which people and employers use the information of job applicants which is in dhs's database. the basic part of this is a voluntary program. but it has grown while we have been testing it. there are only 10,000 lawyers involved in 1986. last year we checked 17 million through the program.

we all know that states have been busy and it is a trend that starts in colorado and was made notorious in 2007 and in 2011, the supreme court upheld the legality. it allowed some or all employers to be involved. studies done over time have shown the race has steadily gone down.

one element which has not actually kept pace. despite these weaknesses, one has to say it has left the station and those who thought the pilot programs would result in us, i think that speculation is over. we verified the remains as a part of the legal system. the only issue is at what level does it become mandatory and how do we improve that in the

system. the obama administration works from targeting unauthorized individuals to targeting employers since january of 2009, there are more than 8000 employers. it imposed about $88 million and a very significant departure from the past. there has been an increased effort in the labor enforcement we all know that it is all part of our enforcement system.

therefore the department of labor has gone into more targeted enforcement on the books where there may be the department of labor has been increasing. i think of ice at the 19th 86 time was a philosophical time, i

think students 50 years from now would definitely agree that it would be immigration history. it was a before christ and after christ moment. many know that congress decided to enact authorized immigrants and especially those in history. and it is an extraordinary unprecedented part of the criminal justice system. clearly unprecedented in history, i would also like to say it is unprecedented in any enforcement regime.

i have summarized those that have been led with the trend, which we have also talked about. we used to make civil violations into federal violations. we impose new initiatives and funding and targeted those kinds of prosecution lacks in fact we initiated new programs the federal and state and that

includes criminal suspects across the state. and the result is for all to see. we have an unprecedented number for immigration related crimes. they have grown almost sixfold from about 8000 to 19,000 per year. much more importantly has been it is an overall prosecution and today in 2003, the prosecution for immigration accounted to about 17 and 20% of all federal

prosecution. that number had jumped to 50%. 50% are now related to immigration. to put this into context, i will cite three. they were for more than all of the law-enforcement agencies combined. the list goes on. it accounts for 10% and for half of all felony prosecutions in

the united states. now, many people believe that despite federal prosecution as a result of the program, it is a part of the program that started in 2005 that extended to six of all nine districts of the border. the dhs call this the zero tolerance policy. [inaudible] the second phenomenon that has

happened in the automatic consequences. until recently we only used to remove people who committed major crimes. it is by now come to include about 50 separate kinds in 21 different categories. many are minor crimes and some are misdemeanors. congress has decided to apply this retroactively. so today is a large number of long-standing immigrants, many who are being removed from the

country for crimes they committed many years ago. the definition of a new cooperative agreements and localities were screening and [inaudible] and all of you know that these famous programs are important. the funding for these programs has shocked me. the programs from all four from 23 million to 619 million. that is about 2900 percentage

points in the program. and obviously the result is here to see. and now puts about half of all the people in the country in this position. the fugitive operations program has grown about 10 times in the last eight years. today only about 28 persons of people in enforcement are part of this. it scales down by about 57 jurisdictions. mostly in the southeast section of the country. about half the people do not have the level of the government. in the last program i conclude

what is the most recent entry to this cooperative program. is the community program. it is universal in march of 2013. initially it was billed as a voluntary program. but that no longer has become a voluntary program in many states opt out of the program in august of 2011. it said that every fingerprint says the spirit and the train has left the station and

therefore expected to become a permanent part. thank you. >> i would like to have a real conversation with the audience and unappreciated we would be able to take questions. >> thank you. thank you for moving us through the system. i would like to talk about the removal and that attention, which are basically the end of the line for many people who come in contact with the enforcement system. removal has increased dramatically over the last quarter of a century. there have been more than

4 million and it went from 35,000 year almost 410,000 per year. removals have the greatest impact on emerging families and communities. one telling statistic is 46,400 non-citizens with u.s. citizen who have been removed over 2011. removals have been steady over democratic and republican and they certainly accelerated in recent years and many have questioned why an administration is devoted to comprehending the form and would remove the greatest number of people of any administration of u.s. history. it provides a partial answer at the least. which is the operational

systems, and the financial investment since 1986 have made large-scale removal as was referenced, the 1996 immigration act was a particular turning point. it's built builds on a trend hearkening back to 1988 and it limited relief from removal. a second finding has to do with the increased informality of the removal process. there is a widespread belief that immigrants have their day in court and a judge determines whether they can or have to stay. this is no longer true for most people who are removed from the country.

increasing numbers of noncitizens are being removed and expedited in so many ways. it now accounts for about 30% and the expedited process is carried out by dhs and was first applied the ports of entry and has since been extended to those arrested and all the lands and coastal borders in the united states. another third includes those who illegally reentered the country. it is an immigration specific category of crime.

if you typical stipulated case agrees that there is no relief available, which they often do to avoid detention. this includes obtaining the order and one that was knowingly and willingly signed. there is also an expedited process which is known as quick court proceedings. the upshot of all this has been a growing gap between removals. immigration judges issued 400,000 people to be removed. some had ruled while concerns about the increasing informality of this process.

roughly 20% of criminal alien removals from 2011 were for persons who have committed immigration offenses for which they had been criminally prosecuted. about 20%. we have also seen growing numbers of criminal convictions. some for serious crimes and others for misdemeanors. nearly 55% of the persons removed been convicted of the crime.

voluntary departures are really voluntary. reasons described in the report, it certainly was increased overall. 1.7 million returns were handled in 2000. 322,000 and 2011 between 1995 in

2011, the average daily immigrant detention population rose from about 7500 to about 33,300. i.c.e. detains many in any given year. to give you a sense of the size, it holds more prisoners per night and i.c.e. those immigrants. and holds fewer people over a year.

the appearance rates have passed by these programs. the main purpose of detention, which is to ensure removal, includes many in prisons. the budget request is for 2 million and only 112 million and also as 112 million. the reform of the detention system has been of the obama administration and the guiding principle has been that nobody is actually serving the prince sentence no matter what the background. the idea is to keep with the

authority. the challenges they have faced are within the i.c.e. detention system. mostly states localities and for-profit prisons. this includes the interpretation rules. i.c.e. treats even the most restrictive of its programs with alternatives to detentions and not alternative forms of detentions to mandatory detainees. it includes administering the program of diversity.

it revised its standards to make them more performance-based and detailed. centralized management and took steps to better monitor and enforce compliance and terminated dozens of detention contracts. these have been significant steps. the emerging system will be developed in pretrial custody. finally, a couple of quick

points on the immigration court system. it operates out of the doj's operational views. it is slightly less than a the budget of about $300 million per year. compared to the $18 billion of the i.c.e. budgets. when due process challenge has been 80% has been unrepresented and it has been show to influence the outcome is as does the particular judge assigned to the case. most removals occur through less formal means. it is a result of dhs is

enforcement. adjudication resources have not kept pace with these agencies to feed into the system. as a result, court cases that are backlogged have nearly doubled. there were 321,000 pending cases in these cases have been pending on average for 529 days. 777 days for those cases where belief is ultimately granted. there is a very strong consensus with these kinds of delays in including immigration enforcement goals. yet it is not clear how this problem will be fixed.

judges have dockets that are far larger. the cases are also factually complex. there has been a hiring freeze since january of 2011. on the other hand, we are seeing removal cases have decreased over the last year and 25%. the main point i wanted to make is that there is an imbalance of resources and adjudication, although both a part of the same system. thank you. >> thank you very much, donald,

for keeping time. >> okay. let's try to put all this together when you look at this picture, when you examine the evidence, what you see is the emergence of a complex and modernized cross agency system organized around the six pillars, as we call them. against that backdrop, the 25 plus years the recession came along. it altered the picture.

..

but it is a sound, lasting structure that ranks as the federal government most expensive and costly law enforcement effort at the present time. nonetheless, it is not proving sufficient as we know to answer the broad challenges to both illegal and legal immigration polls for the country. we need enforceable laws that address inherent weaknesses in the enforcement system and there is statutory change that could help to improve the law-enforcement system, but we also need enforceable laws that rationalize immigration policy to align with the nations broader growth needs. so what we are seeing here is that a formidable enforcement machinery has been built. akin serves the national

interest well and it also provides a platform from which to address a broader immigration policy change suited to the larger needs and challenges that immigration represents for the united states in the 21st century. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much doris and thank you to all of our speakers and the authors were this exceptionally comprehensive report. i would like to open the floor to questions. please identify yourselves, wait for the microphone to get to you and let's start. this gentleman over there. please identify yourself. >> i'm john graham and a

reporter for roll call immigration. my question is given the debate expected here and for me on capitol hill i'm wondering whether expensive pathways to legal status for those who are he'll illegally how would that change the cost estimate going forward? do you expect a growth the growth and cost to continue or are there ways to -- [inaudible] >> who wants to take this? >> i will take it because i think that one of the things that we didn't talk about is the fiscal realities that are very much now part of the enforcement picture. i don't think that there's any question but that the funding of immigration agencies and enforcement functions is going to -- it's probably not going to decrease but it's certainly likely to be on a straight line. so straight-line funding, it

leads to far more focus on efficiency and effective programs. looking in at outcomes measuring and assessing the evaluation etc.. that keeps you within the box of what is presently going on so i think that's going to be happening in any event. obviously if the congress decides on a much bigger redesign of immigration, there will be very strong cost implications and there will be different ways that this enforcement machinery can be used to enforce the law but also to implement changes and relieve some of the pressure from the enforcement that is presently -- >> if i may go back on this question and how it's been raised because that's an extremely important question.

i think doris you are basically saying the -- such that we are going to continue with very large numbers, removal of detention etc. etc. etc. but if i could ask another variable which is not just the issue of the resources alone but the issue of change in methodologies. as we move to risk management, both in terms of interior enforcement and border enforcement, are we not likely to see perhaps less discriminate detention implications of people and the formula which has already been shifting in favor of the port in rio to continue to go upwards? >> i think you see that in all of what is that the enforcement agencies are expressing. you certainly see that in with the border patrol is talking about for its you know next period.

definitely i.c.e. in its effort to manage its deportation and removal responsibilities has tried very hard to target and determine what are they high priorities. but referring to the question, let's just talk about the elephant in the room here. if congress decides on a legal status program of some kind, that removes an enormous number of people from a potentially removable population and underscores much more fully what you are saying demetrios which is the people who can't qualify for that are likely to have a criminal background of some kind and then that becomes very much a more concentrated effort for interior supporters -- enforcement. >> just the perspective over the courses seems to me broad reform could change a lot depending on

how it's structured of course and what you might see of course is a lot of cases administratively closed in court but i would say in the long-term, then the cases become more complex and may not return to the same level but they may be those tougher cases that doris and demetrios have mentioned. >> more questions? >> i'm wondering if the these -- to what extent you found the oversight and calculating mechanism for this important machinery has kept pace with the actual growth of the enforcement machinery? beyond the judicial review but other oversight accountability methods? [inaudible] >> thank you.

>> i take it by that you mean inspector general reports, internal audits efforts etc.. you know, it's hard to say. in the first place, there have been such high rates of growth, high percentage rates of growth and when agencies grow as levels of 20, 25, 30% and a budget year, and that has happened in some of these years in the last decade, you can't ever -- the accountability mechanisms never can keep up with that. so i think that we can probably just inferred that there has not been the kind of oversight. but in addition to that, it's also the case that these agencies are not terribly transparent, nor is dhs particularly transparent. so the degree to which there may be oversight taking place or not

is not something that is ceased to be determined given the research that is available. there certainly are lots of jail reports, lots of inspector general reports all detailed in our footnotes and so forth, but there are unquestionably programs and particularly program results and use of funds and outcomes research, overall metrics etc. they just haven't been developed and need to be developed. >> thank you, doors. muzaffar. >> i agree with what doris has said. even if the case had reached these programs especially after 9/11 it would be very difficult for oversight to catch up frankly. but i think despite that

comment, actually gives credit to the office of inspector general that despite a time when congress was giving more money to these agencies for doing even what they ask asked for, that they have actually tried to provide some modicum of oversight. the 2070 program that we talked about obviously did perform as a result of the -- report. i.c.e. then did create a more uniform memorandum of understanding which needed a more targeted approach that it did before. i think the office of inspector general has also similarly -- going forward. these are new programs and the most important ones so we have seen the results of that that we would normally see. >> i would just say on the

detention system that there has been a good faith effort certainly oversight and accountability has been the focus but the system is so broad, immense, diverse, dispersed that you know the word is really out on whether it's going to be successful or has been successful and we are in the early stage of reform as well. >> would you please raise your hand so i can put you down on my list? thank you. [inaudible] this question follows on what you were saying. in december i.c.e. announced their new alternative to detention policies and i know it's early to speculate but i'm wondering if you think what changes that make in the patterns in identifying -- for families? >> well i mean i think people don't understand the immensity

of the alternative to detention system. it's now about 18,000 people last we heard and the last statisticstatistic s we had were from 2011. 18,000 people per night in the alternative system. in terms of kind of assuring people's appearances in court and ensuring removal it's been a highly successful system. 94% of appearance rates as past community supervision types of programs so these kinds of programs work and i think the funding for them, they are obviously more cost-effective and also more humane although very restricted some of them with home visits. the big challenge now i think will be to create more of a community-based infrastructure of the kind of programs and migration refugee services and other ngos have run over the

years that they are very very significant pro-chris and i think there's a good faith commitment to the ideas of alternative detention. >> okay, the lady in the back. >> karen. i want to ask a question about the growth in enforcement leading for the need to identify potentially -- that don and the others have been talking about. we have talked a lot this morning about the multiyear contract with the state and local jails and in particular with private prisons and i wanted to ask if anybody wanted to comment on that infrastructure and the entrenchment of that enforcement policy going forward. >> well, you know i would say that is one of the major

complicating factors of the detention reform is that you started with 350 separate facilities, most of them states and localities and most of them privately managed so that, and they were under contract for various periods of time so let the reform efforts have been about is renegotiating those contracts in trying to build accountability into those contracts are going fact the numbers of contracts have decrease something like 250 to 200 but this issue again of accountability and oversight is a real challenge for that system. >> the lady over here. yes, maam. >> hi. i'm from the national agency from -- a quick question on the section of the findings. have you come across any findings that looks at the law enforcement and child welfare

system? you were talking about children and parents in deportation and detention system. and i have one other question and that is probably for you. with the 287(g), would you say that it is not reversible but is there room for pressure to continuously look at the policies a little bit more local than an increase to a federal mandatory system? >> let me take the first part first. this is the intersection between immigration and the child welfare system. i think obviously people who advocate on behalf of children

and families have been making this argument for a long time. i think you began to see an appreciation of that in the discretion memos that were issued by i.c.e. in the last two or three years. increasingly immigration officers are asked to look into factors like children, especially children who don't have anyone else to take care of them, to be taken into consideration should be given higher priority and the united states. i understand in certain jurisdictions a more ongoing relationship between state and child development agencies and enforcement people to see whether there are appropriate ways that they will be given discretion, exercise discretion. [inaudible] >> the discussion not to remove parents so i think that has gone

into the mix of the criteria for using the discussion in the last two years. again it's one of the things we should be monitoring to see whether it's doing better now. we are all running out of time so we didn't get time to say this but i mean what he said here obviously in no way is an endorsement of all of these policies and i hope you appreciate that. we just laid out what the government has done. these are highly controversial programs. no one denies that. there are huge human cost. there are huge cost in terms of rule of law, in terms of due process and many other constitutional issues which advocate law enforcement officials and legal experts have raised all through the session. we are not minimizing bad and it acts we hope we have done justice to those and those of you who read it we hope you read those parts in the same spirit

as you read the rest of the report. i think it's about these programs. it doesn't mean that there is no debate about how to reform the system. it only means that the debate should shift from trying to terminate the program in which a lot of political capital was head to see how we -- the program and there are obviously many good ideas about involving the programs. like the 27 the program as doris mentioned earlier. the determination of the task force model in the program and lo and behold dhs has decided to terminate essentially phased out all the models. so as people are investigating these programs i think improvements are also being talked about in many of them actually are getting some --

in the future. >> really quickly, i don't think there is explicit findings on the intersection between immigration enforcement and child welfare. of course we consider, we are concerned that things like the loss of custody and the severance of the parental child relationship as a result of removal and attention. theirs is short section on the ramifications of removal which i commend to all of you. >> thank you. since i don't see any hands i will take the prerogative the chair and ask a question. we have used, because that is all that the data allows, but measures of effectiveness and i would like to ask the panel in their research, are they seeing a movement towards more refined measures of effectiveness and success, where it's not about

numbers but it's about what is most important in terms of immigration enforcement. >> it's a big rock topic obviously. i think that there is a growing appreciation within the agencies that administer these programs, that they do need to know more about effectiveness outcomes as compared to measurement in terms of inputs fundamentally. what we are talking about art inputs funding, personnel, technology, growth etc.. it's much less possible to assess actual effectiveness. probably the most important effectiveness measure that matters right now is border enforcement, and the degree to which border enforcement actually is effective. that is something that dhs has

been working on. they are struggling with these issues and could probably doing -- be doing so more aggressively but i cannot fault them for making the effort. there's also going to be more and more pressure on them to be doing these kinds of analyses because of the funding question. once you get straight-line funding, or even some decreases in funding and in the last year or so there have been some decreases to some extent for some of the program's -- you have to be much more rigorous about what really matters and how you do work and what it is that you are going to continue to champion. the consequence of enforcemeenforceme nt at the border is a perfect example because the set of consequences are being used. some of them are very expensive. some of them are quite inexpensive. if you accept the idea of consequence enforcement, you

then need to ask yourself which of these consequences best determines deterrence, and if that coincides with the most expensive of course then you have in our demand for the most expensive but it might coincide with the lesser consequence. those are the kinds of questions that now need to be asked that dhs needs to be held accountable to put oversight also needs to really focus on in order to refine the system and make the system produce the kinds of results that we have invested in. >> thank you very much, doors. i will make one final observation and then we will close. one of the things that doris alluded to in the report is very strong on is issuance of data into interoperability. today and again it has positives

and negatives but we have now gotten to the point where a line officer anywhere can have real-time access to all the information of the federal government that are on a law-enforcement basis to have available and soon the dod enforcement agencies will have data added to that system. the liberating aspect of it is that people at the border or even as we extend the border beyond the border, will be able to make almost instant decisions about who should come in and who should not. i will leave the other concerns about such interoperability of systems for another discussion. i would like to thank everyone for attending this event and i would like to thank my colleagues here for a fine presentation and the authors for

a great report. and on behalf of all of them and the immigration policies is to thank you for coming out and thanks to our viewing audience. the report and our other work can be found at www.dodd migration policy.org. thank you very much and have a good day. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> a record number of women were elected to the u.s. u.s. house and senate in november. there are now more women in the u.s. u.s. senate. conversation women candidates who ran for office in 2012. this 35 minute event is hosted by emily's list which is a political action committee that supports pro-choice women candidates running for congress and governor. >> the national press club here and we are privileged to have stephanie schriock, the president of emily's list to be here today.

as they well should after their spectacular when in the last presidential election. stephanie has been very active in democratic circles. she was national finance director for howard dean's 2004 election. she then helped the united states senator john -- unseat an 18-year-old incumbent in the state of montana. stephanie also managed the campaign of senator franken in minnesota and she defeated norm colman. correct? she is a graduate of man caught a state university in minnesota and she grew up in montana. here is stephanie, the president of emily's list who will speak

and then we will field questions from all of you. thank you. >> thank you. thank you all so much for coming out. and good morning. again my name is stephanie schriock president of emily's list ,-com,-com ma though as mentioned, grew up in you've montana where my heart and soul still resides. it's great to be your today. i want to thank you all for joining us this morning and also give a special thanks to the national press club for having me and for setting this all up. it's really an honor for me to be here today. and commack -- for those of you who don't know as much about emily's list, emily's list has been around now 27 years and we are solely committed to electing pro-choice democratic women to office up and down the ballot

across the country. we did as mentioned have a pretty good election cycle in 2012. but the two years before that were rough for american women and i would say like most folks, i was more than ready to see the 112th congress and. at emily's list we couldn't have been more excited to see this new congress gaveled then on thursday, this past thursday. we saw the swearing in of senator mazie hirono, senator tammy baldwin, senator elizabeth warren and they were joined with 20 women in the united states senate, the first in our history as a nation and our three new senators. they are the first women in their states to have ever served in the united states senate. so we are still breaking through in the country. we also saw 16 new women sworn

into the house of representatives and is quite a diverse group that. we have three women who are under 40 years old and we have the first two women who we have ever seen in combat serving in the united states house of representatives in this congress. and if you look at just north of here, we have a unique story in new hampshire where we have the first state in the union to have an all-female delegation and governor in the country. so it was quite a night and the 113th congress does in fact have the greatest number of women serving ever in our history and i can proudly say that 59% of them are emily's list candidates. there were numbers like this it's hard to see why a lot of folks were saying this this is r the woman but we know this won't be the last.

we don't just make changes to congress overnight. this is a result of 27 years of hard, hard work. at emily's list we have been working with women, recruiting and training women to run for office at local levels and the state and federal level for 27 years to build a pipeline so we continually have young women stepping up to run for office. ..

the first women to lead the very important senate appropriations committee. the more women we have gaining seniority in the house and senate means we have more women in leadership. dianne feinstein, debby stabenow, chair of agriculture, patty murray, borba boxer, chair of the environment. we have seven women now on the democratic side that are ranking members, and on the republican sign, every major committee is led by a white mail. in -- white male. in fact there's only one woman chairing a minor committee, and they fav her administration. what does this mean? women's leadership changes the conversation at these negotiations tables.

there's a story of serving on the house armed services committee, and when they were talking about military reddiness, she and women like gabby giffords were there to ask questions about personnel and supplies, but also about mental health programs for the troops and their families at home. all of which is important for military readiness. and so you can't tell me that if we had two or three women involved in this fiscal cliff debate in the last month, that we wouldn't have gotten it done faster. i was at home over the holidays with my dad, and we all knew where we would end up. there were going to be tax increases. may have been at 300,000 or 4 hon thousand. there wasn't an american in this country that didn't know where we would land, and women want to get these done and keep moving

forward, and these republican men, john boehner in particular, tend to want to stand reason and pound their chest rather than getting things done and solving our nation's problems, and i think it's time to get the speaker's gavel out of his hands and back in the handed of women. women make sure that congress is having the conversations that americans are having at their dipper tables every single night. and that's why voters this year lined up behind democrats and democratic women across the country. wasn't just the fiscal cliff. when you look at the last day of the 112th congress, you can see why we're so happy this congress is now over. the outrageous refusal of speaker baner to bring to a vote the needed relief for our fellow americans suffering from hurricane sandy is an outrage. an outrage. then they let the session enwithout reoff -- re theiring

the violence against women act. they left a normally bipartisan piece of legislation expire for the first time since 1994, putting women across the country at risk, all because they wanted to refuse to protect vulnerable populations like immigrants and native americans and members of the lgbt community. and now with priorities like that, you're not going to be surprised what i'm going to share with you. no emily's list conducted research on independent women voters. not democrats or republicans. independents, in battlegrounds states and what we found was really quite stunning. the women we surveyed were not impressed with congress. what is stunning is that 77% of these independent women voters -- 77% -- said that congress was, quote, old, out of

touch male politicians who don't have a clue what life is like for people like them, end quote. and i'm pretty sure if we had a poll on new year's eve, that number would be much higher than 77%. but the women on emily's list helped to elect to congress this year this new members and folks who are going to bring needed voices to this conversations, and i want to talk about a come. congress woman kirsten from arizona, she grew up in a family that had to live in an abandoned gas station with no running water or electricity for two years. growing up. you can't tell me that she doesn't understand what families across this country are going through who lost their homes, jobs, and almost lost their unemployment benefits. tusli gabbard, our now member from hawaii, and tammy duckworth of illinois, both served in

combat, know what life is like in a real way for those returning from combat and the toll that service is takenning on themselves, on the troops and our families. these are the voices we're going to have in these debates for years and years to come. this is why we want congress to look more like america, because we know, we know that the best way to get progressive policies is to have an equal number of women and men sitting at the negotiation tables, making decisions for our communities. and we will work every single day to make that happen. emily's list recruits, trains, and supports democratic women candidates up and down the ballot. we mobilize national network of women and, yes, good men who are with us, to stand by these women through their elections, and we put programs in place to turn out women voters. and in 2012 we did have an historic year.

80% of our endorsed candidates won. and they were just sworn in last week. we raised a record number $51.2 million and quintupled our membership to over 2 million members,, in the last two years. there's great energy around women's leadership in this country right now. we also turned out women voters in the largest ever independent program of ours called women vote in competitive races across the country, and we didn't just elect great historic numbers of women to congress but we helped elect president barack obama, who has been so good for women across the country. it was pretty clear this election was about women. it was about women candidates. it was about women donors we heard a lot of women's issues, some in a way i would prefer not to hear about, and we sure heard a lot about women voters who

made these decisions. there's been a lot of talk about this new democratic coalition, the winning coalition of young people, hispanics, and women. kind of like that coalition. think that's a great coalition. but women want to keep -- women are not just a voting bloc or subset of the population. they are 51% of the population, that's a majority. and less than 55% of women voted for president obama. there was an 18-point gender gap in this election, and for every unmarried woman who voted for romney two of them voted for obama. this is the change that we're seeing, and women weren't just the deciders in 2012. they will decide for elections to come. they're going to decide who holds the power in this country. and from our research from election night and all of our electoral work, this cycle and

cycles before, we know what is moving women voters and we know how to expand this winning coalition for elections to come. but don't think -- don't make the mistake to think this is one issue election. our research showed the economic issues mattered just as much as the social issues for these voters. 78% of the women of -- we polled ranked equal pay, equal pay, amongst the most important issues facing this country. that an issue that the republicans have stonewalled, ignored, opposed, call a nuisance. last check they told us we'll get back you on that. women understand and they rejected all aspects of this g.o.p. agenda, and we found that they were even more motivated to vote for a candidate, for a democratic candidate, and vote for a brighter future.

76% of the women we polled reported voting for a candidate, only 16% said they voted against one. so think about that. we always talk about voting against republican candidates. they were really voting for a direction for this country. more than any other issue, women were excited to vote for a candidate that they thought had the right priorities, which were clearly not the republicans. 89% of the women we polled rated that this was very important, that the candidate have the right priorities for them. the other important thing is that the women that we polled over -- after the election really got something big happened in november. this was a different election. when we told respondents that a historic number of democratic women had been elected, 56 -- keep in mind-independent women

voters -- 56% thought it would make a positive difference. only 8% felt the opposite. and again, these are independent women, a call for women's leadership in the country. and women saw the g.o.p. agenda and understood the harm it was going to do to our rights and freedoms we fought for, for so long, and they reacted. they reacted by sending a group of people to washington they felt have the right priorities. and we asked women also about the problems they voted against. it wasn't just the debt of healthcare or social issues. they were most concerned these candidates were going to take america back to the failed policies of the past. these independent women across the country want to move forward. they want to see a new future for themselves and for their families.

they do not want to roll the clock back on americans in this country. so women recognize that the total mad men agenda, if i dare call it, of the g.o.p., they didn't want expect rejected it. the women voted -- voters turn out at the polls and voted for women with the right priorities, and i say this coalition is strong and going to grow because the country feels good about sending these strong democratic women to washington, and they know it's going to make a difference. it's a historic year and we're going to use it to lay the foundation for years to come. we're in this for the long game. this isn't about one election for us. we've already been looking at opportunities for 2014. there are 38 governors. up for governor seats, up for elections between now and the election. and those are critical races for women and families in this

country. we've already seen the priorities of state legislatures across the country in 2011 and 2012, we saw the greatest number of restrictions on access to held and our history. we need to make sure that we've got good, strong, prochoice democratic women governors to draw the line in the sand. they need to be there to draw the line in the sand to protect women's health, to block voter d. laws and to make sure our workers' rights are protected. they have much, much to do both on the economic and healthcare front. truthfully, even though it's january, races have already begun at emily's list. we've got a race right now, which is an open seat in the illinois second congressional district, and there are -- i can't believe it -- three prochoice democratic women running in that election right now.

this starts early on emily's list, and this is almost exactly how our cycle started two years ago. last cycle it started with five house special elections. emily's list was involve in four of them and we won three of them. what's walt we dot emily's list. we start early -- that's right there in our name -- early money -- we help it grow, and we've already started for 2014, and don't think we're not looking seriously at 2016 and who is going to be running then. so as we start looking at the next cycle and the cycle to come, i'd love to open it up for questions about either 2012 or moving forward. so thank you so much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> talked about the year of the women before, the women's issues, the women candidates, and yet since the election, i read analysis of what went wrong for the republicans, and what they have to do, and even amongst the democrats who analyzed the republicans problem and they all focused on thed in for republicans to quickly start recruiting hispanic voters, culminating in a call by kathleen parker in the washington post, the headline which was, the g.o.p. learning spanish. we're talking about this being the year of the women. do you think that people are overlooking the importance of women in this election or is this being ignored or has something just slipped through? >> it is interesting. i have to admit i'm with you on the question. i have been surprised at how little we have heard from the republican party about their

18-point gender gam. you cannot win elections with that kind of gap, and it's going to increase because the republican party continues to push forward policies that are alienating women voters, particularly independent women voters. it comes from the bills that they continue to introduce to the fact they put in leadership an entire cast of white men to run these house committees. it's stunning. i don't think they've learned the lesson and i'm not quite sure why that is. if i was in charge of the republican party i would not be happening this the same way. >> other questions? >> reach millions of women monthly. but wondering the best way you

advice for people like us to help move your message forward. >> that's a great question. and thank you so much for being here. so much of what we're building is a community of women and good men who are with us in this endeavor. the best way to connect everybody is online, is the able to be part of this large community. so when i said earlier that emily's list has quintupled, we're five times bigger than we were, over two million members in the last two years. that is a massive amount of growth. but truthfully, i think we can go much, much further. i want to see that number double. and that's where we need the help. we need to just introduce what's going on to women who are leading very busy lives. your readership are women who have children, working one or two jobs, trying to balance everything out. politics for regular folks is

not on -- not on the top ten list of their daily lives. our job is to make it part of the fabric, because it's really important. it's important locally, on who is sitting on your school board. it's important in the cities, on who is deciding where the money is going to go between safety and education. you talked about your state legislatures, it's incredibly important. we need women to really get engaged in politics, and we need them to run for office. we need more and more women to run for office, and we focus on democrats, and one of our big focuses in the next many years is to get more women to run for the legislature to run for city council to run for mayor's races, because that's our pipeline for congress, but it's also the regulations and laws getting passed every day that are affecting our lives and the lives of our families. >> thank you. other questions?

>> i'm a journalist for -- [inaudible] >> in addition to -- i've also seen coverage that women are no longer big bloc that politicians can get with one issue and women maybe did make a difference because you can no longer count on them to just vote on issues -- can you address that question ask the challenge for you and in general in seeing women as a monolithic voting bloc. >> i've always thought it was odd -- because i've been working democratic politics now for a few years, anyway, leave it at that. that we thought they were one issue voters to begin with. they're not. 51% of the population. women are very, very different in that population.

what i think is really important here is that there are key economic priorities that women in this country feel are very, very important, and they are priorities that we are not seeing the republican part party addressing, and the democratic party needs to lean into this, including equal pay on the top of the list. this is a huge issue. women really are feeling that things are not quite right out there because they have to make the payment every night to make sure they've got enough food for the kids, dealing with the house payment or put gas in the car. they're feeling it. so i think for a long time, folks would think, democratic women and reproductive rights. well, for women, it's all part of an economic future, and our able to make choices to do the best thing for ourselves and our families. it's all important they feel

it's all important. i think what we have done successfully at emily's list is to broaden the agenda that we're talking about, but also, even more importantly, it's how we're communicating with women. i think the biggest change that is starting to happen is our ability to meet women where they are and talk about the issues that they're facing. not just kind of blasting them with television commercials. it's not working. you can argue it's not working for a lot of men, but it's really not working for women. our ability to use online programs, to have long conversations with women, not just in one day or one week, but over a year, to educate, to make sure they know what's going on, that is part of, i think, our future in building the coalition, is to really be part of the education of women voters across the country.

so, it isn't so much about one issue or series of issues, though it is clear there's an economic agenda that women are looking for in this country, progressive economic agenda, not one that's going to take effect, just like healthcare. they feel that it is time to move forward from these debates; that choice is available for us both in our personal lives and our health care, and now in our economic lives. it is really where we're communicating and that's the future here, and that's where emily's list is going to play a bigger and bigger role in years to come. >> other questions? >> my name is -- i actually write for -- [inaudible] >> i have a question for -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

>> probably the most exciting news. [inaudible conversations] >> i have a question for you. my -- while we are hearing there are very much progressive, my best friend is from texas, and we talk about being here and being progressive and being from states where, quite frankly, when we vote, we feel a little bit intimidated and a little outnumbered as well and a little underrepresented. so, my question to you is, what do you have for women like us that are coming from states that are a little more conservative and don't represent or ideal or where we want to see the country go? >> well, particularly friends in texas where, yes, we need to do some work there.

you have to get involved. there are lots and lots and lots of women and men who feel the same way in texas. or in virginia. or in georgia. they are there. our ability to start networking those folks, to build a coalition in the states, to then find the right candidates and build up from the bottom, is what we have to do, and there's some great organizations in texas and around the country that are doing local work, and then emily's list, as a national network, is also building out more and more at the state level because we know these changes can't all happen at the congressional level. we have to move these legislatures. there's 38 governors open for election in the next two years. these are critical. some of the worst things we have seen for women's health in particular, but voter i.d. and voting rights laws, workers'

rights, are happening at the state level and they're wing, these conservatives are winning at the state level. it's for us, and particularly, i think, women have a huge opportunity to step up and really make some change, because they can speak about what these laws do to them, and their families and their communities. and i've read some great activism in texas, whether it's been on the outrageous restrictions they put on women and access to reproductive care, to some of the education. constant education battles. we have to get more and more of us involved, and we have to talk to -- we've got to talk to our sisters because don't assume they're not with us. they may not be with us on everything. they may not be that progressive on everything, and i grew up in montana. i'm not progressive on everything either. but when it comes to engagement

and having conversations, and trying to find solutions, and bringing people to the table to do that, that is really what i think women bring an extra weight to. we do it at home all the time. have to bring those kids together. i watched my mom do it for years and none of us ever agreed and she sat us down. we need to do this in our communities and then we got to get those women up and do it in congress. just got to get more and more involved. and it's our time. i really see it's our time to do this. not just in government, by the way. always talk about government, and that's where we focus on at imly's list. but truthfully, why don't our corporate boards have more win, or senior law partners, why are we not seeing more women ceos. i have seen women who are sitting at vp slots. the time is now.

there has been report after report, even out of the harvard business review, when you have more women on a corporate board, you actually do better as a company financially. so, it's our time, and we have to help each other build these networks to move women up. and balance this out. and i think that's when we get to the best policies for our country, by helping each other. >> other questions? >> i'm erin and i have a question. moving forward, let's say that some of the conservatives back off, at least publicly, example, bobby jindal had tried to paint himself as a contraception moderate. we also saw that bob mcdonnell put down the probe but went at the same time and certified these clinic regulations in virginia, very quietly, right around the new year. so, let's say there is less

publicity how do we keep the momentum going forward? >> it is about the community. it's about the networks. and we have had such growth at emily's list. we need to turn two million into four million. that's our ability to make sure everybody knows what is going on and what could happen. so they may, they may -- i'm not so confident they're actually going to really slow this down but they may. if they've learned any lessons, they will. what we have already seen, number of bills introduced in legislatures in a number of places that look just like the ones did in the last two years. and in virginia, to throw those regulations through in the dark of the night, is exactly what we're dealing with. but remember, it's not just about reproductive health care for these women and that's a huge piece of it. i'll tell you, it's only a social issue. if you haven't had to pay for

birth control. most of us this is an economic issue to figure this all out, but it's also these economic issues. it's what they're going to in congress with social security and medicare, who is -- the majority of those on social security and medicare happen to be senior women. and it's the voter i.d. laws. they're very hard on our senior women across the country. seniors in general, but there happen to be more senior women than senior men. talk about pay equity. and education. we're not even talking about child care yet. that isn't even on the agenda. these are really issues we have to start addressing, and we have to start bringing them up. so it's about a larger economic agenda for women to move us forward. that includes access, total access to health care, but also to opportunities economically, and i think that's the

conversation all of us need to start having with women and their families cross the country. >> other questions? don't be shy. i have one for you. all the women elected to king -- congratulations -- were there any who were african-american or hispanic-americans? >> we actually had quite a lot of diversity this year. we -- now you're going to catch me offguard -- we have the first asian-american woman in the united states senate, as well as our first openly gay member of the united states senate. that was incredible. we have a new african-american woman from ohio coming in to join us out of columbus. we continue to support -- well, we do have gloria mccloud, a hispanic out of colorado, and we supported many, many

african-americans and hispanics who won re-election. i will say this. as we look at places like texas and georgia and new mexico and arizona and florida, we now are working very, very closely with more and more women who are running for the legislature. we want to build that bench because there are some amazing, amazing women who are stepping up and making huge changes, both in the hispanic community and the african-american community, and it's an exciting time. we talk about diversity and that we want -- we would like 51% of congress to be women. i think that's fair. i'd take 50. let's get to too 5. i'll be okay. but in that we do want congress to look like this nation, which means it's very, very important for us to continue doing our work in partnership with the hispanic community, the african-american community, the asian-american community and it's a something you'll see a lot more of. >> any eye questions?

thank you very much. >> thank you so much. it's an honor to be here. we did have a great year, but promise you, you will see many great cycles to come from emily's list. thank you. [inaudible conversations] s. >> tomorrow, new jersey governor chris christie will deliver the state of the state. he is mentioned as a possible white house candidate for 2016. live coverage at 2:00 eastern on c-span. >> coming up on c-span2 2, a discussion on defense spending, national security, and the federal budget. and then a report on immigration enforce independent the u.s.

>> now a discussion of the potential effects of defense cuts on national security. topics include military reddiness, potential job losses and the nation's department. paul wolfowitz is participating in this event hosted by the brookings institution. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. welcome to brookings, i'm michael ohandlan from the 21st 21st century initiative and we're delighted to welcome you here to an event on u.s. defense strategy and the defense budget, and we honored to the hoe undersecretary of defense,

robert hale here. just a quick note on the agenda, after bob has spoken, i'll come up and call on a few folks and we can ask some questions of bob, so that will be your chance to intercede and pose questions on your mind. you'll field questions for a half hour. at that point we'll go straight to a panel discussion, and we'll be joined by paul wolfowitz and richard betts. richard betts runs the security program at columbia university. so thank you all of you for being here. let me say a brief word about bob hale, for whom i had the great pleasure of working 20 years ago at the congressional budget office. fantastic career in national security. as noted, comptroller of the pentagon today. one of the top officials, eadviser to the secretary of defense in all matters financial, not only in terms of building budgets and trying to execute them and execute efficiencies and reforms within

the defense budget. bob has a long career in national security. he was navy officer at the beginning of his career. he worked for the center for naval analysises, worked for the logistics institute and he was my boss to congressional budget office during the period -- well, for a number of years, but including during the period when the berlin wall has just come down and we are were building a post-colored -- post cold war military. bob was the comptroller of the air force during the clinton administration and has also been the executive director of the american society of military comptrollers so join me in welcome us one of my favorite defense budget experts, robert hale. [applause] >> good morning. how is everybody doing? good. listen, i'm glad to be here, for a number of ropes. one of them is comp troll --

comptrollers don't get invited out much. a man has chains in his chest, iran to the hospital. the doctor says the bad news is you have a serious heart problem and if you don't get transplant you're going to try. the good news is i got three dough over ins, one of them former -- 20-year-old former olympic athlete she was practicing ever day for the olympics. second one was 25-year-old former try -- triathlon. athlete. and then there was a dod control controller. he took the comptrollers, his wife said why would you choose a comptroller? i said i'd take the one whose heart has never been used. so i'm going to live up to that

billing today but i'll try my best. the key issue facing us us how to maintain national security and what are clearly leaner budget times. recently the main declines in the defense budget have been wartime, overseas contingency, but we have seen some real declines in the base portion and there may be more coming. so, what do we need to do to accommodate leaner times? i'll offer three thoughts, starting with we need a strategy to how we go about maintaining national security but do it at budget levels that seem reasonable. that's the first and the most important thing. second, we've got to make more disciplined use of the money we get. we half got to stretch our defense dollars. and third, we need -- i would say desperately need more stability both in terms of budget size and maybe particularly budget process, and i'll say a few words at the end about sequestration and other things in that category.

let's talk about these points. starting with the strategy. it is the key to success at all times and maybe particularly in lean budget times. when you don't know where you're -- don't have a strategior, you don't know where you're going, in some past drawdowns there has been an across the board nature to them. the cold draw down had some cold war aspects to it. so president obama announcing new defense strategy, we believe it is the right one for the finals and interestingly, despite a lot of criticism for all the specific wes propose in connection with that strategy, criticism on the hill, most members of congress seem to have accepted the strategy. it's meant to help us confront a period of time where we face a very complex national security challenges.

just think, syria and the arab spring, think iran and its relations with the whole world, to include israel. think north korea and so many more. what are the elements the strategy? i'm not going to spend a lot of time on it but just briefly, it assumes we will be smaller, have leaner forces but they will be highly ready forced. one of the way to be leaner, we'll no longer assume we size our forces for long prolonged operations of the sort we conducted in iraq but we'll look for ways of reversibility because we understand we often guess wrong about future threats. we feel the forces must be highly ready because very much of a no-notice category or quality to the sorts of threats to national security, and obviously very important when i come back later to a discussion of sequester. second item is to rebalance our

forces. we're working toward rebalancing in eric-pacific, maybe moving around some force, fewer marine on -- okinawa. a rotational presence in australia. some war ships in singapore. possibly a presence in the philippines. we'll pay attention to long term that's, including chine. we'll maintain technological superiority and invest more in some high priority types of activities, cyber, special operations, but we recognize we're going to have to cut back on weapons programs in order to meet budget constraintses. we'd used this strategy to guide budget decisions and made some substantial cuts in forces, 100,000 people out of the active duty, 90% of those in the ground forces which is consistent with the decision on large prolonged

stability operation. we work to increase things like cyberinvestments and a number of other decisions consistent with that strategy. we think the strategy is the right one for the times. we also believe that the current level of defense -- planned defense spending is roughly consistent with that strategy, and so we hope congress will continue to support that level for at least something close it to. but strategy isn't enough in lean budget times -- could i have a glass of water? -- strategy is not enough in lean budget times. we owe it to the taxpayers to stretch defense dollars wherever we and can we have had a number of initiatives to do that. economists -- these are often referred to as efficiency. i don't like the term because little is truly an efficient si as an mist would define them. more often we're eliminating lower priority programs where we

think that makes sense in order to hold down spending. so i prefer the phrase more disciplined use of resources. what have we done to make more disciplined use of resources? two major packages, one for 150 billion over five years in, last year, 60 billion. many cuts before that as well. many involved eliminating lower priority weapons programs. from we terminated the future combat system in favor of the more focused combat ground vehicle. we've terminated satellite in favor of the ahf and ended production of both the c-17 and the f-22 aircraft and a number of other initiatives. some of the others focus on organization and business process changes. first time if we established a joint forces command. we have fought strategic sourcing across the board, grouping our buys to try to use our market power to get better

prices. we've looked at things like consolidating e-mail networks and other more efficient i. t. efforts, reducing use of contract services where we can, and some activities that really do qualify as efficiency. the air force, for example, put flight program soft ware to help pilots cut fuel costs, make better use of minutes. another major set of initiatives has aimed at slowing the growth in military compensation, which has grown sharply over the past decades. we have proposed and congress has agreed to some increases in fees for military retirees, which hadn't been increased -- for their healthcare which had not been increased for more than a decade. we have gotten come to agree to increases in pharmacy copays aimed at causing people make greater use of mail order and

generics, and slow basic pay races. we tried to slow the growth in dod health care which has triple since 2000. i mentioned the fee increases. we always sought and achieved major changes in the way we pay healthcare providers, using medicare rates to pay for outpatient care in the department of defense, which we weren't doing a few years ago. some of our initiatives for making better you of defense resources have been oriented towards improving profits. we are committed to achieving auditable financial statements in the adapt of defense and i humbly say for the first tomorrow we have realistic plan to accomplish what is a very major task. auditable statements will help us improve our business processes but help reassure the public we're good stewards of their funds. and we're not done seeking ways to reduce resources.

we need to consolidate infrastructure, using the -- we are engaged in restructuring civilian personnel to reduce their numbers, and restructurings of the military halve system. i recognize there's more to do and hasn't fundamentally checked problems for the department of defense, like growth and operating costs and acquisition costs and growth in military compensation, but i think it is fair to say that we have had a fairly aggressive effort to hold down defense costs and that will continue. the last step in my mind that is a key to manager in leaner times is more stability. both in terms of budget size and budget process. sometime over the next couple of months i hope, to help the department submit a defense budget, the first two featured increase inside the top line. the third one in february 2011, featured some substantial

top-line reduction, and the last one featured a significant reduction about 260 bill over five-year period relative plan, 487 over ten years, and of course we may not be done. the american taxpayer relief act, the bill congress passed on new year's day on the fiscal cliff legislation may force further reductions and there is the threat of sequestration. at the same time i would argue that national security challenges have not gotten any less complex. this lack of budgetary stability makes it very hard to plan and extremely hard to plan well. i think the nation's security would be better served if the congress adopted and then stayed with a more stable budget plan. we've also not enjoyed much process during my opportunitiure at comp tropical -- comptroller. i have had four shut down drills, two of which we would not know if we were going to

shut down or not. we have lived under two long-term continuing resolutions, six-month continue resolution, we're under one right now. they hog tie the department in its ability to manage a very -- very difficult to manage, number of legal restrictions. we had a near brush with sequestration last week, averdict for the moment, at least, but the continued specter of sequestration is out there. in more than three decades of working in and around the defense budget, i have never seen a period featuring any greater budgetary uncertainty than we are looking at over the next few months and through march. it gives a whole new meaning to the term march madness, and i can't wait for it to be over. so what is the rest of fiscal year 2013 look like? i know that we face -- we know we face see sequestration, starting now on march 1, 2013. we're still working on the details but the total see

success station for dod appears to be roughly $45 billion if it all went into effect, about 9% of our budget. that is less than the sequestration we faced before passage of the new year's day act. that could have been as much as 12%. but we also have two fewer months in which to accommodate those changes. we also cannot rule out an extension of the continuing resolution throughout the rest of this year. and that would sharply reduce the operation and maintenance funds we have available and that we need to maintain readiness, and think back to my statement earlier. readiness is one of our highest priorities. and to add to the problem we believe we must protect funds for wartime operations. we can't leave the troops in afghan, short-sheet them in budgetary terms. we have to protect those funds and that means even larger cuts in base budget dollars available for readiness. the bottom line we face a confluence of some unfortunate events, a year-long continuing resolution that is going to

reduce funds available, especially for readiness. the possibility of sequestration. and this need to protect our wartime operations budget. all of these together other could lead to serious adverse effects on dod readiness, even as we continue to face complex surety challenges d security challenges and haven't mention the chaos it will cause. we face a lot of uncertainty. we find ourselves balancing costs and risks. i'm reminded of a story i think captures this in a lighter note on what i know has been a pretty somber talk. a story about speaker giving a talk on costs and risks. and he asked somebody from the awe gross come up and said i have three questions for you. the first question is this: imagine there's a 40-foot long i-beam right here in front of me on the floor. it's six inches high.

i'll pay you $100 if you can watch across i-beam if you don't fall off. the man says, falling off is like stepping off, okay, same i-people, this time strung between two 40-story building. i'll give you $100 if you walk across and don't fall off. will you take he risk and re said of course not. same i-beam, over a skyscraper. have one of your children in my hand. if if you don't walk across the beamry throw you children off, will you take the chance and he said, which child have you got? so as the defense manager i feel like i'm throwing children on -- my own children sometimes off a building, and sometimes i realize che may be some of your children as well. let me sum up and then i'll try to answer your questions. i believe there are key -- three tee steps we need to take as we

seek to come date. we need to have a strategy that -- we need to stretch every defense dollar and i mentioned a number of things we're doing good. and finally we need more stability both in terms of size of budget and budget process. the decisions made over the next few years and months, shy say, will be critical to our non security. i think secretary panetta put it right last week when he said, every day the department of the men and women of defense put tower lives on the line to protect us us a. those of news washington have no greater responsibility than to give them what they need to succeed and to come home safely. my hope is in the next two months all of us in the leadership of the nation and congress can work together to provide that stability. our national security demands no less. with that i'll stop and be glad to answer your questions. [applause]

>> briefly remind you of the ground rules. please identify yours after waiting for a microphone to arrive and then limit yourself to one clear question. start here, sir. >> tony with bloomberg news. you said $45 billion if see questions -- sequestration kicks in. will modernization take a disproportionate amount because of the own end burn rates? >> well, tony, what's changed it they changed the law, which changed both -- what we call the joint sequestration, the way they figured it that reduced the amount. and also a potential second sequestration, they reduced 0 the cap so they changed the cap

in ways that cut it back. we wouldn't have the authority unsequestration to choose between onm and modernization because it's the same new jersey each budget account and the operating dollars in each line item. so unless we can preprogram and that we about pretty limited ability to do that, i suspect, we wouldn't have that option. [inaudible] >> it was 62 billion, the best estimate before. and now our best estimate -- still rough -- legal changes were quite complex but looks like $45 billion for defense. >> here in the fourth row. >> you seem to be quite active with smaller budgets. does that mean you're going to be upset with your likely new boss, chuck hagel, who argue for a smaller budget?

>> first off i'm not sure what the president will announce today, and if i did know i will not scoop him on that. i think if it is senator hagel, we'll work with him and we'll work with the american people. we need to balance -- this is about risk. you get a certain amount of money, you get a certain amount of risk. if the country decides touting some more risk then we can go to lower budgets. we'll need to work with whoever is the nominee today and assuming that person is confirmed to try to make those tradeoffs. they're hard to do but we'll find a way to do them. >> another hand in that same row. further back. all the way to the wall. [inaudible] >> on the pacific re-alignment defense bill and the money for guam and okinawa and there's no

way in -- what is taking so long to get the report out? >> well, i mean, there are a number of complex issues, political and operational with regard to the move of the marines from oak na waugh to guam, we think we have a plan. we haven't yet fully convinced congress, but i believe we will make this work. it may be later than he won't but i think we'll come up with a plan we can achieve which is to maintain our prepares in the pacific area and also moving some of the marines off okinawa. >> second row, please. >> thank you. kate can from politico. can you talk about assumptions you're using to build the 2014 budget and how they have changed over the last couple months or

last week? barracks. >> basically the strategy is one we have already announced and shiedded briefly. that has been the overall guiding -- summarized briefly. thats the overriding principle. we are planning on the same top line numbers announced with the budget a year ago. and i don't know whether those will change or not. it's a possibility they will, given the american taxpayer relief act, the new year's day legislation on the fiscal cliff. we just don't know that yet. so there may be dollar changes tbd. but i think the strategy will say the same, try to adhere it to, because we think it is the right one for the times. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> with your current state of the headquarters -- state of the hawk, how what you help senator

hagel to share the same priorities? >> i'm not sure i understood. >> priorities of spending in 2013 and 2014, and -- >> what was the first part? >> it's the -- the first one, refer back to the story about the state of the current heart. >> heart? >> the joke. i. >> who is your most loved child. and then in the priorities of what, first, second and third, and then do you think senator hagel would see the same way and how do you convince him -- >> i know you want me to say something about senator haigle and i'm not going to i may not have a heart but die have a head and i'm not going to scoop the president. so whatever is the case, whoever is the nominee and if they're confirmed, we'll work with them. obviously that nominee will have to get in place and be confirmed

and that person, whoever it is, will have to tell what they're priorities are, but as of now we have one secretary of defense. i think his priorities are clear and i would have that the broad ones would stay in place with regard to the strategy i mentioned earlier. that's kind of a nonanswer but that's the best i can could. >> i have a question myself and try to be more specific. >> you can't mention hagel. >> i will not about i will mention blake robert griffin ii- his knee was injured and we will forever leave the clock at that moment until the is back in action next year mitchell question, follows up on the issue of the procurement budget and what will happen it to. my understanding is that -- we all know there's prior year defendant budgets that continue to fund the industry and that guess news for the industry. as previous year's budget authority, working off so the

uncertainty of this year's budget is mitigated. on the other hand it's hard to enter into contracts at all with the specter of sequestration, so how should be understand the hit the defense industry is taking right now in percentage terms? is there a 5%, 10%, 20% cut in the kinds of spending and jobs that might otherwise be taking place right now? >> it's so hard to define what our baseline is right now. of you go against the '13 budget, the continuing resolution, total dollars, are actually a little higher than the proposal in the '13 budget. we have been limited to the fiscal level. i will try to say this to helple. if see fess -- sequestration occurs it has to be the same amount. if we simply get a target for a

top line reduction, we'll try to do it in a balanced manner, but i think there's a long history and good reason, why the early in a drawdown, cuts tend to be heavily on the investment portion of the budget because it takes us a while to make force level decisions and then gradually draw down the sizes of our forces. so if we are allowed the authority to make choices, they'll possibly be investment heavy in the beginning and reduction in operating costs and we have to have the authority to do it by law, but we have to get the u.s. congress to agree, and as some of you know if you follow it, they have some misgivings about our force level reductions we have proposed. let alone any in the future. so we have our work cut out for us. ...

>> first i don't know the job impact. i would argue strongly i a preferred the job effects do not enter into the decision to propose a good strategy

for the nation. we did get some stimulus money. it was about 1% with 7 billion and saw the restoration and those were the two major categories. so we participate in the job creation but i hindustan how important they are but a still believe it is to propose a national security strategy and the job issue should be handled by other means.

>> following up on the budget question with the f y 14 when will that be done? is it delayed? how you put out the different scenarios? >> it is inevitable there will be some delay. but it is the call of omb. we will quickly start looking at the programming process. but we will look at a variety with the top line guidance.

>> 9:00 a.m. with "aviation week." in august you and secretary carter testified about see gratian with the strike fighter in particular and is that still the case? >> you were giving the illustrations in august. if it goes into effect fully which i hope it does not, and i am hopeful but is say 9 percent reduction for

the program managers to figure that out there could be some reductions for what that would be for sure. >> i represent industry probably not the only journalist. could day improve the efficiency? >> to say we need you to use sharper your pencils and anything else but it is the best they can do you. it is working more clos closely and in return and we shall use some stability we are still hopeful with the

negotiations. >> senator for arms control proliferation will you clarify for me how much of the 487 for what they called efficiencies? how does these sequestration configure a 62 billion? i see 54 point* seven before the postponement. >> i've been trying to remember. the five-year number was 259 they were through a more disciplined resources.

it is roughly the same but i do not remember. you start to go from sequestration there was a sequestration 54 point* seven with a national defense function in our share was 52. and the total was 62. it is roughly 9%. and is smaller because they reduce the size of sequestration and the

taxpayer effected. is that clear? [laughter] sari. -- sorry. but requesting authorization for the base closure we have seen the fifth round that preceded york ministration where it was difficult to realize savings but should be even think of it as a realistic way? >> i think so. i will not give you examples but we believe there are. i would not use 2005 as a guide but it was more transferring units around.

although we will get savings there. it will be awhile before we break-even. if you look at 93 year 95 round the average savings was two or 3 million per year. that is probably realistic if we have base closure authority. before we know for sure we have to go to every base ha installation and let the commission make their choices but there are savings to be had with dollars and civilian personnel. and to reduce spending personnel they need to give us authority with

infrastructure. >> you talk about balance but a big issue was the blockage of of all the initiatives that the air force tried to accomplish. there is a plush the guard is far more cost-effective. also fed governors to be actively involved. >> national defense authorization act allowed us to move forward the got part of what we were looking for the one to work with them but not to with information that we need to work with

them and we will but i am concerned generally that we cannot do this a nice like their retirement of navy ships that we will do eventually toots' turned down many request with military compensation. but we will need to work with them if we make further reductions. it is the topline challenge. >> i am with inside the pentagon. can you provide insight with

guidance with sequestration has it came out? >> we are looking at that i cannot give you timing or content. we are further along than we were. the ada is not to take steps that include sequestration because we still want congress not to let that go into effect. but we're looking at what guidance is appropriate in the near term. >> thank you. for your thoughtful questions and the chance to be here today. i a appreciate your time.

[applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> fantastic. we're ready to start. i am peter singer. with the exceptionally confusing things going on today the defense budgeting with averted sequestration

this is a timely period to have this conversation in every will cut through some confusion to pull back and look at the bigger strategic question. and tear from brookings to have one of the most prolific voices written hundreds of op-eds including one on foreign policy.com with the budget scenario. the most recent book includes the opportunity. and the wounded giant. then me are joni by richard bets professor and from "war

and peace" studies and his numerous books gardner critical success including the wilson award for the best book of political science and a key facilitator of a workshop that some effect percent of all professors in the nation have attended. also with a great deal of experience in the policy field and a former staff member working on the national security council and advisory panel for the cia director and part of a task force from a report entitled the new u.s. defense strategies for a new era. as a scholar at the american enterprise institute has three decades of public

service to higher education as dean of johns hopkins in the state department of planning and the secretary of state just up to the secretary of defense. i will pose a question to kickoff the conversation. the first question is what have been done in new york -- new year's eve a day? what are the key strategic questions? >> and thank you for being here. we just heard bob hale struggling with the process but for that budgetary

operations but that at the moment and then in the 11th year but the pentagon does not have a lot of opposition. we don't know how many are needed because of abominate decide on a faster downsizing but those 88 million is a relatively noncontroversial. but to do talk about a couple of numbers to frame the broader strategic dialogue, that 80 billion needs to be added to the 550 billion of the nuclear weapons activities is $550 billion according to the defense authorization

bill that has limited significance that provide them many are done on the resolution basis in sequestration is a possibility. of 550 billion in the base budget? need to look at the number as being big more modest. historic day in the cold war averaging 475 million they are $2,013. we are spending substantially more than we did for the cold war average. we are now down by 100 billion from a couple years ago and the base budget has not been adjusted for inflation and has been

fought and that means a real cut people talk about how much have we already cut the budget? it is more than budgetary common-sense. 550 billion was extended 35 billion is 150 billion more than the cold war average. and with the base budget we have been bringing down though war costs substantially so it is 100 billion less than that was a few years ago.

bob hale mention 487 billion. that is part of their previous plan. that allows for a little bit of growth. the cpr -- cbo says for any discretionary program current law or budget the relative to that it is observing $350 million. that does not account for the war cost. i probably have thrown too many numbers at you but we're at a point* you could have a good spirited debate to beg your to small.

>> you work on issues of strategy with the new u.s. defense strategy. what are the implications moving forward? >> it is to rethink the assumptions as it should've then at the end of the cold war. it was both necessary and affordable now this may change with a new cold war with china we should prevent that but until then the main threat is terrorism but does not account for the defense budget.

and with those missions that we have with the height activism and intervention what has been an attempt to do this with the important exception against iraq to underestimate significantly the cost of the war. cosa though, up by iraq, afghanistan have proven to be much more difficult than we thought. we are kidding ourselves to

think with the high defense budget is the nef but i say they're too much that military activism ended with the cold war with the ecological issue much higher than the budgetary problems but i would argue we published in the direction over the last few years. to make huge savings in the defense budget even with sequestration could be a blessing in disguise that the political system is an able to make. the degree of activism a

have but i think it is a mistake we have less than 5% of the world's population and the military expenditures with most of the rich countries in the world as allies than them spending roughly half of their economic resources of economic security providing welfare for the rich. leadership does not mean to bear that burden but force them to step up to the bar. but it seems the basic problem is to push further

than we have over the last 20 years. >> the timing of back and forth with budget uncertainty takes place at the same moment we start of day in denver with the pentagon. going through this what is your advice to the people in the building? could be linked that strategy side? could that be done? >> i have been through the qdr that was a bureaucratic process overtaken by september 11 but vividly that i remember it had radical reduction that

secretary cheney initiated with colin powell to do one more cold war defense budget and allow you time to have the defense strategy. and with staff help we could come up with something of a regional defense strategy and the speech he was scheduled to give the radical things about the strategy is that the cold war is over. but there are three regions in the world the persian gulf, the soviets and the

iraqi threat written in june 1990. but i do think in parallel whoever is the next secretary of defense to work with some privacy subjected to enormous public debate but guaranteed the services will get into physician. we went through a and enormous battle with the greatest artillery piece but

it was a cold war system. when rooms filled decided to counsel -- cancel it would stay with the army nearly it means the services compete and i will never forget a few months later ahead of the edge of a preschool coming to a pentagon assignment in said thank you for killing a the crusader sucking the blood out of the artillery. then the army faced another over the costly system.her

over the costly system. the baby of the program director said the army needed helicopters. based on the experience general cody said if we kill the comanche can make keep that money for helicopter modernization? we said yes. every dollar. so we got new helicopters. ones that worked at a time when we needed them. predictability is rather important to get people to use say their favorite tollway is not what was most needed it don't persuade the army general to give money

to the navy or vice versa. it does now work. [laughter] >> any response to those questions? >> i will pass for now. >> we will turn it over to the audience. >> it is important to to note two things is that number one they are huge bet the defense budget to increase the cost of inflation 1% the program would be cut every year because other operational costs but with difficulty if

you like real military capability they are cut. i love the way everyone says government spending and defense has to take its share. 60 percent is entitlements. i never heard entitlements have to take there fair share. with the $787 billion stimulus bill with shall already jobs duty got 1% and as a result ideally do not make defense decisions but to put 50,000 people out of

work was not good economic policy. i don't think anybody would have minded but to be on an equal playing field in this summit cheesier to say we spent too much on defense and social security. >> paul is right with it relates politically as time goes on what we will see politically is spending on health care and other programs to win that fight

politically this is part of the gridlock problem misses a coherent argument why higher levels are warranted but if you make that argument and like to hear people say exactly where the money will come from. health care, social security, farm subsidies additional taxes, we can afford whatever defense we need. >> also a neutral comment if we should cut more or not but there is a talk how to get more efficiencies.

and trying to reform to become more efficient you cut away from what you would like to have. that is okay. we do not always need that stuff but to carry out that process it takes time. for example, base closures. 2005 will not save us any money it will cost money but those in bethesda that with that base closure first hoping it would have savings that may not be the best example but widow is takes by for seven years even

before it breaks even so it will take time. and military compensation is a democracy asking so much and 99.9% of the country does not want to touch veterans' benefits or supporting people in the field that there is a separate category but now we spent $25,000 per person more event one decade ago 25,000 more in the defense budget. not the veterans. most of that was the right thing to do but it raises a

fair question in me rethink that would divide thousand dollar per person increased? as a political hot potato and the congress rejected the modest changes. that you should not try for $25,000 of cuts. and to bear that reality in mind over the 10 years savings. >> to use the term military activism, i am not sure how

he defines it no more afghanistan or iraq come i think of american leadership but the most viable contribution made are things that don't have been with the extraordinary degree from the end of the korean war. navy than to increase the defense budget may be bought some nuclear weapons i prefer the bet that we did make to get the japanese to pay more and i am proud of the fact i was under the secretary for mr. cheney with a $25 million cost we

had positive balance of payments. [laughter] and it said heavy diplomacy but we were successful was because the japanese needed as. and it has been there almost since the british abandoned an when saddam invaded kuwait i worry the rebalancing may not be rebalancing moving from the middle east i can understand the desire and spent a good

part of my career and one job you did not mention unfortunately the middle east will not leave us alone. americans had victoriously short memories except with war. and hasn't great advantages. we're all better off for at it but we don't like vacations as much as the french do but we love vacations run history. we took one after world war ii animals lost korea as a result. as 36,000 dead two men could

not run for reelection so we took a vacation then we had vietnam's more or less we have got in there right that now with a different era i would agree with at and with people who say we cannot lead unless we fix our economy. but it is wrong by fixing defense spending. we could eliminate the entire defense budget to put us in a terrible deficit problem. we have to afford to leave then we have to fix the economy.

>> i am ready to move to the crowd. >> the professor just mentioned u.s. and china and going into a new cold war. and you said we should try to do things to prevent that. how do we do that? also to rebalance to asia including stress from china. >> my view is unpopular and is not have much chance to be acted on but united

states should make it clear choice between containment and accommodation. china is a rising power and unless it chooses to act differently from all rising powers will have a disproportionate influence this is problematic for if the disputes of the south china sea. what i worry about his american drift into the anticipated drift into china with no want to get into a competition that could be avoided and dell want to appease china. so the natural reaction is

kick the can down the road and wait for a catalyst for a problem which is a dangerous way to approach it to. that is my recommendation. it is important to you choose toward accommodation because i worry about the risk from muddling the issues. >> america and power with security policy. >> i remember the substance of the argument. [laughter] >> this may or may not but

current policy is good but it deviating too far trying to strike and a perfect balance to remain resolute and strong but i would like to see a strong posture and doing a good job but they have done little things. with that thesis is modest and i am glad for that i don't want to go to excessive appeasement in the sense we have economic and strategic strength china did not have. with the openness of my political system.

even though china is the top manufacturer. compared to countries use to those that are injuring then you see there is no particular reason to shrink back. and then not only chinese aggression but if they do something they will seize one of them or plant a flag. are the things the right reaction but then there are defense department discussions as a deterrent. as a default plan that is

the mistake. the chinese are that dumb let them hang by their own weight in the form of sanctions and other diplomatic response policy cooperation relationship and it for those who are drawn into a direct confrontation. it is a hedging strategy. it is getting harder but it does not require us to pull back but be aware of the necessary fights. >> let's take the strategy to link back for research and development and investment. the changing of the geopolitical environment

that were seen as necessary. >> it is a great system we don't need this helicopter or high and artillery. what are the systems relative to china is rise? what should we continue to buy or more of for less of? what is the geopolitical environment? >> unfortunately there is a

shift that bob hale used? basically a large and certainly that looks like a good prediction in august 2001 so that is a very dangerous thing for it does seem we need to strengthen the maritime capability not to contain china but the goal is to sustain that it has not been pacific the had a huge interest to keep it that way.

and as silly as it may seem the both are bad choices. but to raise a different question with prediction i believe it was the case when cheney went with confirmation hearings i'm not nominated in this secretary of defense but joking aside if we think capability is not needed in the near term cut to talk

about readiness that is important and in this constrained environment to focus feet expense of further and if i have my bias i would lean toward the long term. >> to areas to mention one specific modernization of weaponry we do need a reliable nuclear force that is that parity with russia but we don't need to modernize all three lakes they need to be refurbished and stay reliable and safe but we're not spending a lot

of money right now but i would say build more trident submarines there up to the requirement we have. that is one example with the more economical approach another example would have worked for bob hale is said on the one hand and on the other with the thumb pointing up and down. god bless my friends with the lockheed plane it has problems because it is innovative but we do not need 2500. in size those latter in and around the western pacific there is no other argument i want to see that is that the

entirety of the effort but we should have the other debates but the m35 program right now that i've led a scale that back. >> to push it further it is as far as possible. with the mobilization base with the capabilities of a later date researching developments and production of smaller numbers to experiment a critical mass

but as is practical state of the art models. >> thank you. retired from brookings. thank you for your way of the land. our mortal enemy have the second-largest economy. 30,000 nuclear weapons, etc.. now groups of terrorists living in caves and adam see how we could spend billions more against that enemy than the world's second-largest economy.

the pentagon is riddled with fact. wide is the airforce need a full-fledged symphony? why do they need $60,000 to go to civilian grad school? wire their more? ha why do they have a larger staff? it will not save hundreds of billions but it shows the fact spread throughout pentagon. to. >> i agree with two-thirds of what you said. but with the interest of debate you mentioned a long list of areas of waste when i would strongly support

with the careers sabbatical not only do we benefit enormously here at brookings to have the personnel and coast guard officers that they go back with new ideas with those who have made a big difference who point* to their element that's with is in command one way or another. like the others regional commanders need their own transportation and maybe two-thirds of the others but the biggest question is why do we spend so much at a time when the enemy and so

less impressive than the soviet union? a lot of things are on our plate. i agree individually each one is substantially less that we still have 67,000 troops in afghanistan. we could be at war with them. i am not a supporter of the logic to get us there i am glad that check hegel will air the issue but i cannot dismiss the possibility also through china to hold from the foundation of western pacific stability even if you don't think there will be a war but to pull back as china rises is the most destabilizing position i could imagine it as become

the surgeon -- second largest economy and i am a supporter rising powers are inherently a tumultuous and dynamic and dangerous. i would want to stay roughly where we are with defense spending to save another hundred billion with a 10 year defense projections. >>. >> to take someone more powerful but it is sensible to take some of that money that you talk about from the defense budget to rebalance on capitol hill we tried but

succeeded to get peacekeeping money out of the lead dod budget. guess which committee is more powerful? that is where we should rebalance resources. just because the soviet union was speaker does not mean it was more dangerous. what would you do if you got the phone call that said pakistan got a hold of the weapon? it was plausible and i said