missile defenses. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general mark milley characterized the test as very close to a sputnik moment referring to the 1957 satellite launched by the soviet union that shocked america and demonstrated the kremlin's military technology prowess. in its annual report to congress on the chinese military released on november 3, the department of defense noted that the people's liberation army rocket force launched more than 250 ballistic missiles for testing and training in 2020 alone calling this more than the rest of the world combined. meanwhile, north gray continues to work on developing a range of missiles that threaten both south korea and japan including are forward station forces and increasingly threatening the united states. this -- their symmetry is expect both china and north korea will increase we attempt to use cyber capabilities to infiltrate and disrupt u.s. missile defense systems. in deploying a secure missile defense system to defend the united states, it's

national defense survey and i want to say that came out on the defense budget three quarters of americans favor increasing defense spending in his contract were bernie sanders in the senate majority are maadvocating the 10% cut across the defense we have a cs pas exercise with the think tank in d.c. that looked at what an impact 10% defense cut would be your remarks show a lot of confidence that the armed services committee will not support any cuts of the defense budget is not a function of votes and it's a narrow democrat majority to have the viewpoint of decreasing the defense budget run deep within the committee and it runs deep on the republican side. we have a long condition of passing the national debt authorization of 60 consecutive years and nobody wants to be responsible route be in the congress that does not meet that tradition it's important for us no matter democrat or republican to make sure men and women know we got there back were gonna get it done and because of the majority that the democrats have were gonna have a big influence on the republican side in making sure that

missile defenses. >> i would agree. under my narrative, we've always for almost 30 years, three and four administrations, tried to get through negotiations, a handle on the threat. i would think this is the kind of issue we ought to pursue strategic dialogue administration started with russia and the strategic dialogue jake sullivan suggested beginning to be discussed so we are in agreement. of course we ought to try to see if we can get negotiated limits on those but ballistic missile defense capability is a hedge against those efforts. >> where want to turn to questions in a minute but picking up a little bit on the clues in your discussion now in russia particular about the whole conversation may have been different if we can imagine the u.s. never withdrawn from the treaty trying to focus limited activity on missile defense in the confines of the complex you could have, how might this be different? maybe not different at all, or may be quite different. >> i think he's right, efforts over multiple a

missile defenses. if they insist our missile defenses should be on the table then we should assist their modern systems -- we should insist their systems be on the table. they could sell it abroad and therefore it spur regional proliferation, the imprecations of which we do not understand. i'm wondering if there was any discussion of this. president putin was visiting and at this week and had a meeting with modi in delhi. i wonder if the discussion was on the table. i am only speculating. in any event this is a concern of mine, proliferation of regional missile defenses capable of being against intercontinental ballistic missile's. thank you for this opportunity. i look forward to the discussion. >> thank you. you make a compelling point. one real potential implication in change in respect to the treaty is ballistic missile systems. let me zoom out and ask this follow-up question. from a theoretical perspective we think about strategy innate mathematical sense. the logic of mutually assured destruction

it is certainly an offense defense mix for an active defense. the previous administration, in their missile defense review, they tried to get some of these problems we laid out. you mentioned the debacle that happened during the previous administration. there was other program that didn't come to fruition. the gdi that president trump wanted deployed were not deployed because of the debacle of the rkd program and a lisa biden administration with all kinds of directions to take. there is some rumors at this point that the biden administration might be focusing on some of these more advanced programs for this notion of something to trade for arms control with the russians. you see in scholarships, there is pressure to include missile defense in arms control treaties with russia. what is your view of that and do you share a concern that it going to be -- among the more advanced programs could be on the table for negotiation? mr. turner: i think there needs to be a redline on risk -- missile defense being part of an arms-control negotiation. russia

i think the national defense strategy report is very much focused on the department of defense and the military response, but we have to, i believe, have a much stronger whole of government effort. can you comment on that? >> yes, senator. if we look at the challenges being presented today, the good news is that our strategic deterrent in the case of nuclear weapons appears to be holding the conventional deterrent appears to largely be holding the result of that strength, which is good for the american people is that adversaries have to look below the threshold of conventional conflict. we are seeing that through different terms people use malign influence, grey zone threats, but certainly china and russia in their ways have been pursuing these. many of the solutions to those grey zone challenges which come in the form of economic coercion, cyberthreats as we've seen very recently from russia, threats even in space. a lot of the answers to those start in the civil society side. they start with the strength of american democracy. they start with our tools of state craft and how we build

it was self-defense. wisconsin law does allow for deadly force when you think that you are under such threat. two of those people shot, died. one did in fact testify in this trial. so what we are doing today now that both the prosecution and defense rested, we are listening to the jury instructions from judge schroeder right now, then we anticipate that the prosecution's closing arguments will begin. they are given about an hour or two hours, then it will break for lunch and then will come back and have the defense, closing arguments, and so on and so forth. then there will be a rebuttal and this could go, we are told to anticipate until 8:00 p.m. eastern. we'll see if that microphone is coming back on as the instructions continue. >> i still have worked with the instructions all weekend, and we discussed them by email, and then i'm reading them and little things are striking me as i read them. but the jurors are never told to discuss self-defense except in the context of charged offenses. and what i was

security and defense. general james also executive chair, two-time chairman of the atlantic council of major general arnold so thank you for joining us and i'm sure you and everyone else jointly my salute general powell here we are committed to saving the global future together with our allies and partners with the dedicated focus on producing actionable recommendations with real-world facts. there are two others running us today who have done that throughout their careers, significantly impacting trust department defense plans and priority so i'll get into this is the conversation they haven't impacted the plans and priorities as much as they would like to have. working to develop sustainable nonpartisan oddities to address the most important security challenges facing united states and allies and partners. seeking to honor another general, he passed away last year in august seeks to honor his legacy service embodies nonpartisan commitment and security support for u.s. leadership in cooperation with allie

the man we need at this moment to lead the department of defense. he is clear eyed about the threats that we know there are a number of threats we are dealing with a broad. cyber attackers and terrorists. he understands the value of alliances and keeping them strong. supporting them. he is prepared to shoulder the awesome burden of sending our best men and women in uniform if necessary into harm's way, the most difficult task we who have been secretary of defense had to assume. as america has watched the tragic images from the capital rotunda on january 6, i was reminded of one painting in that space. it has always represented for me the ideal of service to country. it is the oil painting of george washington resigning his commission as general in the army so that he could assume the duties of being the nation's first president. it is a statement about our democratic form of government. it has stood the test of time and that hallowed citadel of liberty. the tradition of military leaders from washington, eisenhower, marshall, to the large number of v

go in the department of defense. to look at civilian control of the military and its expression in these appointments, more holistic way across the department and the positions. >> a comment and another follow-up. we mentioned the politics and the partisan nature, politics and all instruments of power as being centcom commander. there's a lot of learning and experience a centcom commander would bring and the conventional wisdom starting about general mattis's character, not sure i agree with that, that secretary mattis brought forward is an important development, a bipartisan development, it was worked on by secretary mattis, the incoming biden administration will want one cabinet official, with military experience. if he is confirmed, secretary of transportation, mayor pete buttigieg who was a reservist. one of his roles fight for budgets that relate to the military. does it make sense to make the case, on the national security team with significant military experience in this regard and that is my final question, t

this is a defense system. it's whole purpose is to stop violence and save lives by supporting his program. your promoting peace. i'm proud to have worked on a strategy with other democrats in the house leadership to ensure there is no question about our commitment to the safety and security of our closest ally in the middle east, israel. i urge the united states senate to take up this funding bill immediately to defend our ally and increase prospects for peace and avoid the cr debt limit. i think the >> the gentlelady annuals back. the gentlelady from texas. >> il-2 mr. hill for two minutes. -- i yield for mr. hill for two minutes. >> thank you for brains this measure to the floor. to paraphrase, there you go again. why are we here? this should have been in the approved, we should have had support for the motion to recommit. we are here for a supplemental appropriation for the iron dome. i support it. it is disgraceful we had to come back to carry on this mission. the iron dome is one of the most successful mi

self-defense -- excuse me. criminal code in wisconsin provides that a person is privileged to intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what he reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his own person by the other person. however, he may intentionally use only such force as he reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. he may not intentionally use force, which is intended or likely to cause death unless he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. as applied to this case, the effect of the law of self-defense is the defendant is not guilty of any homicide offense if the defendant reasonably believed that he was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his own person or reasonably believed the force used by him -- excuse me -- and reasonably believed the force that the force used by him was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily har

it's had such a great impact on the missile-defense policy and missile-defense technology. to respond to the proliferation of the missile threat i want to say for a moment what's happened in israel has helped greatly the width of the debate on capitol hill. we used to deal with the issues of the arguments of missile-defense of work and its provocative. was israel hasas shown by the deployment of the iron dome is itom isn't. it is a defensive system and it iss the escalatory as they've used the iron dome and it's given them time and space to be able to measure the response as opposed to if they didn't have the technology what they wouldat have to do at the moment was facing people and it is cost-effective because the amount of damage and loss of life that is prevented and it works unbelievably. you say that you are going to leave both your populations and infrastructure and critical capabilities. about the d escalatory nature and how it paints a picture on the receiving end of aggression. the ability to be restrained in that way brings us to another point, the biden administ

york —— self—defense case. the bottom — york —— self—defense case. the bottom line _ york —— self—defense case. the bottom line is _ york —— self—defense case. the bottom line is the _ york —— self—defense case. the bottom line is the jury- york —— self—defense case. the bottom line is the jury did - york —— self—defense case. the bottom line is the jury did not i bottom line is the jury did not believe — bottom line is the jury did not believe that— bottom line is the jury did not believe that kyle _ bottom line is the jury did not| believe that kyle rittenhouse, bottom line is the jury did not - believe that kyle rittenhouse, then 17 years— believe that kyle rittenhouse, then 17 years old. — believe that kyle rittenhouse, then 17 years old, walking _ believe that kyle rittenhouse, then 17 years old, walking around - believe that kyle rittenhouse, then 17 years old, walking around with l believe that kyle rittenhouse, then 17 years old, walking around with a | 17 years old, walking around with a large _ 17 years

so the capitalization requirements for defense companies, the large defense companies, and we are one of them, which is significant. so given those capitalization requirements and given the intimacy we need to have with our customers, i think we are pretty well-balanced at the moment. and by the way, when you think about competition, you have a monopsony buyer with enormous purchasing power. so while we may be a duopoly or, for some people, a monopoly, we are up against a very powerful customer, so there's a lot of shaping that happens in our contractual discussions with our customer. david: sometimes people say the defense budget is very high because the cost overruns new -- overruns of new weapons systems and so forth. is that a fair criticism, that sometimes cost overruns are high? phebe: if you think about the complexity of modern weapons systems, it is not unusual for some of them to have, early on, in the production or the development, cost overruns, but it is incumbent upon us as a defense industry that once we understand the technology and then how to build it and build it eff

of the defense budget. chairman smith, let's take a different view, how do you see that playing out. >> were going to win. >> i like adam, he's my buddy and he feels strong about getting rid of that leg of the triad. he's making a run at it every year and he loses votes. all the republicans oppose it and half thedemocrats are with us on this . we will make another good run at this year and it's genuine on his part but it's very effective deterrent and we're going to fund it is modernization. >> let's talk about china, you mentioned a couple times. do you see big shifts or smaller ships to the approach to china by the biden administration when it's most supportive legacies. is a national security strategy, national defense strategy that said the patient threat and there's been continuity with that. mister president secretary of state, the secretary of defense what concerns you and what reassures you about the waythey're talking about china .>> i'm still apprehensive about the approach of the biden administra

now the defense -- with the defense resting, the prosecution coming back with dr. tobin. it will be interesting to see how long his testimony lasts. then also, the judge has indicated that tomorrow potentially could be a day off for the jury. he doesn't want closing arguments until monday. this is extremely significant as you have been reporting. the last day potentially of testimony in what has been a remarkable trial. it will be building to a climax with closing arguments monday and then this critical testimony potentially from dr. tobin. >> yeah. chuck and eddie, as we come back to you, we have the sound of judge cahill making his decision about whether or not this theory about whether mr. floyd could have succumbed to carbon monoxide poisoning. >> it prejudices the defense, even if not due to bad faith. it's not going to be allowed. dr. tobin will not be allowed to testify as to the lab results. if there's anything he wishes to add about carbon monoxide as far as environmental -- but if he hints there are test results the jury has not heard about, it's a mistrial. pur

europe does spend quite a bit on defense. it needs to pool and share and get out of this national defense industry, really work towards a europewide defense industry, strengthening its innovation base and really working toward that. i think this direction could become a reality. the important thing is not to talk just about distant, unrealistic goals for the time being. talk about concrete steps to invest in concrete capabilities as europe. anchor: what do you see as the motivation for a europe defense force? >> we see with macron, he will have the eu rotating council presidency. he's running for office in france. he's really pushing the strategic at tana me narrative. this is something that he has been long to profess. he mentioned about two years ago that nato was framed. france has been seen as a real pushing. there are two ways to look at this. one could be that europe is stronger and does more burden sharing. it would be more useful to nato. for the last 30 years, there's been this idea that there's is a peace dividend.

the focus on today's hearing is on what the defense department needs to do to improve its defenses against modern and civic is -- sophisticated cyber attacks like solar winds or the micro sub exchange email server operation waged by china. these subverted tens of thousands of critical government networks to undermine trust in the infrastructure that supports our economy, our government, and our private lives. we are hoping this hearing -- we are holding this hearing because it is important for the american people to learn how the federal government is going to respond and to better protect the nation. it's serious business i know you all understand well. for more moments the next we have never -- many of our efforts have focused on making it hard for adversaries to break into our networks and have a digital equivalent higher walls -- of higher walls than most. but it is proven to be impossible to keep intruders out for there are many other ways to get inside and once inside hackers can move about unnoticed and unchallenged because everyone and every device inside the perimeter is trusted.

defense companies to do well? phebe: i think defense spending historically has been driven by the threat or perception of threat, and it is not a particularly safe world at the moment. that's number one. number two, president biden has been a lifelong supporter of national security. so this budget he submitted to capitol hill was a nominal increase. importantly, all of our programs were fully supported because of their criticality to the war fight. david: most large aerospace defense companies have moved to washington. do you see the pentagon leaders from time to time? do you see the secretaries of army or air force or navy? what do you do in terms of interacting with them? phebe: i think it is important we know our customer, both from the uniform and military side. we tend to try to know them as well, and then with each change in administration we try to get to know the primary decision-makers and get inside the decision space, help them think about what we can provide. i spend time with all of them, and all of o

a defensive mechanism, a defensive system. so today, i do applaud the democrats for finally standing up and admitting their mistake with this bill that is unnecessary in this format but has become necessary because it was stripped out of the major ndaa bill. so i will be strongly supporting this bill, this $1 billion for a defensive system, but more importantly today, before i reserve the balance of my time, let me say that as an american, as a republican, as a servant in this house, the united states of america must state its unequivocal support for the state of israel. israel has gone through a tumultuous history since its founding. the united states has stood with israel. we will stand with israel today on this important bill. we will fund the iron dome, and we will always protect the israeli people from terrorism wherever it comes from. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to t

for the defense, as a defense attorney, really fighting a video tape of this impact and this mode of weight is very difficult. you know, people are visual. we'll have a visual species. you can't unsee something this traumatic. so mr. nelson did a very good job. the question that always hunts a defense attorney is should you have just put him hahn the stand. and i think that the defense here was really pursuing a hung jury strategy. that they were hoping to maybe get an acquittal on one or both murder charges and then a hung jury on manslaughter. having a fast turn around like this means you may have undershot by a long degree. >> neil: all right. we just won't know. we'll know soon. we're about ten minutes in the half hour in which the verdict was to be announced. we don't know what is going on in the court. outside the court, crowds have been building and quite dramatically. mike tobin is out there. what are you seeing? >> a big crowd formed on the south side of the courthouse. as you mentioned, they built up rapidly as the word started getting out. now talking to people here in the

defense supply chains. if i can give a quick definition, and first i'll ask panelists a variety of questions and as i'm doing this i hope you take the time to type in the chat window in the right-hand side to go to the webinar window on the right side of the screen and go ahead and type your questions and i'll do my best to assimilate them and in 20 to 30 minutes we'll pelt you with their questions. first, my first question is for representative gallagher. congressman, you have a constant barrage of important issues on your plate and why are the supply chains and can you give us an idea of how congress is moving the supply chains for critical defense items and the status of those efforts. >> thank you for the question. thanks for having me, great to be on this panel and it can feel a little bit like being the dog from "up," we are constantly being distracted by squirrels so you have to exercise discipline to stay focused and given what we've been through, i can't think of a more important issue. just rememb

if you cut defense, you perpetuate your debt problem and you also have a weak defense. you weaken yourself economically and militarily at the same time. roger: we need to shift to some other subjects and then open up to questions from viewers. let's go to afghanistan and i will go to secretary esper on this, because you were pivotal in managing the push to "reduce our presence in afghanistan, and the forever wars by trying to maintain some level of responsible footprint, my words, to ensure the threat from afghanistan is addressed and does not threaten the homeland. president biden and his team is revisiting this. it is unclear where they are going to land. there are around 2500 troops in afghanistan, whether they will keep it at that level or reduce it, what advice do you have for this administration? sec. esper: after 9/11, make sure afghanistan never again became a safe haven for terrorists to attack the united states. i want to get out of afghanistan more than anybody else. the time, the troops, everything committed to afghanistan has been significant. the national

i also welcome a few efforts on defense. i think the efforts can help defense spending and develop capabilities and it can also help to overcome the fragmentation of the european defense industry. having said that, the eu cannot defend europe. the eu cannot replace nato as a cornerstone for european security. 80% of nato's defense spending is coming from non-eu nato allies. but this is not just about the sources, it's about geography. in the north, you have norway. in the south, you have turkey, and then in the west, you have the united states, canada, and the united kingdom. all of these countries and different ways are important for the defense of europe, but perhaps most importantly, any attempt to weaken europe and north america in nato would not only weaken nato, it would divide europe. so therefore, mine may sedge that, yes, we should work together. but it's not something that can replace or duplicate or protect europe. that's something we have to do, europe and north america together. >> we are going to take that as a

depending how you describe defense spending that encompasses all natural defense programs and then the defense department shared 715 billion of biden's request in the subcommittee have a smaller share because they'll have military construction so those are the dollar amounts we are talking about. one.6 percent increase over the current level. or it would be if enacted. versus on the left a 10 percent decrease they had a vote on that last year which did not go well for the liberals and to the read write people like senator inhofe who chairs the committee would like to see at least a 3 percent annual increase or three or 5 percent of what he is advocating so biden hasn't gone the way the liberals want the not quite as high as inhofe once but it would definitely be a dispute still have to figure out the total amount of discretionary spending and all the subcommittee allocations in the senate so it will be a big dispute they are that i should point out that the amount of spidey spending biden is proposing for defense is the largest amount since world war ii of inflation adjusted terms exce

as a secretary of defense, job one for me is defense of this country. we are going to do what it takes to make sure we are successful at that. as we talked earlier, our strategy, our resources ought to matter strategy and our strategy ought to metro policy. -- match our policy. i think we have an opportunity to be a good steward of our resources, but you can count on me always asking for what we need to accomplish the strategy laid out for us. sen. warren: i appreciate an approach that looks and how we are spending that money and exactly what challenges we are focusing our money on. i see i'm out of time so i will not get to ask you about the importance of investing in our diplomatic corps and making sure we have adequate funding for the state department in order to help you. i promise i will submit to the record about that. gen. austin: it's an easy answer for me, i think it is absolutely important that the state department be resourced adequately. sen. warren: that's what i like to hear. thank you, general. senator: thank you, senator warren. now, via

you talk about the need about defense spending. and with an ongoing conversation for many years and we were talking in the green room before and that is what makes reforms defense acquisition the way the sellers have managed and then to hear congress talked about this and leaders and the need to increase efficiency it really hasn't happened in the way anybody would have liked. so if either of you think if there is a way to force greater efficiency in the way we curate these dollars while continuing to give the pentagon a pretty big budget, certainly larger than any other country in the world , it seems to me potentially it lacks incentive to be 730 or $750 it still a lot of money so howo do you square that for the defense department? >> as we say in the marine corps you put the seal on the target that with the chair of the finance committee and then working in the senate together to solve the problem for people before they know they have on one of the problems we have right now people don't realize a huge taking tail —- timebomb

as secretary of defense. i salute him for his patriotism. thank him for his heroism. and look forward to calling him mr. secretary. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, is recognized. mr. rogers: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. jacobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. jacobs: i thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of the waiver allowing general lloyd austin to serve as secretary of defense. civilian leadership at the top of the pentagon is desirable and necessary. i believe this should be -- should only be reserved for unique circumstances regularly nominating candidates who require waivers is not a precedent we should set. however, examining general austin's credentials and the circumstances facing our nation lead me t

defense. in and out conversation will turn to what's going to happen next. what affect will this case have on things like vigilanteism and self-defense arguments? not to mention what happens immediately in the city of kenosha. joining me from the courthouse in kenosha, wisconsin, nbc correspondent shaquille brewster. former federal prosecutor paul butler. nbc legal analyst danny cevallos. and former assistant district attorney in milwaukee county, julius kim. shaq, what is it like in kenosha right now? >> katy, when that verdict was read we saw a large group of people on the courthouse steps. this was something highly anticipated especially as the jury got into day four of deliberations. but then someone came out of the courthouse, told the crowd the news, and you heard the divide that's reflected not just here in kenosha but all across the country. some people cheered, saying the second amendment prevailed. self-defense was a principle they were defending. and some people were upset by this i

defense supply chains. if i could give a quick orientation of how we are going to go about doing business this afternoon, i will ask our panelists a variety of questions and, as i'm doing this, i hope you will take the time to type into the chat window on the go to webinar window, go ahead and type your questions in and i will do my best to assimilate them. in 20 or 30 minutes, we will help with your questions. with that, let's get started. my first question is for representative gallagher. you have a constant barrage of important issues on your plate. why are defense supply chains and area of concern to you and could you give us an idea of how congress is moving to secure the supply chain for critical defense items and the status? rep. gallagher: thank you for having me. it's great to be on this panel. being in congress can feel a little bit like being the dog from up, constantly distracted by squirrels, so you have to exercise a little discipline. given what we have been through in the last year, i can't

europe does spend quite a bit on defense. it needs to pool and share and get out of this national defense industry, really work towards a europewide defense industry, strengthening its innovation base and really working toward that. i think this direction could become a reality. the important thing is not to talk just about distant, unrealistic goals for the time being. talk about concrete steps to invest in concrete capabilities as europe. anchor: what do you see as the motivation for a europe defense force? >> we see with macron, he will have the eu rotating council presidency. he's running for office in france. he's really pushing the strategic at tana me narrative. this is something that he has been long to profess. he mentioned about two years ago that nato was framed. france has been seen as a real pushing. there are two ways to look at this. one could be that europe is stronger and does more burden sharing. it would be more useful to nato. for the last 30 years, there's been this idea that there's is a peace dividend.

part of our homeland defense design for integrating defense as well. they have to be part of it. >> we will come back to the details. you mentioned integrated deterrence for the second time. secretary austen has talked about that as an overarching concept. integration means bringing things together into a whole. what does it mean to you? what does being brought together if it wasn't integrated before? >> integrated deterrence would involve operations, activities, investments that we do today that are oftentimes done with a regional focus. not a created -- integrated across a global problem set. integrated deterrence within the military dimension is bringing all that together, to include not only utilizing the operations and activities but also security cooperation. to have an effect. where secretary austen is and where we are going as well would be, all levers of influence across the nation are crucial. whether that be the diplomatic piece of that, the information piece, the economic piece. all those have a potential impact on overarching deterrence. w

david: sometimes people say the defense budget is so high. is that a fair criticism, that cost overruns are high? phebe: if you think about the complexity of modern weapons systems, it is not unusual for some to have early on some cost overruns, but it is incumbent upon us as a defense industry that once we understand the technology and how to build it and build it effectively, continue to take costs out as we go down our learning curve, and that is an important part of the value equation we have with our customers, driving costs out. david: today, what are the biggest challenges for general dynamics and what are the biggest opportunities? phebe: i think in any business, the challenges are solving complex problems that come to you. the problems that come to me and my senior leadership team for resolving tend to be highly complex and meddlesome. so your ability to solve those , let's problems are an important element i think at the value that we had to the company. opportunities, you always want to make sure you have a creative enough mind and

mm three quarters of americans favor increasing defense spending. and that includes or the senate majority leader cut across the sense where we have this exercise we did, looking at what an impact of a defense cut would be. lot of confidence that the armed services committee will not support the defense budget. it is such a that includes maintaining and increasing the budget. >> well, it is more fortunate that we have a long tradition of 60 consecutive years. and it also is supportive for us to make sure that our men and women in uniform can keep going and so we are going to get it done and we are going to have a big influence making sure that the number stays healthy. and last year's number plus inflation, they will continue that. that includes climate change and other things and we will have to have a strong defense and if they want to put more money on things like that, that's part of it. spinnakers differences on priorities, things that they want to allocate with climate change. where do you think that remark is, kind of taking money to invest i

>> as a signatory defense, job number one is a defense of this country. and we are going to do what it takes to make sure that we are successful at that. as we talked earlier, our strategy of resources ought to match and i have a requirement to be a good steward of our resources, but you can count on me always asking for what we needed to accomplish the strategy that has been laid out for us. >> i appreciate the approach that looks at how we are spending that money and exactly what challenges we are focusing our money on. i can see that i am out of time so i'm not going to ask about the importance of investing in the diplomatic corps and making sure we have adequate funding and the state department in order to help you. i promise i will send off the record on that. >> i think that it's absolutely important the state department be resourced adequately. >> that's what i like to hear. thank you, general. >> now secretary scott. first thank you for all of your hard work. i want to thank the general for his distinguished service as a soldier and commander and

so, that defense is not going to be effective by the defense. it's not something that is likely going to hold a lot of weight. and like i believe it was jill who said earlier it will take an unreasonable jury -- juror to make the conclusion there is reasonable doubt as to derek chauvin's guilty in this case. >> conversation for another night. this idea of objective reasonableness, and using your common sense. i'd be interested in reflecting on the way that that standard has played out in other use-of-force cases, where we did not have all the video. compared, to this case, where we do. and where your objective reasonableness being a fly on the wall for the whole thing plays out differently than having bits and pieces of tape, as curated by a police department. conversation for another night but i appreciate the three of you walking us through what happened this week. criminal defense attorney, sara azari. civil rights attorney, charles coleman jr. and former assistant watergate special prosecutor, jill wine-banks. thank you y'all very much. much

defense supply chains. if i could give you a quick orientation and we're going to go about doing this, this afternoon, first i will ask our panelists a variety of questions, and as i'm doing this i hope you will take the time to type into the chat window in the lower right-hand side of your go to heaven or window on the right side of your screen, go ahead and type your questions at a do my best to assimilate them and then in about 20 to 30 minutes help them with your questions. with that let's get started. first my first question is for representative gallagher. congressman, you have a constant barrage of important issues on your plate. why are defense supply chains an area of concern for you and could you givee us an idea of hw congress has secured thehe suppy chain for critical defense items and the status of those efforts? >> thank you for the question. thanks for having me. it's great to be on this panel. being a member of congress at times can feel a look at like being the dog from up we are constantly

nobody expects when the defense is self-defense to extol the virtues of the victim. that reality. when people are facing life in prison, i'm sure the lawyers are using what they can to combat it. here i imagine they were trying to say he's not a jogger through the neighborhood. he's been out here before. he's here for no other reason. whatever it is and again, we can disagree with it personally and i do and that's what i tried to say. >> the problem, michael, briefly, there is a manner to do that. we know in this profession it's very difficult and we know we represent people in some very extreme circumstances but you have to thread that needle. yes, you have to defend your client, yes, you have to say you're an immediate fear. you i have to say there are issues in the neighborhood that were amiss and i believe this is the issue but to completely dehumanize someone, what does nails or something else? i don't get it. i'll win cases and lose cases but i think i'll try the best i can to do what is ethically proper and not bury and nail the coffins of the dead and i just thought there

here you have one defense team, then another defense team, then another defense team, all seated side by side, with of course the defendants in the courtroom as well. the state gets up and provides a witness like they did today, that witness is likely to be interviewed four different times, first by the state, then by one attorney from each of those defense teams. then there are the objections. often it could be one attorney, two attorneys, three attorneyso they may not object over the same thing. it forces the judge to send the jury out of the room while they try to settle all the disputes. it is extremely frustrating, anderson. >> martin savidge, appreciate it, thank you. >>> up next, break news on the ban on mask mandates by the texas governor. a new ruling from the federal judge, ahead. from the very first touch, pampers, the #1 pediatrician recommended brand, helps keep baby's skin drier and healthier. so every touch will protect like the first. pampers to make progress, we must keep taking steps forward. we believe the future of energy is lower carbon. and to get there, the worl

not just to the department of defense. russia and china as well as nonstate actors understand that in today's information environment, they have realtime access to a global audience that with first move or advantage and by flooding the information environment with deliberately and manipulated information, mostly truthful with deceptive elements, these actors can gain leverage to threaten our interests. although we are here today to discuss various dod efforts, we recognize we do not have a monopoly on capabilities to combat disinformation nor should we. the department of defense is one of a whole of government approach to this challenge. and other civilian departments and agencies have critical roles and responsibilities which demand close inner agency cooperation. coordinated inner agencies effects can complement the efforts of each department and agency to defend the nation against disinformation and reach and engage global audiences. as we strive to leverage dod's information operation capabilities in competition with m

defense. general james l jones. two times chairman of the board of the atlantic council. and major general arnold punaro. so, thank you so much for joining us and i'm sure you and everybody else joining me and mine salute to general powell. here at the atlantic council, we're committed to shaping the global future, together with our allies and partners. with a dedicated focus on reducing actionable recommendation with real world impact. the two individuals joining us today have done just that throughout their careers. significantly impacting u.s. department defense plans and priorities. so they'll probably, and they'll get into this in the conversation -- they probably have it impacted the plans and priorities as much as they might have a like to. and we'll get into that in discussion. the council center for strategy works to develop sustainable, nonpartisan strategies to address the most important security challenges facing the united states and its allies. the center seeks to honor another g

the whole issue here is self-defense. as the prosecutors try to take that away, that's the defense saying he felt threatened, was under threat and grade the prosecutors so far with a ways to go. >> yeah, and also a key point there, not only are they arguing self-defense by provocation, right? that was a key issue in this case whether or not prosecutors would even be allowed to argue about provocation which under wisconsin essentially takes away that self-defense claim. it's kind of a tricky legal burden shift, if you will, but i really think that, you know, commentators were saying that the prosecution had an uphill battle even going into today. i think even more so now after that just complete you know what show of dissell nation of the jury instructions. it was appalling what took place in that courtroom. the judge sounded like a first year law student in a criminal exam sort of -- he had like kind of a stream of consciousness talking to the jury. i really thrill that the confusion that he sewed among jurors is really g