war i naval competition, there were two countries to look at. it is germany and the united states. and the u.k. but in terms of rising, those are the two and they do almost exactly the same thing the chinese are doing now. it takes them two to three decades. at the end of the day probably couldn't have competed with the british. the germans essentially make one major out for an amount of money was wasted. i don't think that lesson tells you how the chinese will act on the political side of my but i do think it tells you on the military side it takes a long time to catch up and despite the strained up who shamefully there'll be a lot of bureaucratic competitions within the military or the funding they would need to be match for the

next one or two decades. >> somebody else wrote a dissertation for the first world war, let me remind you that broke out as an investment or addicted in the balkans. so yes, there is this larger naval dynamic going on, but if there is some kind of the clash, there's a lot of other factors that might go into it in the cabinet is hard to predict. with that, thank you for coming and please grab a copy of the report on your way out. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> all over the colorado plateau and especially here in mesa county outside of grand junction, we are supplanted by morris and rock. we find a lot of dinosaur bones, a lot of fossils and that is really intrigued scientists for a long time. the other thing we also find this in mineral, a lock that contains three different elements. it contains radium, which is being misused by marie curie to solve and fight cancer. it also contains than adm used to strength steel. during the buildup to world war ii and during world war ii itself, canadian was those major

value. it also contains uranium and uranium as we know is one of the best sources for atomic power and atomic weapons. >> he fought the battle to preserve water for western colorado by making sure that we got our fair share. how did he do that? well, beginning in his state career and then going onto his federal federal career, he climbed up the ladder of seniority and was able to exercise i think more power than you might normally have. certainly in the united states congress, where he was able to make sure colorado and western colorado would be treated fairly and many divisions of water.

his first major success was the passage of the colorado river storage project tonight 56. -- named team 56. -- 1956. >> attorney general loretta lynch is scheduled to deliver remarks this morning on housing policy during the conference hosted by the department of housing and urban development. speaking will be hud secretary said that. during a conference on 350 fair housing maters across the country will discuss topics such such as how to permanently furthering fair housing will come the supreme court's ruling on disparate impact, residential segregation, lending discrimination, intersection of climate justice and fair housing. we expect to see a short video first and then remarks from attorney general loretta lynch.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> again, waiting for comments from attorney general loretta lynch. she is scheduled this morning to talk about housing policy during this conference hosted by the department of housing and urban development. we'll also hear from hud secretary, julian castro. we understand that secretary castro is in the building and the attorney general is there. they should start in just a moment. some of the other programming coming up today: secretary of

state john kerry is scheduled to talk about the iran nuclear to agreement today. he will be in philadelphia at the constitution center. the senate is expected to vote on a motion of disapproval when they come back next week and 96 to pass. the administration was dead to detail it appeared the administration close to getting the senate votes needed to block a veto override. c-span will have live coverage of secretary kerry's remarks at 11:00 eastern today from philadelphia. back here on c-span2 at 12:35, we will delay with a discussion on overlapping jurisdiction between the federal communications commission and

the ftc can the federal trade commission. commissioners of both agencies will join in the discussion neck out 12:35 eastern here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] ! we are applied this wednesday morning waiting on attorney general loretta lynch expect it to talk about housing policy during this conference hosted by the housing and urban development. we will also hear from hud secretary julian castro. it should start in just a moment. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> we proposed fair housing inmates and 66 in january. we got the worst, nastiest mail

we got on any piece of legislation on the fair housing act. we were unable to move it. we ran into first a big issue. i got to be called mrs. murphy's boarding house. as was the 80-year-old, white mrs. murphy and some 250 pounds, six-foot five black wants to live in our house and we shouldn't subject mrs. murphy two days. ultimately a mrs. murphy we face the bill over time. then, we could not -- we couldn't move it. we got it out of the senate committee finally, but nobody wanted to take it to the senate floor because they thought it would be defeated. we had the vietnam war going in january 1968 there was this

enormous country consumed with this battle in the tom -- vietnam. lbj said a liberal democratic senator from michigan, take the fair housing bill to the floor this week. it will pass. everybody is so worried about this. and he did and we got out of the senate. there was no hope in the house. the chairman of the house judiciary committee was emmanuel a sellout, a liberal democrat from the crown heights to brooklyn where i grew up. he was in a district that was largely jewish with some italian still work, but blacks are moving in and constituents were very much opposed. he was afraid that he would face an opponent and maybe lose his seat if he got involved with the fair housing bill reported out of his committee.

we have not been able to figure out how to deal with that and we couldn't move him. martin luther king was assassinated in april of 68, early ape row. it was the worst week in the history of the white house. the president asked me to move in and live there because today he was assassinated, that night we had terrible rioting in washington and all over the country at the next morning we had all of the black leaders in and talk to them and that night we had terrible riots. after we met with the african-american leaders, the president said to me, joe, we are going to get something out of this tragedy. we are going to get our fair housing bill. writes a letter to speaker mccormack. you can probably get the early version. the balloons and my edits are

really has added to my draft into gerry ford who was the minority leader saying let's pass the fair housing bill. we still have the problem so lbj said to the speaker of the house, let's take a print ascended to the rules committee in way to the floor. they will never have to save a forward to bail out. you can go back to constituents and get the bill. and we did. but that meant that we needed we had to go to republican john andersen who years later when the president he on an independent ticket amazed at the fair housing bill out. these were tough times but he got it done.

it's [applause] >> good morning welcome back to the national fair housing training and policy conference. please welcome the assistant secretary of fair housing and equal opportunities, gustavo bayless was -- velasquez. [applause] >> good morning. welcome back to our second day of the 2015 national fair housing policy compliments. i believe we had a fantastic day yesterday. [applause] and today we have a program that will energize you even more. i appreciate all the positive feedback we have had so far and i believe we are building gradually to all the topics and discussions of the most pressing issues of the fair housing of our time. we want to make sure you come

back to your state and with a good sense of what the state of fair housing as and the strategies that have collectively to continue to level the playing field and reach the destination of equal opportunity for all people. i want to take the opportunity to thank the team of the fair housing. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] and outstanding dedication and service to the american people. but they also welcome back everyone watching via webcast and some special guests this morning. you know, we have a great working relationship with the justice department and enforcing the fair housing act and other critical laws.

let's get a round of applause to a very good friend of the fair housing community and the leader of the department of justice civil rights division, geneva group to -- and group to who is right with us. [applause] and of course we are so very honored to have a very special featured speaker this morning. and to talk about that, it is my distinct pleasure to welcome him not once, but twice to this conference, hopefully more. we are very, very honored to have our strongest friend and supporter to fair housing. please help me welcome, hud secretary, julian castro. [applause] >> good morning.

thank you very much, gustavo, for the introduction and for being master of ceremonies these days. wasn't it a fantastic day yesterday, the first day of the conference. [applause] i know we heard some inspiring and encouraging words from vice president walter mondale and from longtime fair housing champion senator tim kaine an impressive amount of folks who work on fair housing. i want to thank them for their passionate voices and sharing their wisdom and their hope for this work for the future with us. it is great that all of us get to learn more and share that passion in commit ourselves to a common vision for a level playing field in the united states. that vision is as central to hud to work today as it was when the

fair housing act was passed in 1968. i'm proud to say that that commitment shared by the entire obama administration and that stars brad at the top. the president opportunity agenda invests in the future of our communities and protect the fundamental rights of all americans. the president has targeted greater resources towards revitalizing the link on errors or initiatives in place-based work with choice neighborhoods and promise zones. he is also making it easier for working families to move into communities with her housing and better schools. has been a forceful defender stating unequivocally the fair housing act covers disparate impact claims, the principle that was reaffirmed by the supreme court earlier this summer. the thing is that each of my

colleagues in the cabinet shares the president's passion of giving every american a fair chance at achieving their dreams and that is especially true of the leader who joined us today. attorney general loretta lynch has devoted her life to fighting on the side of justice. she is the daughter of north carolina -- i see we have a few north carolinians in the audience. and the right made her hand in new york. i imagine we have some new yorkers in the audience after earning her law degree from harvard. over the course of her distinguished career, don't say that too loudly. loretta has prosecuted terrorist and corrupt public officials.

she's gone after cybercriminals and human traffickers. so it's clear if you break the law you better watch out because loretta will go after you and she will win. transit above the eastern district of new york under two presidents, president bill clinton and president barack obama. when eric holder announced he was stepping down following his incredible tenure as head of the justice department, the president asked her to become our nation's chief law enforcement officer. she has already brought tremendous wellspring of knowledge and experience to bear in her new role. she's traveled around the nation to help restore trust and accountability between police officers and the people they serve. she supported marriage equality for all americans by making federal benefits available to same-sex couples.

while loretta has always fought for the rights of americans at home, she recently made international headlines in announcing a 47 count indictment against fifa, the world governing federation of soccer. the fifa case is about more than curbing corruption and sports. it is about making sure that the united states will always stand as a beacon of justice and integrity around the world and i can't think of a better ambassador for our nation's values they had loretta lynch. loretta has said her parents commitment to justice remained her life's work and it is fair to say that their commitment has benefited our entire nation.

it certainly benefited hud as we continue our mission to eradicate housing discrimination in partnership with the justice department's civil rights division and its great leader, benita gupta. [applause] ..

that you all that literally living history in the room celebrating here with you. this is the conference ended up strengthening communities that want to take just a few minutes and talk about some of the recent tragic events in some of our communities involving police shootings, which affects us all. i strongly condemn these recent and brutal police shootings in texas and in illinois. we have had for more guardians slain, and, frankly, our hearts are broken over this. i of the families of these officers my condolences and to

ask that all of us come together and keep them in our prayer. [applause] now, as many of you know i spent virtually my entire career working closely with state, local, and federal law enforcement officers, and i know that these men and women have volunteered to take on the most challenging, dangerous, and important job that we have here. they do this for us. they move us aside and they run into danger for us. and so please again keep them in your prayer. the president noted in his statement yesterday the targeting a police officers is totally unacceptable. we will continue to stand up for the safety of our officers wherever they serve. [applause]

but also just want to add that the many issues with seeing around the country in recent months are all particularly troubling. we have seen violence strike at all segments of our community. it is a sad fact now that no one is safe. we've seen these bruta brutal pe can decreasing the particular violent shootings of two virginia reporters killed on air last week. last month members of our military targeted in tennessee, moviegoers in louisiana and, of course, in june church parishioners in charleston. and, of course, many of our cities are seeing an increase in violence that we are looking at very closely. this violence against all of us, regardless of what uniform any of us where, has to end. our dialogue has to be focused on preventing violent crime as it touches all of us. and that is what the justice

department's violence reduction network will address at its summit in detroit later this month. we will be convening a meeting with law enforcement officers from around the country to discuss along with representatives from doj to discuss these strategies, to end this uptick in violent crime and to prevent this from occurring. this is one of a number of efforts that we are taking to reduce violent crime. we take this very seriously. and again i just want to say the department of justice stands ready to support law-enforcement around this country as they continue to fight every day to protect the communities that they serve in which there a part. and we also tend every community member as they all work toward a safer community for us all. because of course strengthening communities which request all of our commitment across the administration and, frankly, crossed this country is really

the focus of this conference and the focus of today's event. i know you spent a lot of time not just talking about this issue but working in the trenches on this issue. your leader, julian castro, you could not have a finer person to lead this agency with the challenges facing america today. and julian, what you think you for your leadership, not just of hud but on these issues for being a voice, for people who don't have a voice in this administration. people throughout this country know that they have someone in you who hears them and understands their concerns and brings it to washington which is frankly what we're all trying to do. you are concerned that every individual in every community received the full measure of rights and responsibilities that this nation has always promised it's not just my pleasure. it's my honor to be a partner with you in this effort.

[applause] and so many foot soldiers here as well. deputy secretary, ready, i want to thank her for being an important part of this conversation and you've already given great applause for benita gupta, ahead of my civil rights division. her extraordinary work. frankly, i can't say enough about what she's been able to do in this, and she example applies the spirit of partnership and commitment to all of us at justice feel towards these issues i thank her for her efforts by want to thank also all of you get your dedicated public servants on your advocates, people who care deeply about these issues. and more than just that you are people who have committed to professional lives to making a change, and some of us look at the issues, or involving housing in this country, but there's so widespread and the effects so

many of us. it's very easy to be discouraged. but the people in this room have never taken that approach. each and everyone of you have said what can i do about this? you have stepped up and you've done. and i'm incredibly proud to join you today as we talk about the past and the present and future promise of the fair housing act. there have been so many milestones we have reached, but this is a really good time to take stock energy recommit ourselves to the work that lies ahead. now, as you all know nearly 50 years ago almost half a century ago, then-president lyndon johnson was presiding over the creation of the department. we didn't have it before then. we didn't have the concentrated focus on this issue before that particular time. although those issues have always been with us. when lyndon johnson's book at the dedication ceremony for the

building of which we are gathered today, he told the women and men who were there at that time, the public servants in the earliest years of his departments existence, he said to them to work that you do here each day will deeply influenced the quality of life in america, the shape of our home, our cities, our daily lives, the lives of our children and the kind of life they lead to more. well now we stand in that tomorrow. we stand in the days that he was forecasting, they think we can all see that those words are as true today as they were when they were spoken, particularly in the context of our work on for housing. because securing fair housing, good housing, equitable housing, livable housing or yourself and for your family is an essential pathway to achieving the american dream. after all, as we all know,

housing is not just shelter. it's also about access to employment, to education, credit, to transportation, to safety as we've commented, and to a whole range of institutions and opportunities that constitute the basic fabric of everyday life. where and how you live, how you live can determine the food you eat, the water you drink, the people with whom you and your children will interact. it affects your health, your welfare and your ability to pursue your most treasured goals innovation. and that is why the work that is being done in this conference and the work that all of you do every day of the year are so vital. by promoting and defending and enforcing the fair housing act, law the president johnson

described as codifying the promises of a century we are ensuring that every individual across america can claim our nation's fundamental precepts of equality and dignity and freedom. so much more than just home. the department of justice is determined come and i want you to know that i am personally committed, to standing beside you at every step of the way as we move forward in the pursuit of that goal and the fulfillment of that nation. and i am pleased to say that the department has demonstrated this dedication over the course of this administration to the extensive and innovative work that we have done to enforce the fair housing act and to protect the rights of that guarantees. let me just brag on my people a little bit because i am so proud of what they do. under a nice guidance and under the steadfast hand of my predecessor and her friend, former attorney general eric

holder -- vanita's guidance. it just the last three years the civil rights division has filed more than 100 lawsuits, including 69 lawsuit to combat housing and lending the domination. now, we have also reached settlement by our housing section and through those settlements hundreds of thousands of victims of housing and lending discrimination have received more than $1 billion in monetary relief over the last four years of the. that's just four years. and we have made it clear -- [applause] and we have made it clear in every case and in every instance that we will never stand down in the face of injustice. we will never hold back and fight for what is right, and we

will never, we will never accept infringement on the fair and equal housing opportunities that every individual is guaranteed by law. that is my pledge to you as attorney general, and it is my commitment to you as i stand before you today. [applause] many of these infringements with which many of you are unfortunately familiar to your own work come about in a variety of context. the cases were prosecuted have involved a range of illegal behaviors from racial discrimination by private landlords and management companies to unlawful residential segregation by local housing authorities, the discrimination against families with children. what our families for if not to promote our children parks and persons with disabilities.

they are simply people with different abilities from all of us. want investigation found that a nationwide mortgage letter had systematically charged higher interest rates to hispanic and african-american borrowers. a lot of our cases are fascinating because not because of what they do but because they did is they provide a public record of what many of us in the community have known for years has existed. four years we have been able to document this, and knowing people come forward with these types of complaints, they are no longer dismissed as you must have misunderstood, you know, you must've gotten to the apartment too late, you know, you must've thought they said something else. now we have on record what people have been talking about and living with frankly for years. another one of our cases

revealed that city officials, city officials, law enforcement and the local housing authority in l.a. county had engage in a targeted campaign to discourage african-americans from moving to the area and living in the area by enforcing the housing choice voucher program. how many years ago? so now we are able to document what people thought was purely fiction, but we have known for years was fact. just two months ago we reached the conclusion of the case in my home state of north carolina in which employees of a nonprofit administration that were administering section eight voucher program were found to be sexually harassing female participants in exchange for services. making with inflicted either have to accept this degrading and discriminatory behavior, or be out on the streets.

in 2015, in america, this is why we need hud. this is why we have to have an agency whose focus is on fairness in every aspect of housing. and this is why the department of justice is bound and determined to stand side-by-side with you in these important efforts. i am also so pleased that would help him hud office of indian housing we achieved a consent decree that one more than $2.7 million in monetary relief for those particular victims. [applause] this is what we are able to do when we work together. this is what we've been able to accomplish, this is just the last few years. look out for the next two. these are just examples of some

of the types of cases that we've taken on in recent years. we, of course, use the time-tested strategy, the methods have been part of our arsenal for decades. for example, our civil rights divisions there housing testing program has long been an effective tool for rooting out the discrimination in circumstances where people may not even realize that they're being treated different from their counterparts. you all know this program. our testers from the department -- identical qualifications seeking housing that they will put in a different in terms of race, national origin or protected status to determine whether or not the housing provider is comply with the federal housing laws. since 1991, the department has filed over 100 cases based on evidence generated by this testing program and it has resulted in over $13 million in damages in civil penalties.

[applause] these are tried and true and tested procedure for rooting out discrimination, but even as we recommit ourselves to the program has been effective in the past and, of course, they will remain the bedrock of our practice can we are also exploring new ways to conduct our nation more efficiently and effectively. i am extremely proud to say that in the past few months we have made unprecedented advances. we have drawn new technology on cutting-edge research and evidence-based strategies to conduct testing electronically. because of course many of our application pools are now living in the clout and we have thereby dramatically expanded the reach of the fair housing testing

program at a fraction of the time and expense. we anticipate this will allow us to provide relief for even more victims. we are examining new fields and evolving into shape that have not previously been subject to scrutiny as we're looking for areas where discrimination is prevalent, and targeting the places where americans are being systematically locked out, let down, and left behind. this work could not be more important. we're talking about communities, talking about families of course. but we've even seen recently a division between individuals and groups can generate mistrust, great reason at all too often can erupt into violence. we have seen, and i know this agency lives with every day, how a persistent lack of opportunity and unyielding barrier can the road our neighborhood and weaken our community. we have seen that even passive

de facto segregation, which is as harmful as any other of course, can make us feel less connected to our fellow americans, let's supported by our larger communities and less united as a nation and as a people. and this is why i am so committed to protecting the rights and opportunities that help bring our communities together. it's what i am more determined than ever to vigorously enforce the fair housing act with every tool at my disposal, including the challenges that are based on unfair and unacceptable discriminatory effects, particularly now that the supreme court has vindicated our position, all of our positions, the position that we've all known for years -- [applause] -- that the fair housing act encompasses disparate impact claims. we all have known for years that the next frontier has been

moving away from the overt actions that have been so public into those subtle ways that produce the same effect. i can, we now have from the highest court in the land the ruling that sets forth the basis for our product is good and i'm so happy that we have this tool in our toolbox. that's why i'm so proud to support this department. you all and your new rule on a firmly furthering their housing is put a crucial step in ending patterns of segregation and disparities based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and disability. once again you are at the forefront of issues that face all of our families, and you're moving to protect them. had next to policy isn't ideas -- in fact the new policy

encompasses a notion that is central to the words and the spirit of that there housing act itself as it was written in 1968 when it called on the country to actively dismantle segregation and to foster integration in its place. 1968, not so long ago but so much work has been done, so much more still remains. to dismantle segregation and to foster integration in its place. and it should be a controversial endeavor. after all, efforts like this one, efforts like hud's own have been supported for years by both democrats and republicans, including secretary george romney when he led the department of housing and urban development during the nixon administration, a nixon administration, a time when it actually made great progress. but the work that hud has done and will do in this area is

exciting and, frankly, it's historic. it will make a real and a positive difference in the lives of americans and in the strength of our nation to the department of justice intends to continue to be durable and committed partner in this important effort. now, none of us in this room are under any illusions that the goals that we have will be easy to achieve. and none of us believe that the work is over. the number and complexity of the challenges that we still face today, nearly half a century after the signing of the fair housing act, it's a reminder that the road to progress is rarely straight or smooth. but you know it's never been easy, and that has not stopped hud. it's always been challenging and that has never, never made hud back down. and i know that if we remain committed to the principles that founded this agency and the

principles that a noble you today, if we stay dedicated to our responsibility and we devote ourselves completely and fully to this cause, as everyone in this room has done, we can do this. we can fulfill the promise of fair housing for all those who live in america today, for the countless others who will call this country home in the future. we can do this. we can draw our communities closer together. we can bridge these devised of suspicion and mistrust. we can do this, and we can serve the fundamental american principles that have fueled this country's progress since its inception. no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, you should have, you deserve, you are entitled to a fair and an equal opportunity to live, to work,

and to succeed. we can do this. we can. [applause] you are going to continue this conference and leave and go back to work over the next few days. as you do what you do know that you not only have my deep and enduring gratitude, you also have my full and my unwavering support. what i look out at this room at the dedication and the passion of individuals, i am so optimistic about all that we can achieve together. i am so excited about the progress that is ahead of us come and i'm so eager to move forward with all of you as we build the more empowered communities and the stronger country that all americans deserved. we can do this because you have done it. and i'm so proud of all of you.

i want to thank you for inviting me to join you for this important conference and want to thank you for standing with the department of justice and working with us to make a better america for everyone who call this country home. thank you so very, very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> here's a look at some of our live coverage coming up on the c-span networks today.

>> defense secretary ashton carter and former defense secretary chuck hagel were among the featured speakers at this year's american legion

conference. here's a look at their comments. >> well, good morning, and thank you. thank you very much. i want to thank the leadership of this great organization for inviting me come in each and every one of you here for your tireless advocacy on behalf of our veterans and our men and women in uniform. i want to thank baltimore for hosting this years convention. i don't know whether bob mcdonnell is here, but also want to thank him for his determined the leadership at the va and his partnership. from the second battle of the marne to the battle of the bulge, from inchon to caisson, from fallujah, to every person here who proudly calls himself a soldier, sailor, airman or

marine, now proud to call themselves legionnaire, thank you. you are defending those who defend us. [applause] spirit there is someone else who did it, a great personal friend and distinguished predecessor who i want to mention and thank, chuck hagel. [applause] chuck was a soldier in vietnam, stories of his bravery are well known. and throughout the rest of his life to public service, chuck dedicated himself to those who served, and that's why he proudly wears the goldenseal. vietnam, vietnam taught us a hard way that while one may question why we fight, we must

never question the honor of the men and women who do the fighting. [applause] our vietnam veterans were not given the recognition or respect they deserved. we cannot reverse that wrong, but we can learn from it. and that's what we're trying to do together your never forgetting the sacrifices america's bravest sons and daughters make is what drives, inspires, and gives meaning to this organization. for nearly 100 years legionnaires like you have fought for freedom nobly earned by our countries finest patriots. you are driven by an enduring truth, but above all, above all the strength of our military and our nation is our men and women in uniform. given that that truth we have a responsibility to defend those

who have defended us. that's why the secretary of defense, among the three principal commitments i've made one of those of his office a few months ago, first and foremost is my commitment to our people, to the current force, according active duty, guard, reservists and their families, and veterans, too. second is my commitment to lead the national security strategy suited for this new century, protecting our country, keeping us strong, respected by our friends, feared by our enemies, always ready. and third is my commitment to our future and to the force of the future where innovation and technology remain pillars of america's strength and making sure tomorrow's force is as great as today's by continuing to recruit and retain the best america has to offer.

because above all else, our people is what makes our military the finest fighting force the world has ever known. it's a damn that make it back. [applause] -- it is them that make it back. few others know better than you, great responsibilities to make sure we never put a single one of america's breeze -- brave sons or daughters in harm's way without the greatest care and reflection about why we are doing it and how it benefits our nation. and our responsibility extends to all generations to our veterans, our wounded warriors, to the following and their families, and those on the frontlines today, through our partnership with a tremendous progress in recent years and i'm grateful for partnership with this wonderful organization.

today for example, windows a traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress are factors that increased the risk of suicide and we've taken action to make sure service members treated for mental health conditions can continue their care as they transition the va. we're expanding suicide preventiopreventio n trade the warning signs are easy to spot and help is easy to get. we also overhaul of our electronic health records with a focus on interoperability across agencies. on transition assistance, we're upgrading -- >> as we wrap up summer come up against the to and get ready for an exciting month ahead and i have a special pleasure today to talk with two gentlemen who know a lot about what potential is often for the next month and over at some of the downsides of what can happen if we go wrong especially for budget next year. today we'll be talking about doubling potential budget problems in this country and also the historical recent past

that bob hale sitting to my right experienced as comptroller of the pentagon, and the basis for our initial conversation today will be a paper is written which you'll find if you wish on the brookings.edu website about budgetary turmoil the department of defense during the period when he was comptroller, specially the 2010-2014 period. bob hale was before the job of undersecretary of defense for financial management and comptroller, event the association of military comptrollers of the trinity before that had a similar comptroller job within the air force, when he had for the entire department of defense. that was during the clinton administration. before that he was my boss at the congressional budget office. is a graduate of stanford with degrees in mathematics and operations research, and many other distinguished attribute to his resume. congressman don byer from a district in virginia result

elected congressmen but with a diverse background and accomplished individual as anyone in this area knows i think across the country as well come extraordinary successful businessman in this area for many years, lieutenant governor of virginia during most of the 1990s, involved in that period of time among his finest acknowledgments the most important were legislation initiatives concerning disabled individuals and also managing welfare reform as it was carried out in the 1990s, remains engaged in a lot of issues concerning the disadvantaged after leaving office and then became president obama's ambassador to switzerland and liechtenstein in the first obama term before becoming the elected representative just across the river in virginia where he represents alexandria, arlington, falls church and much of fairfax county which means much of the air in and around where the pentagon is located as well as many other federal workers. see you can see the logic of our

asking these two gentlemen to begin the conversation today. we don't want to talk as i say first about the past, the recent past. what we know about the effects of all the budgetary problems that have occurred in the last five messages in the united states with the terms that didn't necessarily know existed in the english language most of us before that time like so cluster, and also inside baseball terms like continuing resolutions, and, of course, we all know about shut down. that what is more simple and we went to all that is and bob is going to bring us through a quick tour of the lessons from that period of time bu of time o know, but the answer more would've background, background, in terms of where we stand today, i think you'll notice it's already september 2 which means the fiscal year ends in four weeks, and we will on october 1 face a whole new world for which we are not yet ready. we do not have the budget for the government for fiscal year 2016 which begins as i said in

just four short weeks. they are all sorts of possibilities the potential of them, some which could resemble the recent past for better or for worse and as i think we'll here today, largely for the worst if we are not able to see some kind of a compromise. and as you know, one less thing, the ryan-murray legislation in 2013 is expiring. that was named for congressman paul ryan and senator paul -- patty murray. that would've otherwise taken under the contract -- the budget control act of 2011. at the same vehicle that has brought sequestration but the ryan-murray compromise soften the blow for these last two years, but that period of relative calm wasn't exactly easy street but that period of relative relief is ending and now we have to face any period

with the budget control act, still in effect, we have to get some new way going forward. so thanks for your patience listening to make it the background. now i'm going to turn to people who know much more and much more to do with the going forward come and thank them both for being you get sick of their stature and serv service to the country, i'm wondering if you could join me in welcoming them both to the stage. [applause] >> so bob, thank you again for your paper and forgiving is going with that come and i thought made what i would ask you to be a source of all explained a little bit about what happened in these last three or four years, five years it was so tumultuous, white have been any quick brown -- quick background where we stand with the 2016 fiscal debate? >> let me start by thinking and brookings for having me. one would think and that is i'm currently a polite booz allen hamilton, and they supported this paper. so going to talk about dod solely today because i know more about it, but what i'm going to

talk about the effects all federal agencies. i just want to note that at the outset. no, 2010-2014 as a leftist comptroller i was a dod is new in constant budget from a. 2013 was a fear of infamy if you will. saw sequestration, $37 billion cut, which translated because of wartime fun and because what whr through the year and entered a 30% cut in the day-to-day operating budget of the department of defense. no significant events which have become account government down for 60 days starting october 1 to those of you that everybody knows about but to a lot of others that were going on to work reading problems. we plan to shut the government down five times during my tenure as comptroller, two of them ran to completion which we should cut identify people who can't work. you've got to send him letters. they disrupted. we never had an on-time budget, and -- liquid continued resolution with caucusing do

what you did last year. every year and two of those years they were for six months and they're difficult to manage special when i caught up on. we had a large reprogrammed as we tried to move money around. we did some budgets to you and several of those years. a lot of chaos and a lot of effects, and mike, do what we can to those to speak with let me say one more word. helpful introduction to what we like to do is ask about to explain some of the more detailed points and the cost to the government into the workforce into the nation that he able to document in this paper and experience as comptroller and then we'll ask don byron to come in from his perspective and again on whatever point you would like to raise the beginning of course with the workforce in which will be effective if we see similar problems and and the ultimate have the conversation of course involves you and perhaps go to the current debate as it is shaping up as congress prepares to return next week or bob, the

question, the main questions i like to ask about the actual cost and i thought the simplest way to to begin was by documenting or itemizing some of the clear direct cost to the government and then we get to some of the more indirect or harder to measure. >> i think the two biggest things were first secession of any giunta to cost in a minute, mike. the cessation of training, 30% operating budget and the department of defense in 2013, the service is tried and other things. they stopped facility, maintenance. they weren't getting those kinds of cuts. so particularly the army and air force stopped training for a couple of months. the air force stopped flying 17 of its operational squadrons. the army did not send its combat teams for the nation training center. these are training events and the result to the countries where the military that was less prepared for major contingency that it should.

fortunately, nothing happened to the major contingency happened in that period but the military is paid to be read and they were not as good as they should have been because of sequestration to the other big issue for furloughs. reform of the 640,000 dod civilians in sequestration to save money. another 350,000 lived under the title the growth that govern shut down. that caused a number of problems to our civilians and all our employees tried twice -- prioritize the work and got the important stuff done. we saw people saying, field technicians and are imposing on the osha i want to do this, and leaving. i supervise or coordinated the shut down of the formal activities for both sequestering shut down. our walking around the pentagon and people would wave at me and say teasingly, sometimes with

your fingers, it was a tense period in the department of defense but they did pull together the those on the big event. there were a number of smaller ones that let me list them. so we wasted taxpayers money in ways that i found discouraging and most obvious example occurred during shutdown, six and 50,000 dod civilians the had to be furloughed under the law. we told them they couldn't even consult their blackberries because it constituted an illegal work activities. four days later we brought them back and then congress agreed to back before them i think acknowledging it wasn't their fault. so we paid $400 million to the in employ for days we told them they could work clear example of oyster we wasted a lot of time. i won't go into details but it was my time, senior leaders time, many people in dod data i remember writing memos to

secretary gates, annette and hagel and some of them at the end i said this is all a colossal waste of time. to me that captures much, price that we pay for all this budgetary chaos. one more thing, it may be the most important because it lingers to this day, and that is we harm the morale of beauty employees. some of them were laid off in other ways had problems. but i'll focus on the beauty employees. there was some -- they were not furloughed because the way we pay then you couldn't have saved anything. they get paid so long as they are on active duty so they were not furloughed but they were uncertain whether they get paid for example, during shutdown. i recall secretary gates in the run up what turned out to be an averted shutdown in 2011 just before they go into afghanistan and economy when he came back

that the troops didn't ask him to a question about the status of the afghan war in the is at a critical juncture. he said he was constantly asked whether troops and of them are going to get paid during the shut down. unfortunately, he couldn't give an inch because there were circumstances in which we wouldn't have been able to pay them. the real harm to morale occurred with civilians the we furloughed than twice, no pay raise, congress change some the benefits, and some members of congress really i think they don't always like government and the kind of take it out on the silly employers who got a lot of criticism of our civil service from parts of congress. the result i think is morale problem in the dod is -- you can

see it in polls like the conducted by the partnership of public service which showed about a 12% decline in a row in 2010-2014. i just think some of our employees they unfortunate don't feel as valued as they should be and it will always work best when they feel valued by their employers. i think this may be the biggest wound caused by all this turmoil and one that lingers today. spirit i know you the one of the central findings in your paper and this is a good point to bring in congressman trent lott, come back to a couple of issues the second round but congressman, you got the full range of government activities under your purview in the district to serve and when you're lieutenant governor. certainly or ambassador you saw the foreign policy implications of sequester but now you're facing the potential of the entire federal government. i just want you to please comment on how you see the problem, how you just described it, the one where but to face potentially but also lessons and

historical realities of sequester and shutdown support. >> bob, i enjoyed reading the paper. i think the last couple of minutes on the effect of the federal work force was to be the most important part. i oppose some or put in place in the district than any other in country a more federal contract employees also. the coup de grace of his negative impact was the shut down in october 2013. but it started long before. i didn't always get the sense of intel serving overseas in switzerland surrounded by wonderful, not just for service office but the folks from ice and fbi and homeland security, social security, who had completed the years and years and years of feeling unimportant, neglected although dr. ronald reagan let's get government off the backs of the

people. of course, at the pulpit three straight years of 0% raises. when you're overseas and exchange rate is changing many of them were 25% behind where they were when they started. then you come up to the shut down and that was part of my -- were running the car dealerships. it was amazing how much angst we got from our customers, couldn't afford to fix the cars, postpone and cancel appointments. the show principle because people were offered, they just were not buying anything. we heard particularly from federal contract employees especially to midsized contractors who were not getting paid because of the shut down. who knows what happened to the money, and these were people, frank wolf and gillibrand got together during the recession -- that didn't come till after the fact. there's just this enormous

anxiety. the older i get, the more i'm convinced prior responsibility of leader is to set the goal to which everyone can drive which means banishing fear, people be motivated working together, giving valued and respected. every leader praises two and we've had just the opposite with our federal employees, which is a terrible way to run for governor. the second big thing for me is what this didn't this what this did the whole economy. we have been incredibly blessed by the fact that the federal government invest in northern virginia has been so good over the last 30 years. i like to brag during the campaigns are that the family business to six recessions and how to point out they were never in northern virginia recession, not like the rest of the country. we have $15 billion undiminished in this economy.

[inaudible] and yet virginia last year's economic growth rate was 0.0% in 2013, metro d.c., the only city in america that the worst economic performance was authentic city new jersey. we really have been hit hard, and they -- atlantic city, new jersey. the big guys, they have been able to preserve their workforce and the littlest guys, the medium-sized contractors have religious disappeared. want investment is the highest vacancy rates for office space in arlington, fairfax, outdated in our lifetimes. the therapie third these come we learn anything from it because if you asked me about what's coming, i don't see us getting a budget by september 30.

most people on the hill anticipate something like the crowded bus last december. that was before the planned parenthood video. and now ted cruz and rand paul and others threatening no budget. ever end to planned parenthood is zeroed out. planned parenthood protecting provides a third of birth control for america's women. so spike into force, spiking as these and the like, god knows what we're going to go. the sad part is we read your paper, bob, and we learn nothing from it. >> it's good to be optimistic. [laughter] very clear and compelling but let me ask you both also, just take us out of the beltway sensitive national c-span audience and, of course, the whole nation is focused on this issue. in addition to the point you both made about the federal work force. we know it is national, not just

here, but how would you make the same kind of argument to a skeptic was watching the show in the midwest and and very with little federal president thinks the federal government is still too big and too expensive and has a hard time feeling sympathy for it is a fertile? i realize that's a character of what some people to guys in the the pub have the front. you both have good answers to the uninsured let me start with you, congressman. >> for me watching from across the river now on capitol hill, the existential fight between the conservative most republican base that feels the most major problem is that the budget is too much. thank you, congressman from michigan republican, said he would never pay the principal dissent to town about $18 billion public debt and he is here for his grandchildren versus the democratic perspective on the left perspective which is that the way we get it is the investment

anin education, health care and infrastructure at all this will require more money. they are reconcilable unless we address entitlements. all of you thought we know, medicare and medicaid, social security our 70% of the budget. and on its way out. the fed raises interest rates, 6% of the 70%, a doubling of pushes up into 74, 75% rate. most difficult thing politically to do. in order to create larger pool for the investment versus budget slashing compromise to take place. >> .com in terms of the contribution made by the federal work force of two nations security and do what you could explain from the perspective as well? >> let me underscore, we need broad budget debate, entitlements, revenues and what

we do about them as well as discretionary spending. i don't have hope that will occur until after the election by the help it is a high priority for the next administration. and as part of that, they need to consider ways to get rid of the sequestration approach and to give the federal departments, particularly defense but also, give them secure to come some sense over where the budget is heading. it's difficult to do when you're at a time. we very much need longer-term. in terms of the employees i know how hard a sell it is because i think some of the public, some of the midwest or other places view them as -- after but they think is too large for i would only plead with them and say, these are people that are trying to do a job just like the listeners are doing a part of the job is to support national security in the case of unity

employs. let's separate them from the issue of big government ought to be. that's a legitimate debate, one we got to have as a country and i think half for a number of years in need to continue but let's not treat the federal civilian workforce as a symbol if you will for the, but rather due what an employer should and make it clear to them that we value what they're doing. you are changes made in the civil service for scheuer, entering my experience, at least we need a way to hide them more quickly and, frankly, we need ways to fire the low performers more quickly is a very difficult thing and will require legislation. i just don't want to see them as the symbol of his distaste that some americans have for the government to let's take them separately. >> one more question on the civil service, and then the audience. if you could explain about where we stand with the federal work

force. after about is aging and soon to retire, and dealing with a different kind of job market, the younger generation thinks different about careers. how do we think about worst intentions of attracting a the younger generation into government and how does that relate to the conversation we're having today? >> it concerns the quickly because the good news is that the mandatory retirement than most other government agencies. but that is a virtual all of them knows like the third, 40% are eligibl eligible to retire e next few to if you ever get that massive retire but we are in big trouble especially as low as it is to hire. what about the statistics is since 1960, the federal work force is only grow 9% whereas the overall population and the private sector workforce, many times do. a number of federal workers are an american citizen is that a low point in our lives. but what we have to do i think first is pump up the perception

of the federal workforce, job in government is a meaningful career, great career path we can make a difference. people are most motivated by important work and for that they feel is important or i worried that it will -- not attracted to it. >> i share the worry as the congressman said will have to recruit a number of workers. i am encouraged that my good friend and former colleague jessica defense ash carter has included civilians in his workforce of the future initiative and i'm hopeful that coming out of that will be some new thinking about how we use federal workers and perhaps how we recruit, train and when necessary fire them as well. i'm looking forward to that. >> i just couldn't make a quick comment myself which is just living in this area you come in contact with intelligence personnel who have helped us not

get attacked again since 9/11, contact with department of homeland security personnel who contact with department of homeland security person of the dundas and, come in contact with people who worked at the national institutes of health for researching state-of-the-art medical treatment. these are all federal dollars to work him doesn't mean every single dollar is equally well spent but people conflate different images and form false images. i wanted, if i could come also ask about some of the direct costs, bob, that occurs on the weapons site. it unthinking people say that anyone is such a big budget, so bloated, you get a complaint about losing 5% of you pointed out 30% of your training budget was, in fact, taken away in the second half of 2013 and that made a big difference and you quoted i think about 25% of the army, 25% of the air force had to go to much more passionate much load readiness standards. it seems to be reading your paper one thing i learned is if you are accused of being a guy run a bloated pentagon one of

the things he responded by saying in the papers were trying to buy weapons for official for the taxpayer by entry into multiyear contracts were ever we can get and get these budgetary problems prevent you from doing that. is that a fair summary? >> i think it is the one point to it was 30% cut in a total to date operating budget for the department of defense not as operations and maintenance accounts. it was more than trade it was almost all the day-to-day expenses. i think the uncertainty that has occurred in the department of defense and certainly about future budget levels has had a chilling effect on some areas with the ways we purchase weapons that can be more effective. i don't multiyear contracts in particular, authority under the law to end into multiyear contract with a company to produce weapons contesting the test, mature, they have to say about 10% compared to buying

thing when you at th that time d then congress will allow essentially commit the department of defense to making a purchase. we do to record a limited degree that i can't point out specific examples i have to believe there's a good deal of uncertainty on the uncertainty about the future budget led many weapons measures set i just can't commit what after two or three years. i don't know where going to be. it probably occurs most on weapons that are not the big ones you read about it rather missiles and small weapons that we buy sometimes at very low rates at or below economic order. we really should be intricate to multiyear deals which would allow companies to produce more efficiently and result in savings or maybe 10% the i think it was admiral greenert who was speaking to follow up on the replacements think i can get -- i can get one free if i did with a multiyear contract. that replacement is a long way from being ready to its hard

amateur weapon. i think it illustrates a point that applies to the input of life in the future. we need to do things to hold down costs sort of the department of defense, multiyear contract is wanted in this environment is difficult to make it happen. >> i don't know if you want to comment whether from the purview of dod and, of course, as lieutenant governor he thought a lot about newpor newport news ar areas where virginia produces weapons in congress are on the joint economic committee, think about the domestic side of things. are there any implications? >> not so much weapons. i've heard the feedback from nuclear shipbuilding that the to carry contracts or the to subcontract much more efficient to do. it's the two years that jump out at me. i grew up politically in richmond where virginia has a two-year budget and the general assembly touches of the second of august at the two-year plan makes you different of a

prospective. if you have a two-year plan in dod and throughout the federal government, congress will rebel has a belt that i'm cosponsor for the two-year revolution. doesn't do anything but it's i think an important step in the right point spewing you can't even do wonder budgeting spent the four years i was in switchover o on the continuing resolution all four years which meant for the first 10 and after 11 months we were spending significantly less interested in 30% type that bob talked about. ..

steve max zero, could i first please ask a question for either of these gentlemen on what we have been through the last four years and what they have been talking about today and if there are no takers then we will launch into conversation. the microphone is coming. please identify yourself. >> herein is not my strong suit, so please speak up. >> two years ago sam nunn had a three-day session and the topic was national security and national debts and he had alan simpson there, former secretary of defense gates, former chairman of the joint chief of

staff, former secretary of the treasury under reagan, former secretary that treasure under clinton and a former carter's minutes senators basically they cannot set a problem that we have got and you alluded to two of them, mr. secretary, a problem with entitlements, a problem with entitlements, problem with revenue and a problem with the tax code, but he said the problem we have in congress is each of us has such advocacy that we won't solve it unless we bundle it together-- all three together and come up with a solution and i said, what is the solution, senator nine, but along the same line i asked secretary rubin, i said we got need to worry about the national debts we have lenders out there that will always lend us money and rubin said you don't understand my previous existence at goldman sachs and what i am getting to is what's happening to world financial markets right now.

what's the confidence-- and what's happening to our financial system here and will they continue to lend us money, but we will have to make it more attractive and drive up the interest rates, which will be i guess what is originally called the original sequestration problem. >> anyone care to comment on the? >> i don't want to be too pessimistic. we saw the commission beginning of this administration and we saw what was close to a deal that didn't come to pass. so, i think in a new administration that pays attention to this could begin to solve some these problems. if they don't solve them all, just a significant byte of the apple. i don't think it will happen in the next two years, but i hope it is a high priority for the next administration with entitlements, revenue, tax code.

and discretionary spending congress-- the money commerce appropriate each year. so, i don't want to give up. we can't give up. we will have to solve some these problems. >> i'm optimistic about this also. on the entitlement side congressman from connecticut has a very responsible social security 2100 plan that addresses recently put social security on a firm footing 32100. with a mix of simpson bowles type mixes and on corporate tax reform there are different ideas and i think both this administration and the republican leadership would like to see corporate tax reform in the 35 rate addressed quickly. we do need the successor to murray ryan three we democrats, republicans on the budget committees to come together and figure out a way to take with the worst part of the budget control act, but-- i also look at the fact that in virginia

judges will redistrict at least some of our congressional seats. governor hogan has the same thing trying to work in maryland right now with seven states right now in redistricting and the more we can get away from completely safe democratic or republican seats, the more political leaders would be politicians have to appeal to the middle and the more likely we can get politics that make these come, rises happen. >> one more point ben bernanke he was talking about the budget deficit situation right now and when he basically said is, listen and apologies to bed if i don't get this right, but you can check it out on our website for the exact words, but he said deficits right now are at a tolerable level of the problem is it wasn't like that a few years ago, but the good news is it gives us a moment here where we don't necessarily have to sequester or shut down the government or go to continuing resolution to impose an immediate austerity to read we

can actually have that debate, have the campaign and hope that we sort of-- he didn't put it this way, but model through until then and then have a new consensus. we doubt have deficit down to about to have percentage. that is still large and for all of the reasons you said in others it will probably grow, but not necessarily an urgent crisis the way it might have been a few years ago. i think that is a fair summary. yes, ma'am. >> hello. i have been hearing rumors that there is possibilities of budget deal brewing on capitol hill. however, the way it would work would simply be as far as i can tell to push the bca limits out to 2020 so is kicking the can down the road, which you be in favor of that in terms of we can address today's issues and hope

that something will happen in 10 years? >> i will wave the white flag here. i think we see well people's interests are, which is fair enough. bob, do you want to start? >> for discretionary spending to go through 21 right now and one of the ways-- if there is to be eight to your budget deal on murray ryan to as many call it, it is likely that some in congress, many perhaps we'll wanted to be paid for. it might raise the limits on defense and i think also nondefense and they would want some offsets in terms of reductions, in terms of laurel-- lower priority entitlements and one of the ways to get spending or saving scored is to extend the limits because right now congressional legend office but does the scoring would look through 21 if they saw them extended further they would give some credit for that, so is a possibility that-- you know, at

this point if it was a deal that got us through the next few years with budgetary certainty for the other federal agencies i would live with it. it's going into 22 and 23 and extending limits that is kind of way out there read i'm not sure how much substance there is, but i think it's more important that we find a way to make a deal. i didn't answer one of your earlier questions. my, maybe i shouldn't quickly and that is reviewed the bidding on where we are in defense right now. it's been an adjusting year so far. we have seen all four committees and i believe both houses pass both appropriations and authorization bills for defense. all at the level of the presidency budget requests, which was about $35 billion above the limits. now, they've did it without changing the's by doing what i call the oak 06.

is meant to be used to pay for wartime funding and it is exempt from the limits, is called emergency spending and what they have done is put about $40 billion in base budget into this so it's exempt from the limits and everyone agrees is aware getting around the limits. the president said he will not accept that, in part because there is been nothing done on the nondefense side and in part because of a bad precedent to read i think it's a bad precedence or its one year at a time, which is unfortunate and that's kind of where we are. the president said he will veto the bill. the bills are sitting there to read the president said he will veto them, so i think it's back to, can we get a budget deal. if we don't get a budget deal, and i'm less confident than i was a few months ago, then several other things could happen. probably the next best option in

my view would see congress appropriate at limit levels, about $500 billion for 16. that way they would give the authority of the department needs to operate and make decisions about what you buy what you don't get those local levels. even worse, on the spectrum would be a continuum resolution which i said before was congress same we can't agree on a budget and do what you did last year. it has to be done, a clean one spending at the same rates in every appropriation at about 50 in the dod and they'll cause lots of problems. the spending there would be below the limit levels by about $4 billion, 496 billion and you don't have authority for new starts, new programs that congress has approved and you don't have a lot of authority you need. you can do a poor couple months and it's not a big deal. trying it for a whole year would be a nightmare for the department of defense and finally i suppose the least

desirable would be to shut the government down and hope that forces consensus during is a terrible way to do it, but with the planned parenthood issue and others i am more concerned and i was a few months ago about the possibility of another government shutdown and i certainly hope it doesn't happen it's disruptive and it would be another blow to the morale of our employees, but i couldn't rule that out with much confidence as i felt like a couple months ago. as a quick overview of where we are. >> congressman, either your sense of where we could be headed on the current default or you are thinking about what kind of deals may be still possible. >> to her question about kicking the can down the road, i am always in favor of not kicking the can down the road. my favorite piece of wisdom from my father is if you're going to take a hit, take the hit and we are about to come back and look highway trust fund, which we have not added any money to since 1993. we have this enormous 3 trillion-dollar infrastructure backlog.

this year there was one sort of shiny moment of hope when leader pelosi met with speaker boehner to work out a deal in so-called doc fix was sustained growth rate for physicians and we passed it. we didn't fund all of it, but we stopped kicking the can down the road and that is the example and everyone goes back to that says let's do that again. >> more broadly, do you think there's a possibility of a murray ryan to? >> there has to be. i'm not on the budget committee, so i'm not part of it. with been interesting is to watch the appropriators worked so hard through the spring in all the committees making those decisions that bob talked about. new programs, killing old programs only to realize if it goes to continued resolution all that work goes right out the window. we get to do what we did last

year. >> bob, let me ask you to give you examples while we are on the continuing resolution and a few examples and maybe it's easiest to do with weapons systems. if you could be as specific as possible with a couple weapons we would buy more of that we don't necessarily need. we bought them now-- last year or a new weapon that we are ready to buy now and we are delaying getting good weaponry into that has of the war fighter because we are not allowed to do new starts. and examples? >> you also can't ramp up production by don on the same detailed knowledge i used to. you wouldn't be able to do that and you would have to stay at 15 levels. you wouldn't actually be forced to buy weapons that you didn't want even if you are trending down, but the money would sit there and you would have to find some way to use it to reprogram it or use it within the same appropriations. of course, there would be no new starts. there may be weapons that i am not totally sure i believe, maybe a tactical vehicle.

there are some environmental categories of environmental spending that where special authority is needed. the department wouldn't be able to go forward with them as they got an authorization bill that provided authority for military construction they wouldn't be able to do military construction projects. it's just a bad way to run a railroad. you can hold financial breath for a couple of months, but if you extended that to six months and especially if you thought of extending it to a year, serious problems would result and it would be very ineffective and we will not stop defending the nation. but, we will do it less effectively and it will harm dod's mission. we are right back in the situation women and in the last five years. >> yes, sir, in the back, please. >> how effectively over the last

three years has the military conveyed to the 99% of the public not connected to the military the impacts of sequestration to last april your process are put out a useful book on the impacts of sequestration down to the program level. they have not done this this year for whatever reason. do you think they should do that again? >> let me take the second one first-period is hard to do those, i think, i know what you are referring to and it was a document that is still probably up on the website actually done by the cost analysis program folks. as tony just said tried to say what would happen at limit levels spending in each major weapon program. yes, i think it would be useful. it is easy for me to sit here because i don't have to do it. but, i think an update of that

especially if as this debate progresses it looks more like we will end up at the limit levels. >> so, how effectively has dod conveyed it? it's hard for that the farmer to convey on a national level. the secretary has national standing and maybe some leaders, but for the most part they are focused on defense. i think dod the good job of making clear what it would do to members of congress to interested constituencies, probably not as good as they wished they had been able to do in a national way because they don't generally have a national pulpit. they depend, i think, on the presidents and others to make those kinds of national statements. >> let me ask you a question

before we go to the next round here. when you are overseas and switzerland and working on a lot of issues including iran sanctions and money laundering and us business interests in europe and many other things, during this period continuing resolution and shut down and sequester, how did it affect what people said to you about the united states and what they seemed to think about the united states? are not asking you to over dramatize the point and maybe it didn't come up that often, but i'm curious to know how often did what we were doing back here affect the way people sauce over there? >> we mentioned earlier the impact on the workforce. but, it was fascinating because it came up all the time. in switzerland and when we went over there this was coming after the wars in iraq and afghanistan and all of that stuff and was too trite-- from the state department from hillary and the assistant secretary to try to improve the swiss perspective on

the american people, our politics, our government, our culture and i got over there and realize all the movies, books was all arbors and they were totally in love with us. they all had harleys. but, they could not understand how this shining city on the hill could be so dysfunctional and their editorial writers, their politicians, their business leaders didn't understand the debt ceiling, debt cliff stuff. they didn't understand the shutdown, the sequester and they did not understand the budget deficits. they are only one and a half billion francs surplus every of. so, it is very confusing that we could be this old wonderful democracy and still be so dysfunctional relative to them. >> doesn't reduce our power in any measurable way or distract conversation for more turducken various? >> i don't think it reduced our power. they were mostly obsessed with

the us department justice suit against credit suisse etc., which they thought was economic warfare against them and much of the job was explaining that this was trying to hold americans living in america cheating on their taxes responsible and accountable rather than attacking their banks. >> it's interesting when we have the same conversation with my college here or others who are asia specialist they do sometimes assert that in asia they started to see a way which the accommodation the great recession and the washington dysfunctionality and at that time china's rise were importing our prestige in the pacific in ways they could see becoming and that led to some that rebalance or pivot strategy. >> which is one of the more compelling arguments for the trade authority by the way that we had to assert our leadership to be a factor in the pacific. >> on that point, does the recent progress-- this is very

helpful because all of the pieces are interconnected in different ways. congress did just get something done and so to those that say this congress can't get anything done are they correct or does ppa prove them wrong? and we are hoping for a miracle to emerge somehow from congress and the white house working together, is that a possible hope or is it a pipe dream? >> they're having good things this year, two major cyber security bills, the doc fix trade promotion authority. not every thing, some things, so what we have to do is come back next week and on and things like the transportation bill in the budget is to get the same type of coming together fixes. >> sir, here in the 10th row. >> secretary hill, this workforce of the future plan

that they wanted to-- i understand they want to reclassify some civilian jobs and i'm wondering if there might be obstacles from the unions or opm and was wondering if you could address that. >> i'm not familiar with the details, so i don't want to go too far other than to say that employees, nearly half of the civilians in the entire federal government, i would hope, that they would have some clout to deal with the unions and i might add that i didn't say much about this in the paper, but the unions did work with the department of defensive during the worst of these times, sequestration and furloughs and they didn't have any authority to stop them, but they did have authority to make the ud's difficult. and they did realize that the department faced a crisis in budgetary terms and 2013, and i was pleased that they worked with us and i hope that they do the same if there are brought in

and discussions are had with them. on any other changes that could -- i'm afraid i can't give you any details. >> scanning in the far back, yes. 's neck thank you very much. i'm an attorney and formally a guest scholar in 1986, a different era, different issues. for congressman buyer, i'm not your constituent, but i live in virginia and known you since 1988, approximately. talk about the virginia delegation on these issues. where do you see leadership on the other side of the il within the virginia delegation where eight to three republicans to democrats and the question for all three of you if you would each think about it with the debate on september 16 and the democratic one in october, what question would you like the candidates to be answering with respect to these issues if you could formulate the question?

thank you. >> you can start and it will give me time to think. >> it's interesting how people have their different niches, or any forms obviously is the navy guy, the virginia delegation, but i think that to most poppel, gerry connolly, obviously as a democrat and raking on oversight and government reform and good on federal government issues and good on budget issues. led that peter met reform on it and jerry is a real keeper and on the republican side rob is thoughtful and in many different things in government and once again i think brings a good perspective to the whole process. >> i will take a shot at your second question and that is if it was a perfect world i would like to see the debates actually address broadly and i understand i can't get to details, their willingness to compromise on issues like growth in

entitlement spending and perhaps increases in taxes. i know as i say it how many on the republican side and some on the democratic side would treat that question, but i would like to hear that discussion get started. there are some people on both sides that understand and i think clinton does, case it does and jeb bush and others as well, so we could hope for that. i would settle for a commitment that we need to achieve some stability in federal budgeting and that would mean in my mind at least a two-year budget deal, smaller lesser proportions that get some stability so we don't continue this budgetary chaos that has afflicted that. i would settle for that. >> i will add one point and i think that this again is a-- the whole domestic discretionary budget is just a morass to many

people. it's just too complicated and it is seen as the place where we find bumblebee reproductive practices in the space or whatever and you pick your worst abuser and whatever else and in fact, it is what funds infrastructure. it's with bonds science research, health research and all sorts of there he is kind to promote diversification of our energy, which are controversial, but nonetheless, i think relevant. it bonds or long-term environmental sustainability, which is crucial for our agriculture and i'm not saying you should log every program within that broad morass, but i would like to see candidates to understand the different pieces and help the american public to understand the different pieces because i'm a defense and strategy dairy guy, but it is relevant to american national power as much as dot. there are so many little things

within it that hard to talk about, but it's not impossible and there are really six or eight or 10 big things that i would like to see candidates at least pick a couple and say this is what i would like to do within one or two or three of them and i think that is a realistic goal that would help with education of the american people as we think through what future budget plans would be optimal for us. >> also in the nondefense side the department of state, which we need and we prefer to diplomacy and i think all of us would. it funds home at security, which we need to maintain internal security and it funds that veterans administration, which is clearly directly related to the national security and others as well, so in addition to the good examples that mike gave their are many directly or indirectly that affect national security. >> including our investment in cyber security, which as we have seen with the breaches its of the enormous national priority right out, but will not be

inexpensive. >> yes, sir. >> lets me just clarify that i did not buy a volvo from you. my question is, what happens when these budgets get tight with the robbery between the forces fighting over budget and how does that get adjudicated and we have seen a lot of sort of the sky is falling stuff last year from the army and that didn't seem to work, so i just want to know how this plays out because you definitely see the tension rise in the budgeting cycle now. >> if i took office january 6, i have not been through it yet, but as near as i can tell trying to pay attention at the committee level, first of all the budget committee and there will be lots of fight and people will wait for one or two people

to come up with an interesting idea. that gets up to maine or any nancy pelosi and it's not just democrat versus republican's. often, it's house versus senate because we have seen the difference between the republican senate come the senate budget in the house budget was producing this can somehow getting the leaders in the same room on the same page and the ability to go back to the caucuses. i think john boehner has the toughest job in washington right now because he has 245 republicans with 40 plus of them belonging to the freedom caucus, so it cannot be trusted to be with him on any given issue. very hard. >> let me add a thought and i have not been through a national negotiation personally, but i did work through leon panetta and he was fond of saying and he was usually more colorful, but he was fond of saying, look, you pick people you trust, you stuck them in a room and give them pizza and tell them they cannot come out until they get a deal

and it was his way of saying we have to force-- we have to have a forcing function in there has to be urgency. may give them broad guidance, but in the end they have to work at the details and then when they do that and they have convinced the senior leaders you have to sell it to the members of the house and senate. it is hard, but it's doable and i don't want to be too pessimistic or it's always darkest before the dawn and we have seen two of these deals in the last five years and i think if you had gone back to the times before the american taxpayer relief act and bipartisan budget act you would've heard many of the same say we can't do it. i think we can and i hope we do: