest achievements in the book. there's a rich collection of quotations, a timeline that lays out about 350 years of charitable action in america, and a lot more. and it's really a very lively collection of americana. we're very excited, it will fill some gaping holes in the national self-awareness.

and i promise you, it will not make you sleepy. if you have small children at home and they crack the covers, they will not run to you crying. there is human interest in this book. take for instance this character. this is a man named need mcl laney. he was born in the bayou, he had kind of a forrest gump life. at this particular phase she was an arctic explorer. did some interesting things in alaska. he came home and wrote a book on alligator, another book on turkeys. he banded about a quarter of a million birds. just a guy with so many appetites and interests. at this point, he's all grown up, paying for life insurance, and doing all those responsible

things that men do when they take off furs and put on bow ties. he had a day job, manufacturing and selling the hot pepper condiment invented by his family. let me tell you, there's real money in burning people's tongues. and he used his profits for an amazing array of good works. he got very attached to a fellow native of louisiana's bayous, the snowy egret. when he was young, this was an absolute fashion craze for snowy egret feathers in women's hats. it's like the coach handbag. mania. women beating each other over the head to get one of these. as a result, this is the kind of head gear which resulted. this is very fetching, which i

think you would agree, there are the clearly mistaken ones, and the completely indefensibles. but these were all very common in the '20s, and resulted in a huge run for snowy egrets. just a huge death march for the snowy e grets. and they were never knocked off by the chinese like coach handbags are. they are silly fashions but they had an unsilly effect, which was to make the snowy eegret almost extinct. and when he realized this, he swung into action. the first thing he did, his family owned, still owns an island in louisiana. he went out, managed to find eight baby egret chicks. stuffed them into the pockets of his coat.

and went home -- here are the chicks. and put these in a protected area, and raised them up for a period of years. and at the same time, he convinced some of his philanthropist friends, john rockefeller and others, to buy up swampy areas of louisiana, which were important to the egrets' nesting areas, and in this fashion, he managed to rescue a magnificent animal that was on the verge of disappearing from the earth. about the same time he was doing this, he got into all kinds of other things. one f of the fascinatings things to me was, later on in his life he acted to short circuit a very different kind of extinction. he had been raised with negro spirituals, and just loved them. around the time of his 60th

birthday, he noticed they were dying out. people didn't know the words, didn't know the music. these were an oral tradition, had not been written down. he kind of realized this was at risk for being forgotten forever. like before, it wasn't just his textbook that he used. it was also personal involvement. he tracked down these two ladies, these elderly singers, who still remembered many of the old spirituals. then he hired a musicologist, and he sat down with the two ladies and asked them to sing their hearts out, madly scribbled all they could, wrote down the lyrics, the music melodies and recorded these songs for history exactly as they had been handed down from generation to generation of slaves. he then published it as a book,

a classic of the genre. and looks like only five or six were saved elsewhere. so, about 120 really precious pieces of americana here were save for future generations single handedly by this gentleman's efforts. and by the way, the songs he saved included the one that martin luther king jr. quoted, free at last, free at last, thank god almighty i'm free at last. so, think what a tragedy it would have been to have this music, these artifacts of american culture be lost to history. but that's the kind of wonderful work that philanthropy can do. here's another red-blooded american philanthropist that helped his fellow citizens stay free.

from a little boy, just loved it. wanted to make it his life's work, but needed an independent fortune. he jumped into wall street, and financed most of the rural electrification of america. he anticipated the stock market crash just brilliantly. by the early 1930s he was one of the wealthiest men in america. at this point he completely retired from finance and put all of his energy and most of his money into science, as he said he would. he bought the mansion across the street from his home in suburban new york and he set up just a tremendous science lab in this mansion, better equipped than any university lab in the country. and he was not a dab her. he did very distinguished work,

the precise measurement of time. did some acoustic work, one of the first to discover and categorize brain waves. invited lots of scientists from europe and america to work with him. it was not dabbling. it was very serious science. then, in 1938, he went to berlin. and two things struck him there. first of all, how popular hitler was, and second, how good the german scientists were. he came home very scared. he was convinced that war was brewing and science was going to have a lot to do with who won. so he went to work. he thought long and hard on what scientific applications might have defense uses and he quickly settled on using radio waves to detect moving objects. and he lab came the national leader in what we now call radar. which at that point didn't exist. and started overseeing the

production of practical radar sets, and they were delivered to the u.s. military in the thousands, and had a tremendous effect on the course of the war. even more than his money, it was his method, his philanthropic method that really accounted for his remarkable successes. he had a stint in world war i where he worked in the government, weapons r&d labs. i think he was in aberdeen. i can't remember. but he was just appalled by how sluggish and how bureaucratic these labs were. they were literally saying, we know atomic weapons are important but that's the next war's worry. he's saying no, no, it isn't. you have to get on this right now. so when it became apparent how brilliantly his method is in producing radar, they realized, we need that guy on the atomic

bomb. i can't get into the details here, but most of the scientists were transferred into the manhattan project. he is functionally really a father of the atomic bomb as well as radar. he personally made the cyclotron that earnest lawrence perpetrated for the bomb. he used his connections and money to find the stockpiles of iron and copper that were needed to build this machine in the middle of a wartime shortage. just a really brilliant record. and the cherry on top for me, i realized it wasn't only his, this kind of entrepreneurial fill tron -- fill tropic method that lives on today. he also left on a flesh and blood embodiment of this style,

his great grandson is this guy, reed hastings, who is a huge game changer today. in both business and philanthropy. he was the founder of netflix, which has now disrupted three major industries in the u.s. and one of the major progenitors of charter schools in the country. and another philanthropists that put a deep mark on america is george eastman. the founder of kodak, popularized photography in the early 1900s. when he began, the photographic process was all guess work. very little science involved. for instance, there's some remarkable stories during the early startup phase of his company when he was literally sleeping in a hammock in the corner of the warehouse trying to get the business ramped up, there was appear idea of time for a few weeks where there was

failures of the gelatin that was used to develop the photos, people were sending in photos, they were coming out black. he was frantic, as you can imagine. turned out the cows whose carcass was boiled down to make the gelatin, they were moved to pastures where there was no sulfur in the grass that they were eating. and that tiny missing element was enough to wreck this delicate chemistry of photography. when he figured this out, you can imagine, he said, that's never going to happen to me again. i'm going to mass the science. so he started hiring chemists from a school in new england called boston tech. he had good experience from the well-trained minds that came to him and later he funded the transformation of boston tech

into today's m.i.t. and he is to a very large degree responsible for making this the great school it is today. passion plays a big role in philanthropy. a very big role and a very legitimate role in my judgment. one of george eastman's passions was music, he had a full pipe organ in his house, and hired a guy to come in every morning to play it to wake him up. it was literally his alarm clock. that sounds like the life. he loved music in so many ways. and there's a wonderful journal entry, one of his friends went with him to new york city, and they took in 12 operas in 6 days. her summary in the journal is, george is absolutely alcoholic about music. a good way of putting it. and this passion for music led to one of the great cultural gifts in all of american history.

he just willed into existence and built to world prominence the eastman school of music in rochester. the eastman school was really important in americanizing classical music, and popularizing classical music. in those days, if you wanted to become a conductor, you had to go to europe, or a great player. there was no tradition here. and easthand rman single handedly helped overcome that. and the main auditorium transformed film from a cheep vulgar undertaking at that point to an art form. that happened here. he hired classic musical orchestras to play between the reels of silent movies and to help get the transformation started. another donor that poured money into world-changing research, catherine mccormick.

and i just noticed, i think she's wearing egret feathers, which means we have dueling philanthropists here. that's the way it goes sometimes. a lot you probably not that philanthropy has been important in medical break through ps. polio vaccine was a philanthropy endeavor. but how many of you know, the birth control pill was the creation of a sole funder. mccormick was an early women's rights activist. i have to say she was more than a little bit crazy but more than determined to make a difference in the world, and very talented. at one point she made it her quest to find some means of preventing pregnancy as easy as taking a daily aspirin. that was the assignment. he put the counter equivalent of $20 million by my math of her

money into this and she was -- i don't mean she worked, she was the sole and entire funder of the entire project. she hovered over the lab. hads scientific knowledge herself. and by 1957, she and her partners had an fda-approved pill. she absolutely revelled in this accomplishment, she got a prescription for it, even though at this point, she was a matron in her 80s. she wanted to feel that donor pride you feel when you accomplish something like that. and the ford foundation, once described as a large body of money completely surrounded by people who want some. and you look at a big pile of silver by the ford foundation or like, you know, a lot of these

wealthy do fors i've been describing and you think, well, that's american philanthropy. that's what it's all about. philanthropy is not just a story about moguls. least of all is it a story a of big foundations. only 14% of charitable giving in the u.s. comes from foundations and 5% more comes from corporations. more than 80% comes from the individuals and the bulk of that comes from small to moderate individuals at an annual rate of $2500 per household. it's a mass phenomenon and that's the real money. i mean, people think the gates foundation -- it's huge, the biggest foundation ever. but you realize gates gives away about $4 billion a year. the cash give away is about 460 bald in this country and the

value of volunteer time is much more. they are a drop in the bucket. a very small slice of american fill listen tlo pi as a whole. and to make sure this isn't overlooked, i do some story telling in the book about real-life givers. these two people, these are real people named gus and marie cielinski. gus was a plumber and marie was a nurse and they live quietly in syracuse, new york. their one indulgence was square dancing. other than that they were savings. they were very fastidious savers, and when they died, they left more than $3 million to good causes.

ann schieber, retired with $5,000 in the bank. she managed to turn that into $22 million by the time she passed away. and she left every penny of that to a university to help poor girls go to college. she mowed the lawn herself until she was in her 09s nrd to save money. her financial adviser reported that quote her goal for years and years was to e mass as much as she could so it could go to the salvation army. and when eleanor died in 2011, she left $1.7 million to the modesto, california branch of the salvation army. and albert lexi, shined shoes in pittsburgh, he did it for more than 50 years. back in 1981, he decided he was going to give every penny of his tips to the free care fund of the pittsburgh children's hospital.

i don't know what the motivation was but it was a pledge he kept. the fund benefits families that need care for their child but can't afford it. and he ended up donating more than $200,000 to children's hospital, which was a third of his total earnings over that period of years. now, you may hear critics say in response to stories like that, well, those are lovely tales, karl, but this kind of small giving can never do anything large or consequential. can never achieve anything really important. but the very clear verdict of american history is that those doubters are very, very wrong. many remarkable things have been done through our history by disbursed giving, which often aggregates in very formidable days. once noted, the state of ohio, 3

million inhabitants in 1880, 37 colleges. that very same year in england, the entire nation of england, 23 million people, how many colleges do you think they had? grand total of four. what explains that? the difference is small-scale education philanthropy. let me show you the picture. this is the colleges that existed in ohio in 1826. at that point, ohio was the frontier, the wild west. i picked 1826 because it was the year that case western reserve was founded. it eventually became a powerhouse of science. lots of prominent businesses came out of case western. when it was created, at this point, it was basically a little dot built up solely through

sacrificial giving by its neighbors. lots of local little people on the frontier. i head sto i read stories of some that during the winter, when the wagons and horses weren't busy, one man hauled stone. and another family, several pledged a fraction of their egg or milk sales to the college. it sounds like that's not world class, but it adds up. and it did add up in the case of this college. in the 1840s, hundreds of eastern churches pooled their donations together and sent them west, and within 30 years, those churches had raised more than $1 million, nurturing 18 colleges. and here's the slide of ohio. after that ohio campaign had been going for 20 years, lots and lots of places, many of which have become quite important to our nation.

i want you to fast-forward, please, to 2015. today, there are 50 separate different american colleges in the midst of a fund-raising campaign that will raise at least $1 pl $1 billion in donat. and private gifts are important not just to private colleges, but to public institutions as well. state institutions like the state of virginia are heavily dependent upon voluntarily given ref knews. here are the figures for the latest year. you'll note that uva has a lot more gift income than state funding, and berkeley as well. even though these are prominent state public universities. and lots of philanthropic sub innovations underlie this.

i didn't realize until i started this that the endowed chair is basically an invention of american philanthropy. and even though is very rare in other parts of the world. i recently spoke at the university of kentucky, and they had just received a $22 million gift to build a new honors college. this is the gentleman that gave the money. his name is tom lewis. i was interested, he's a successful home builder, and had made his money in arizona, and lived almost his entire adult lye in arizona and went to college in arizona. so i thought, why kentucky? i had to pester a lot of people but i finally figured it out.

it turns out that all 16 of his great grandparents were from kentucky. he felt a personal connection, something that he wanted to act on. that's a good example of a point i want to make next. in our country, giving has always been personal. not just big giving, but all giving. i want to talk about this guy to try to illustrate this a little bit. this is a broadway lyricist named michael brown. that's a good way to go broke in a normal year, but he had a good year, and was feeling a burst of prosperity. for their christmas celebration, he and his family invited a young writer far from her home in south carolina, and wanted to share their good fortune. toward the end of their gift exchange, the browns handed this woman an envelope. and inside the envelope was a note that read, you have one year off from your job to write whatever you please. merry christmas. and the writer's name was harper

lee. harper lee did what most people did when they decide they want to be a writer, move to new york city. when when she got there, she tried to spend more time trying to pay the rent than writing. and she was working in a bookstore and an airline office. and the browns noticed this. and in a very personal act of philanthropy, they decided to do something about it. and with their donation in hand, harper lee quit both jobs, and during that year, she wrote "to kill a mockingbird," one of the most influential books of all time. much of the power and beauty of american philanthropy for me derives from the vast range of causes that have been underwritten by our millions of

donations. i don't know how many of you realize, these are the homes of some of our greatest founding fathers. these are among our country's top cultural treasures. do you realize that every one of them are preserved not by the national park service but by privately funded nonprofits? mt. vernon was saved from ruin by thousands of small donors by what's called the mt. vernon's ladies association. they continue to run it and they're doing a spankin' job. their annual sbujt $40 million a year and the place is still driving. and monticello, thomas jefferson's greatest creation, and montpelier, james madison's

home, and the summer cottage with abraham lincoln spent about a quarter. he made some of his most momentous decisions at this house. for years it was completely neglected. people forgot how important this place was to him. and the white house in those days, it was in absolute mayhem, you could walk in the front door, and people did all the time. poor lincoln got no rest, and couldn't say no to anybody. so, when he needed to work on something serious, he went up to this cottage which is up in the northeast. so anyway, it was moldering away until a group of private donors came along and restored it and opened it to the public. the same thing is true about all kinds of other places. most of the great historical places you can think of, williamsburg, old salem, all of

those are products of private philanthropy. our great cathedrals and churches are also funded by private philanthropy. jpmorgan funded this one, and the real heavy lifting was done over generationsly lots and lots of small donations that trickled in and work was done. our cathedrals of human learning, which i would call libraries, another fruit of private philanthropy. this is the new york public private reading room. not just it but all of america's public libraries were created by donors. and today u.s. public libraries have about a billion and a half

visitors a year. many of our message nif sent parks are fruits of philanthropy. starts here, goes to the virgin islands, this is grand tetons and great smokey. all of these were basically launched by private donors. and the really interesting thing going on in parks today, urban parks. some of you may remember when central park was just falling apart and becomes a dangerous place and not being very well used, a couple of private donors came along and didn't just give money, they gave money but they also gave a new management structure to the park. they insisted that a 5013 c was going to take over management of the park from the city, a condition of their gift and that conserve tency had tremendous effects. the visitation is up four or five times since then.

a huge part of the city life. that model was so tremendously effective it's been influential. it's been copied all over the country and there are just parks, beautiful, wonderful oasis for urbanites in all kinds of places. some of you have been to the discovery green in houston, a $350 million park being built in tulsa, there's a trail in chicago called the 606. there's all kinds of these things going on, all completely driven by private philanthropy. private supporters have been at the center of miraculous recoveries of numerous endangered species, too. this is the falcon, and when it's flying, this is the fastest living being when it flies. but when it's reproducing, this is a real snail. they were not reproducing anything like a necessary rate.

and they were flirting with extinction. government biologists tried and tried and tried to speed up the breeding rates but repeatedly failed. and then along game this really odd marriage of a grant from the ibm corporation, right, mr. button down blue tie, and the a whole bunch of small donations from falconry hobbyists, people who wear the leather gloves and catch the birds. so this weird odd couple got together and started producing some unconventional ideas for experiment tall ways of overcoming this problem. someone had the idea, they love heights and pigeons. where do you think the sight might be to start the comeback. city skyscraper. there are all over the country up in urban penthouses and up in the tops of buildings. it turned out to be a brilliant idea. donor ideas and funds are

crucial in the comeback for many anima animals. the wolf, the blue bird, the wild turkey was basically hunters who bought back the wild turkey. whooping crane, unbelievable story of a donor, his talent and insights. he's the guy that figured out once the birds had been reestablished in the u.s., they had to be taught to migrate. once they've done it once they can migrate again but somebody has to show them one time. he said let's use one of those ultra flight airplanes to fly them to florida. it sounded mad. but it was actually quite successful. the philanthropy is terribly important in science in general, all kinds of science. you're looking right here at a telescope. i don't know if you realize. almost all of the famous

telescopes in this country, starting back with the lick observe toris, mt. wilson, today's telescopes, all of those great high-end instruments were filled by light with private money. and that continues today. the two really massive instruments under construction right now are the giant miguel long and the 30-meter telescope. and both of those are products of donations. and i mean big donations. i mean like this one, this is the 30-meter. was created by a $250 million gift by the found are of intel corporation, gorgdon moore. he slapped that down to kick off the process. certain large areas of philanthropy have been e especially hard spurred by donors. medical research is a perfect example. back in 2013 philanthropy magazine, we did a special

investigation of the pie know funding for medical research that john rockefeller did. and we found that an astonishing 61 nobel prize winning scientists had been boosted up with rockefeller money. the breakthroughs that were made by these folks were all kinds of important things, blood typing came out f that, penicillin, the yellow fever vaccine came out of that. nerve signaling, fundamental genetic things we know now all grow out of that funding from jock rockefeller which began by the way because she lost a grandson to scarlet fever. he jumped in and helped a lot of people out of that tragedy. another area where charitable efforts are extremely important are foreign assistance. very few people know that private u.s. fill tropic funds sent overseas exceed the foreign aid of our government. these are the numbers for the latest year available.

you can see that in 2011 we had $39 billion of private donations for overseas folks and $31 billion of government aid. and it isn't just the quantities that matter, by the way. in all fields, as i've already hinted, private giving tends to work in very different ways from public funding. philanthropy tends for interment tall, it's quicker, more efficient in general, a much more varied, much more personalized. let's take the last thing. let's take personalization. many of the interesting successful mechanisms in the charitable world, microlending circles, mentoring programs or the posse foundation which keeps kids from dropping out of college, alcoholics anonymous, these all rely on individualized solutions, the one-to-one human

accountability. and wh they're really doing is taking advantage of all of the useful information that becomes at your fingertips if you actually know someone instead of dealing with the stranger. and by creating person rather than impersonal transactions, they use the relationships to change power. mother teresa used to say, i never think about crowds. i think about individuals. and that's kind of a philanthropist credo. on the other hand, the administrator of a government program has to think about the crowd. they almost can't think about the individual. government programs are all about equal opportunity. they're about treating everyone the same. you can't have different approaches for different kinds of people, even though that would very often work better. now, this consistency of government programs sometimes getting romanticized. it's easy to ro mant size because it's big, clearly defined out and there.

people look at philanthropy saying what a crazy quilt in some paircy. if you have one child in your family who needs a who needs a very structured environment, and another one who only blooms when really given the freedom to explore his or her own boundaries, you don't want one size fits all. you don't want consistent schools. you want individualized services that recognize and work with the intimate differences between different kinds of personalities. and you'll have a very hard time finding that in any government program. almost by definition. but it is a hallmark of philanthropic efforts. which leads us to this great $50 word that every great american should know in my opinion, po y polyarchy, refers to many independent sources of power. the easy way to remember is contrast it to monarchy. the oosite kind of of

monarchy. now, the united states obviously has a notable polyarchic culture. you can think of all those givers and nonprofits deciding what matters and what needs fixing and they're acting. it's a very, very disperse style of authority and action. yale law professor steven carter, thinker i admire, everyone measures community needs with what he calls different kcalipers. going to lead to much better protection of non-mainstream points of view than a single government program can or ever could. for this reason carter refers to philanthropy as, quote, democracy in action, is the phrase. i think it's an apt one. now, the fact that most philanthropy takes place on a

local level and usually out of the public eye, sometimes it's very private and often even anonymous, means it's really easy to overlook the kinds of actions i've been describing here. most of us see very few fragments of the overall kind of private giving iceberg, even those in the business themselves lose track of its import and size and scope. and the result is that we grossly underestimate the problem solving power of charitable action. surprisingly there are lots of out and out critics who go out of their way to discount the idea that major public concerns can be addressed by private responses. and the message is sort of, yeah, philanthropy's cute. i'm not against it. it's a lovely little thing, but if you're serious and you really want to solve a problem, you know, get big and get governmental or go home. that's the clear message. one of the criticisms you will hear about philanthropy is this

one, philanthropy is just a drop in the bucket. i want to remind you when i started this talk i showed the figures being much bigger than the industrial complex. keep that in mind. i don't know if you know the gates foundation alone, which i told you is only a tiny sliver of our overall philanthropic apparatus, the gates foundation alone oversees more assistance than the entire italian government. in just two decades the overseas vaccine program, gates runs, which is only a part of what they do, but their vaccine program alone is estimated to have saved almost 8 million young children. that's, you know, not a drop in the bucket in anyone's bucket. and i want to take you a little further. absorb this. gates has done remarkable things here. guess what, gates' fraction of the total amount of money america sends overseas to needy people is, again, very modest.

religious congregations alone, just churches and synagogues bundling money and sending overseas to poor people that alone is about 4.5 times what gates does every single year. and then the nonreligious giver. my important point is there's a big iceberg underneath that tip. and easy to underestimate it. another -- excuse me. boy, syracuse better win because i just sacrificed a mighty set of vocal chords for them. another complaint you'll hear is philanthropy is not coordinated. you'll hear the rules vary so much, they're all over the map, there's no consistency. no one's in control is kind of the argument. and what some observers love about government spending is the opposite. it's very orderly. it's very uniform. it's very stapd ardized. everyone is marching in the same direction. there's a certain kind of cramped mind that appeals with

you but there are some serious problems with standardization obviously. in human affairs it can have very harmful effects. i worked for three years in the west wing overseeing domestic policy, and any time we would take up a problem i would think to myself, you know what, no matter what we do, no matter how careful we are, no matter how deeply we think this through we are going to discombobulate millions of people. it's inevitable. the dilemma is the entire apparatus swings in one direction every time there's a rule change. that's what rule changes do. everything is changed. and you pull out the rug from underneath a lot of people every time you do that. it's very hard to test competing policies. many times i wanted to, it's just not really feasible at the federal level. many times i wanted to turn a faucet on slowly, again, you can't do that. it's all or nothing. differing solutions for different places is very appealing and actually very impossible at the federal level. now, because humans are not predictable robots, the

healthiest, you know, forms of society building i would argue are often going to evolve by lots of little experiments and lots of little trials and errors. and many of the efforts will fail. and the reality is so long as we aren't all swinging in one direction that's just fine because errors will cancel themselves out to a large degree and the successes will be visible and then people will copy them. so that is an argument for disbursal of resources, for divided attacks, for independent assessment. all the things that private philanthropy provides. in 2005, i love that it came from a date certain, in 2005 there was a wonderful new word coined to describe what i'm kind of preferring here to describe a reliance on disbursed authority to fix things. and that word is crowd sourcing. of course some -- you know,

crowd sourcing is about -- how would you define it? lots of people taking lots of small bites out of big problems that allow them to eventually chew through those big issues. and if you're one of the individual people and you really think hard you're thinking i'm wasting my time. i can't possibly nail this on my own. you can't think of it that way. you have to recognize that you're part of an army. the effect of this method has been brought into relief by the computer revolution obviously. i'm old enough when the computer revolution started to unfold it was all about machines like this, this big ibm mainframe computer. but it very quickly became clear this was not the future. that this was not a particularly powerful method of solving problems. that this was the future. you know, the story of the internet -- the entire story of the internet is the accumulated power of millions of small actions. the lesser of the hacker culture you see depicted here is one man with a laptop can do amazing

things. i look at this picture and i think one man with a laptop is also probably very good for the practice of dentistry from what i can tell. dentist hav iists have to make too. there are aspects you may or may not find appetizing but clearly a powerful way of solving problems. one of the clearest lessons over the last decade or two. my argument would be that small scale decentralized, nonuniform, nonorchestrated problem solving in this model should not be considered a problem for philanthropy or for any other motive aspect of society for that matter. the next time that you hear philanthropy criticized for being too much of a patchwork, i want to plant a little seed you can think about. i want you to think about charter schooling. charter schooling, the very, very largest and most famous and biggest and best funded chain in the whole country in charter schooling probably most of you know is the kip, the kip schools. and the kip schools have 183 different schools. sounds like a lot, right? guess what, there are a total of

7,000 charter schools in this country. that means that the market heavyweight, the big gorilla, has just a tiny fraction of the overall market. most charter schools the reality is are mom and pop operations. they're either single schools or one of -- they're parts of a chain of two or three or four schools. so this is in other words a radically decentralized sector. and that allows some interesting things to happen. it allows a riot of choices. i mean, i don't know if any of you have spent any time in charter schools, it is a fascinating underworld these days. really fascinating aspect of america. there are mathd and science schools, work oriented schools, quasi military academies, hippie schools without doors or windows or controlling features of any sort. there are all kinds of things. much more variety than you will ever find in traditional district run schools.

and the philanthropic back eed charter movement is backed on the idea there's no definition of what constitutes a good school. education is all about matching. and what you want to do is match each child's gifts and temperaments with an institution that can bring out his or her best self. so here's a test for you, when you see that crazy quilt of charter schools, and it is a crazy quilt. you can walk your head around the city and poke your head in some of them. does that strike you as evidence of inconsistency and trouble? they don't all look the same, they don't all follow the same rules. or does that ecosystem of options you find strike you as a healthy sign of adaptation to what people want? which brings us to a final item on the list of alleged weaknesses of philanthropy. the fact that some donors are mean, you'll hear this one for sure. or they're selfish or all they