i wonder, and this is an open question, to what extent does significant federal immigration reform or rethinking ideas of illegality, even as those demographic changes happen, our concept of illegality

necessarily changes. by the late 18 hundreds illegality essentially, as charles pointed out, mint, meant asian, this nefarious group of people from asia and were coming to take jobs, plan opium in the united states and generally the boschdebauched the morals of the united states through asian prostitution, for example like the 1875. the page act is directed toward this part of chinese prostitution coming into the united states and the blushing them also places like san francisco and the surrounding areas. but i wonder even has now, we don't necessarily, although you think about the campaign rhetoric of jeb bush, when i was thinking about 1st tourism i was not talking about latinos. i was talking about asians.

somehow that made it better in his mind. obviously as aa general matter we have replaced that group for which we have this animus with regard to immigration and the way in which we now think about the latino population in some sense and immigration question even though it does not actually track the tracked the demographics on the population. significant numbers of citizens with long histories , but we label them as illegal, illegal operating as a very thin veneer for race and racial restriction. an open question as to even as a fee changes, to what extent does our concept of illegality change without significant changes at the federal level? >> that last.is a verya very -- that last point is a very interesting question.

when we think about the demographic diversification of the us, and i think of that as a positive, but the particular pathways in which asian immigrants have come to the united states post- 1965 have created some complication in terms of how the groups are racialized and positioned in terms of the class positioning within the united states. i think this is something, my father was a beneficiary of the 1965 immigration law. as a consequence, many asian-americans are then positioned as affluent, successful, high achieving, etc. and, etc. and while that is certainly true for some portion of the population, i think it has been created a lack of a complex understanding of the real diversity, economic and otherwise, within the asian american community. i think the same might be said about latinos.

and also, i think african immigration is such a fascinating phenomenon. there was some reference to this, and it did not come about so much for some of the subsequent enactment, and the same might be said -- and i am no expert but have done some thinking about the interrelation relationship what that means, right, how we define african-american in an era of growing african immigration to the united states and the interrelationship between historically present african community and african immigrants in terms of access to different kinds of opportunities. a fascinating question that we can think about. and the comments and others emphasize the political complexity both the federal and state level in the different types of coalitions and interest at

play and immigration reform. now it sometimes feels helpless to see all these different strands trying to be aligned, but the kind of work emphasizes that the historical record shows us that it has always been this complicated. there is lot of interest at play in terms of crafting immigration policy, certainly with respect to workplace issues, and there has been a particular uncertainty about how to deal with immigration from the western hemisphere. i was talking about and what others are talking about, the. it was not a done deal. it was just the result of intense negotiations in the months and years preceding. thatthat is where the negotiations landed. but still, if you read the law, in addition to putting

in a they called for the creation of a select commission on west -- western hemisphere immigration which are still think we need today, but just a deep uncertainty, i think and parkfield biracial concerns, economicconcerns, economic concerns, what to make of this long-standing historic relationship between the us and the rest of the hemisphere, and i think that has always been politicized and still is extremely politicized but remains our greatest challenge. >> lessons mainly retrospective is appropriately looking back and commemorating the 50th anniversary of a major reform law, are there lessons that we should take? might apply them today, if we could maybe identify one thing that we think is most meaningful from the history that is applicable to the

current contemporary debates. >> well, i would like to focus on family, count as family for purposes of immigration law. there are differentthere are different ways of thinking about how we might restructure the family based immigration programs that we have. in fact, the bill that passed the senate, the one that almost -- many had hoped to become law and different ways of thinking of family base. they would have cut off the ability -- the bill would have cut off the ability of us citizens to petition for their parents, to petition some of their older children who are married if they reach 31 years old they will no longer be eligible for immigration into the united states. on the other hand, the bill would have also allowed for lots of permanent residence to bring in their spouses

and children. so in terms of lessons and have a 1965 act building upon the 1952 act redefined the meaning of families, itfamilies, it is important for us to think about whether you -- we might want to expand our understanding of the family, other countries that allow fo parents to emigrate, other close family members to integrate. one way would be to think of a broadening the meeting of family or we might consider narrowing the meaning of family. just limited to spouses and children to liangyoung children defined by the statute as 21 years and below. so because the way our family based program is structured, that leads to on the one hand, increased family unification but on the other hand extremely long delays and separation, there's something wrong with the system. it is important to rethink how we define family.

>> i think, one way of thinking about that question is the best immigration policy for the next 50 years or if we were doing this in 2065 what they say? i think one of the things that if we are going to do that we must ask what exactly is the goal, what are we trying to accomplish with any form of immigration reform. you might ask the question from the liberal perspective is our goal is to maximize the economic output of the united states and function at an efficient level. perhaps that is one goal he might pursue a consist -- and portions of the constituency are doing that, there is also a portion committed to the goal, the purpose of immigration law should be to not have illegal immigration. that is a more difficult and complex question to address because one way of

addressing that would be to say, okay, if the law does not create illegality you won't have illegal or unauthorized immigration. it's possible, not clear which of two paths you can say. simply match our immigration in the united states. as likely to get down to a manageable number of unauthorized migrants. but if what you take from the last 50 years is that we should have greater enforcement in the way of reducing that 11 million number, your immigration policy will look significantly different than it yesterday and will require an enforcement apparatus that is exponentially bigger than the apparatus we have today. one of the lessons perhaps we might take is that, you know, regularized or cyclical mass legalization's

are likely not going to be the way of reducing the unlawful population to zero the ratcheting up with an enforcement mechanism is also not going to reduce that number 20 which leaves the last choice of really thinking heart of how demand matches availability. one of the root concerns of the 1965 act. and so these are some questions we might want to think about including, the including, the goal, what are we trying to accomplish going forward? >> i willi will be brief and mentioned this earlier and i'm looking at these questions from a labor or economic angle. the historical record in my view is very clear. historically they're simply

have not been enough pathways julio immigration into the us people interested in coming for economic purposes. whether that is coming for unskilled work, semiskilled work by skilled work, or small level often ownership. there just simply are not enough visas available: you are talking about temporary or permanent. and i think that is a fundamental flaw in the system and one that has created aa range of pathologies related to immigration enforcement, economic problems locally and otherwise, and i think that is something that needs attention.attention. excuse me. the 2013 bill in the senate went a significant ways toward remedying that that would allow larger numbers of foreign workers to come to the united states to temporarily. those workers were not have to be beholden to a specific employer. there was some degree of visa portability which is

another feature that is to be introduced into the employment -based immigration system. i think thati think that is the tension that needs to be worked out. it is complicated because there are different imperatives when we talk about foreign-born workers, attracting talent, boosting the economy, but also about protecting us workers and often these are at odds with one another, to be candid. not always, but there are ways to reconcile these different interests, but interests, that is the larger project that must be undertaken. >> thank you. unless you all have anything add, now is the time for audience q&a. we have a microphone. please pray for it to get to you and then identify yourself before asking your question. >> yes.

thanks. i know i am kind of jumping out of my seat here. i am a congressional correspondent for the hispanic outlook and have been covering immigration for the last ten years. i wrote a book called, a lot of the change the face of the american command i am pleased with this panel because you talk a lot about stuff i have struggled with. i am glad that you were corrected and that even though there was not national law for 86 there was, of course,was, of course, states and localities. if you are jewish, forget going to boston. there was a way cities and states regulated immigration and i'm glad that you were corrected that mexicans were not included. and i am glad you are talking about family unification. i think when you have spoken about are the drivers of immigration and how they change and how they change the demand.

for instance, technology, with skype do you really need family unification? the kentucky mrn line every day if you want. does -- especially things like the nationality. this is the thing. he did not talk about the 7 percent rule. the thing was that in 1965, the 1964 law prohibited national origins as one of the civil rights. you cannot discriminate. every nationality had to be treated equally, and discrimination also means preference, not just discriminate against the preference for. now we're not going to have preference for northern europeans. i mean,, how do you do that? every nationality is treated equally. they put a 7 percent law, no

nation could have more than 7%7 percent of all the green cards given out. that still exists today. mexico does not get any more than 7%. if iceland does not get more than 7 percent that number goes into the amount. nowadays in terms of globalization, this is something i have been struggling with, does it really matter anymore that they give a preference or not? globalization, we are seeing how high tech workers, a lot of them are from single countries, china, india. are we really going to say we will do the 7 percent rule on that? if we legalize the dreamers, the vast majority are mexican. come and it legally and then get amnesty. that is kind of preferring mexicans. is that civil rights? the executive order to make they are going to go against the simple white?

is that even important anymore, that part? and the last thing i have been struggling with command you guys, this is the question you can answer, immigration is not a civil right, but i think that the 1965 act and all the fervor immigration, and i used to see can be pounding the table and say immigration is the next civil rights in our nation, and it is. so i love you to just that. >> i mean, therei mean, there is a lot in that. honestly, your question boils down to immigration, go. now. a few thoughts. so, the questions of how we should think about things like dreamers, the questions

it also suggests in your question suggests once you have something we edison's report a particular population for legal transgressions of entering unlawfully having been unlawfully present and to what extent that fits into civil rights narrative. except to say your perspective on that depends upon how you view the law and illegality. if you think about illegality as something preordained, there is this concept of illegality and oncewas you cross the threshold there is no way of rectifying it except to violations of what we might fundamentally think of as rule of law, priorities and any quality norms, i am not sure there is a lot that i am going to say. but if you think, i think,

the creation of those populations, for example, there were population as a result of a functional, this is so functionally on the ground when you have significantly harsher congressional penalties against the historical backdrop that was laid out for us is suggests that initial transgression, what we might think of is that transgression really is the ending.of the discussion. the discussion is how we should think about that population and direct enforcement efforts. and how does it make sense to enforce law against that population, and that is a very different orientation toward the rights of those sorts of groups. i think one important lesson

climb back to the question charles asked was that the 1965 immigration act occurred against this backdrop of significant civil rights advancement in the united states including the civil rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965, ten years on the heels of brown versus board of education. so, what is the lesson we can draw? one is that the immigration law for the future in our current push for comprehensive immigration reform should also take that frame of a civil rights legislation which is the civil rights project of our time and will continue to be as long as we do not -- as long as we avoid addressing this problem of illicit mess and reality. >> just a word or two to build on that.

he has nicely framed this question of again. but, and i think it really is the key, but in terms of if it's fair to call immigration law a civil rights issue, ii would argue absolutely, in light of the types of mechanisms that have been deployed by the state against foreign-born persons and there are clear parallels between the experience of african-americans, latinos, and other disadvantaged groups in the experience of foreign-born persons. i am not equating the experiences, norma say no legal frameworks are equivalent, but if you look at practices like racial profiling mass incarceration the same experience african-americans and others having been in some respects

on foreign-born persons, especially latinos which is more than just a rhetorical connection. there is a deeper connection in some ways that i think is worth exploring. it is the next civil rights movement. [inaudible question] >> wait for the mic please. >> i think we are changing the idea. racial profiling. and they are so mixed now. i mean,, the huge diversity of latinos command i love the millennial's. they are everything, you know, peruvian chinese mormon, my best friend. how do you racially profile in this incredibly -- this is a question affirmative action people are talking

about. i am not sure the dynamic of the 60s, in some60s, in some ways we are more like the 1920s than the 1960s the future income inequality , a fear of foreign invasion, tremendous difference in working conditions, and that was what drove a law,law, people wanted more border control, not us. that is what trump does -- that is what trump is touching on. there is not a big civil rights movement, like in the 60s. >> question. >> i am ross eisenberg, and i have a question because i am confused about 365 the ability or the status of people who came without

authorization. reported, i no command for all kinds of reasons, and it seems being here without authorization would have been one of those reasons, reasons, and i want to make a comment about family and one of the new civil rights which is how we treat lg bt people, this law, i think, allow require the exclusion of homosexuals , that was certainly what happened. and going forward one would hope that would not be the case and a new way of looking at family for immigration purposes take into account lg bt families. >> let me comment on that last point about the exclusions okay and lesbian from immigration law. 1965 that in place. classified people were lg bt

qs having some type of medical condition that that led to the bar from immigration law. so still fairly recent in our memory. as a result of the supreme court cases that invalidated delma, and both provisions. now they are able to bring in family members, so it is catching up. that part of the population is able to have that benefit immigration law. it is unclear to me right now the purposes of family what might be in terms of civil rights how we might be able to redefine family, civil rights perspective other than to think about the family structures we currently have in place today who are with respect

to the 11 million undocumented immigrants, i think it is important for us to examine how the families on the ground, the experience families, reformatting of the family -based immigration. >> if you want to take the unauthorized, the status of unauthorized people prior -- >> i will take a shot at it. it is a great question and then important thing to point out. certainly even in the late 1800s soon after the 1st provisions of the chinese exclusion act came provisions that were intended as a default proposition, the presence of people of asian descent in the united states immediately deportable.

we get to the early 1900s,19 hundreds, as you suggest, significant, mass deportation, so it was not uncommon in the late 1920s, early 1930s los angeles to see roundups of mexicans put on trains back into mexico. that is certainly true and did exist. the enforcement at that time , my understanding, one, it was haphazard and if you look at the early 2,000 workplace enforcement by the bush administration, high profile, intended to cause a lot of publicity, but in terms of actual effect on the broader population, obviously creates fear, but it was not a system of the highest form of enforcement. and similarly, i would argue, the 1930 roundups and messed up rotations operated in that way.

but also, the scale of who we are talking about as the unauthorized population that could be targeted and removed was simply not the scale we have today. right? we do not think about it in that way, and therefore is still fairly relatively open movement across the border. asas an example, when the program was operating and post- 1942, texas was initially excluded as a state thata state that could take bus service mostly because of a significant discriminatory actions that were happening in the state of texas against mexican workers,workers, and the mexican government simply refused to allow texas to initially participate. taxes than simply asked the border agents at the texas mexico border to allow free migration of people outside the program into taxes so

that they could then use them as laborers, and that system continued for a significant amount of time. certainly they were in the lower unauthorized anointment think of them today, but not necessarily subject to messed up rotations where the idea of enforcement that we would understand today. it is an excellent point, 1965 really changes the scope, volume, quality, and nature of illegality. i will end with, up until 1990 there were literally three crimes that could get you deported, that made one deportable united states. murder, rape, and i forget the other one,one, but 1990 is when the united states code starts to exponentially expand the number of crimes that can get you deported. by 1996, the love we have today, if you look at the part of the code that defines aggravated felonies,

101843, and now goes on for several pages. embezzlement, fraud, it just continues, drug offenses. he fundamentally change the group against which said enforcement can be directed. >> let me ask one other thing. i think that it goes to roses initial.-- roses initial point, the history, your perspective is shaped the history. so from a latino civil rights perspective when asked what about the unauthorized prior to 1965, one might answer, 1st, it was not a large-scale problem in part because we did not enforce the law against europeans. so the vast majority of european immigrants who came legally, the old phrase was,

you came with attack on. someone pay for your passage usually an employer from tucson. given the majority of people came technically illegal. i believe it was not until the 1952 act as an automatic statute of limitations. anybody who came unauthorized domain the europeans automatically able to legalize without any action is line is they evaded detection from the law which was not significant. third, to the extent that there was major enforcement

through these repatriation campaigns, which i would argue for highly racialized and they were not one. there were four. millions were reported. largely without due process. >> next question. >> practicing immigration lawyer for the last four

years or so to remember that i think historically both european immigration and also mexican immigration, people came and went freely and therefore the concept of being here illegally was not as salient because you came here, worked for a while, and he worked for a while, you worked for a year, two years, six months, went back to your family, and it is with the 1965 act the start of that, especially now 1986 or 87 law that imposes draconian consequences on people who were here with the -- for a year without authorization which freezes everybody in place making the pool of unauthorized people greater and meaning

you have to bring your family with you because you may never see them again. it seems to me that is in the round of unintended consequences, and i wonder how lawmakers and policymakers can avoid this type of unintended consequence. >> i think she started to take a shot at that earlier. >> sure. you are raising an important point about the narrative they raise around immigration. the people are coming to the us want to remain your permanently which is simply not the case. before i began teaching i worked for a number of years working with a laborers. the common narrative is i'm not trying to live your permanently. as to be here for a couple of years, make a lot of

ofmoney, and go back and make a nice house with my family. i think that to a large extent the immigration laws of fail, the, the dichotomies approach, you are not here at all or are here forever failed to capture the ground. and i think there was a comment made earlier on globalization.globalization. we are seeing is by national existence, dual national identities which is another feature that we need to contemplate, people increasingly may want to have a binational existence, homes or connections in more than one country. dual citizenship is becoming increasingly common and flexible. so i absolutely do agree in terms of policy it is structured in this very black-and-white type of way. when you think creatively or

kind expanding. >> other questions? >> and one of the things that we need to bring dignity and respect to these people. fairness is in they're, too. but i was being fair to the american taxpayer we are placing a $10 billion demand a central services like health care education, the penal system, fire and police the taxpayer right now is being treated unfairly, and they should be

in the equation. >> there have been a series of national academy of sciences studies similar to the ones the people may have mentioned that suggested that in some end in total immigrants more than pay for themselves over the term. now, with specific groups and services and particularly at the state and local level, much of the tax revenue goes to the federal government or locality bears the burden of services. especially when taking demographics into account,

younger immigrants, younger, poor immigrants tend to consume more and services than they pay in taxes, but the same is true of any younger, poorer population regardless of whether they are immigrants are not. so ii do not deny your point that there are larger ramifications from immigration and that, you know, everyone affected, which is everyone ought to have a seat at the table and discussing how to resolve it, but i would resist the notion that immigrants are a net negative economically or with respect to specific government group. >> if i could add to what charles is saying, charles had pointed out that it is possible that there might be some effects at the state and local level which goes

to a significant part of the empirical work, empirical research i conducted with my co-author from a book which is to ask a question when you look at the restriction laws that were emerging at the state and local level thinking about as 1070, other places that were attempting to deny social services on the basis that immigrants are consuming a significant amount, whether or not it is true that any given locality did consume a significant amount of social services and tax money cannot let our empirical investigation revealed is that jurisdictions that tend to pass these restrictionist loss actually were not suffering from the social ills that they were arguing about an law. while the right the purpose statement, they suffered significant social service the thickets and that immigrants are changing the way in which they were providing the services and as an empirical matter, and the jurisdictions proposing,

that is an unsupportable factual statement. they may have been jurisdictions, but that was not the same jurisdictions that were passing restrictions of legislation. california house close to 3 million unlawfully present persons, one 3rd are roughly a quarter to a 3rd of the total unlawfully present population. california was passing the last immigration best social services laws including more currently laws directed at the healthcare of undocumented immigrants. i think there is -- there very well might be these fundamental effects. it does not show up in the policy proposals at those jurisdictions. >> a quick follow-up. you have referenced the program a few times, and it

seems that is the model that has worked best. we could go back to something like that, and a lot of the discussions of the civil rights and 7 percent from this country and 7 percent from that country, ii have talked to people on the hill but immigration reform commend you on the left he went full citizenship and if your on the right you want to support existing laws and support people, and there are bugs in the middle as well. we will be the left and the right in the middle to come together around something, and it should be practical and not something that is so burdensome that i would be interested in your thoughts on that. >> sure. no. please. i think your general point is very well taken. there has to be a political

compromise. we need to contemplate the reality that there are mixed status families. immigrants contribute expert take away ask really clear evidence around significant exportation. i won't get into the particulars. the idea of some type of temporary kind of keep beating the same come here. temporary visa program that this enables employers to take advantage of foreign-born workers to avail themselves, not take advantage of, to not -- in a non- exploitative way is

really something we need to be thinking carefully about because in the existing program. significant incentives multiple studies have been done. unfettered free employers coming in and with ellen tensioned but it lends itself to that. the bill had a proposal. the program is okay. we can criticize it and pick it apart, but as we move forward that was the result of a lot of compromise, afl, organized labor, the business, the business community, chamber of commerce, act secretary, we are all at the table. can be done again. >> we have come to the end of the session. think the panel of their

extraordinary contributions not just here through their book. thank you all for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016 we finally candidates, speeches, debates command your questions. we are taking our coverage into classrooms across the country with their student can contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to here the most the

candidates. follow the coverage on tv, radio, and online at c-span.org. >> a signature feature of book tv is all they coverage a book fairs and festivals across the country. here's a schedule beginning this weekend.

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. the senate armed services committee needs today to begin a major oversight initiative on the future of defense reform. this will be the 1st in a series of a dozen hearings that will proceed from a consideration of the strategic context and global challenging to the challenges facing the united states through alternative defense strategies in the future of warfare to the civilian military organizations of the department of defense as

well as its acquisition, personnel command management systems, much of which is the legacy of the goldwater nichols reforms enacted in 1986. there is no one in my view in america better to help us begin this effort than our distinguished witness, the former secretary of defense, robert gates. q and defense, in my view nine, can match his record as a reformer, directing more than $100 billion in eternal inefficiencies, eliminating dozens of failing or unnecessary acquisition programs, held people accountable and even fired a few. yet by his own account he left overwhelmed by the

scope and scale of the problems at the defense department. this is the purpose of the oversight effort we are beginning today, to define these problems clearly and rigorously and only then to consider force may be necessary. there is profound urgency to this effort. the worldwide threats confronting our nation now and in the future have been more complex, uncertain, and daunting. america will not succeed with anything less than the most innovative, agile, and efficient and effective defense organization. i have not met a senior civilian or military leader thinks we have it today. in no ways as a criticism of the patriotic service in and out of uniform he sacrifice every day. toto the contrary it is because we have such upstanding people that we must start to remove impediments are defense organizations and squander

talents of our troops and civil servants command now somewhat argue the main problems facing the department of defense come from the white house, the national security council staff, and her agency, and the congress. you will find no argument here, especially with the dysfunction of congress and must be mindful of bigger problems, but addressing many of them is outside this but his jurisdiction. at the same time, our witness will explain the problems he encountered a real and serious. in constant dollars our nation is spending almost the same amount on defense as we were 30 years ago, for this my today we're getting 35 percent fewer combat brigades, 53%., 53 percent.

sheriff's, 63 percent fewer combat air squadrons, and significantly more overhead. how much is difficult to establish because the department of defense is not have complete and reliable data guys jail has repeatedly found. of course our armed forces are more capable now, but so are our adversaries. at the same time, many weapons and arsenal today and strategic forces of the products in the military modernization of the 1980s no matter how much more capable, they are not capable of being in two places at once. our declining combatour declining combat capacity cannot be divorced the problems are defense acquisition system which one high-level study summed up as follows. the defense acquisition system has basic problems that must be corrected which

i deeply entrenched and have developed over several decades from an increasingly bureaucratic and over regulated process. as a result, all too many more with system cost too much, take too long command by the time they are feel that incorporate obsolete technology. it sounds right, but that was the packard commission in 1986, and since 1986, cost overrun and schedule delays a major defense acquisitions have only gotten worse. defense programs are now nearly 50%50 percent over budget and on average over two years delayed, telling that perhaps the most significant defense procurement success story which doctor gates himself led was produced by going around the acquisition system, not through it. the risingthe rising cost of our defense personal system is also part of the problem.

asas short number three shows, the average fully burdened cost per servicemember come all of the pay and lifetime benefits military service now entails is increased 270 pel too often the department of defense has sought to control personnel costs by cutting operating forces well civilian and military headquarter staff have not changed or even grown since 1985 the end strength of the joint force has decreased by 38 percent, but the percentage of four-star officers as increased by 65 percent. these reductions in combat power have occurred but apartments overhead elements, especially contractor workforce has exploded. nearly 1.1 million personnel now perform overhead activities in the defense agencies the military department and service that in washington headquarters services.

they found that less than one quarter of active-duty troops were in combat roles with the majority performing overhead activities. recent studies and others confirm that little has changed in this regard. the ratio is well below the global average including such countries as russia, india, and brazil. for years, decades in some cases duplication of effort. perhaps none of this should be surprising when you consider the judgment of the lead staffer on this committee during the defense reorganization efforts three decades ago. the remedies applied by goldwater nichols to defense management have largely been an effective, whenever a priority, and troubling

trends remain. depending on stroking on bureaucracy. he wrote that 14 years ago, and the problem is only gotten worse. ultimately we must ask whether the defense department is succeeding in his development and execution of strategy, policy, and plans. hasn't improved? of the joint duty assignments the military officers must perform producing a more unified fighting force? and shortcoming is the department of defense more successful at planning for war, waging war, and winning war? goldwater nichols was perhaps the most consequential defense reform is the creation of the department of defense. while the world has changed profoundly with the basic

organization of the department of defense as well as the roles and missions of its major civilian and military actress has not changed all that much since goldwater nichols. it must be asked, is a 30-year-old defense organization" or present and future national security challenges? i wish to be clear that this is a forward-looking effort. our task is to determine whether the department of defense and our armed forces are set up to be maximally successful in our current and future national security challenges? we will be guided in this effort by the same principles that inspired pass defense reform efforts including goldwater nichols, enhancing civilian control of the military, improving military advice, operational effectiveness and joint management and providing for better use of defense resources, among others. this oversight initiative

this oversight initiative is not a set of solutions answer to problems we will buy the jump to conclusions were told that the symptoms or problems. it will take the time for her deeply for the incentive and root causes the drug behavior and always, always be guided by that all-important principle, 1st do no harm. finally, this must and will be a bipartisan endeavor. defense reform is not a republican or democratic issue, and we will keep it that way. is a vital national security issues, and we must seek to build a consensus about how to build the organization and operation of the department of defense bike that can and will be advanced by whoever was next year's elections. it is how dr. gates has always approached this important work across

administrations of both parties. we thank dr. gates for his decades of service to our nation, for generously offering us the benefit of your insights and experiences today command i would like to apologize for the long statement, but i believe that this hearing must set the predicate for a number of future hearings the reverse of 2000 we will be having ordered to carry on and achieve the objectives i just outlined. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome back. let me join the chairman and thanking you for your willingness to testify today and -underscore how thoughtful and appropriate the chairman's remarks or with respect to the need for careful, bipartisan review of policy and change. on the saucer apologize,, as i have told you before, and 200 or so i must inform all day long today. i apologize. it is no accident that the chairman is asked you testify today on a major

effort to look at the department of defense. more than 1,500 days. roles that range and then, of course, the department of defense. in your best experience context will be important. you were an outspoken critic of your own department. ensuring that they are being supported appropriately. appropriately. in a speech you said that the problem is in your words a semi- feudal system, amount: fiefdoms without centralized mechanisms relative to the departments overall priority.

as a policy maker in the legislative branch this kind of assessment is deeply concerning but also helpful in terms of giving us a direction. i look forward to hearing your ideas and thinking about the changes you recommend. congress has tried to address some of these problems creating the deputy chief management officer, but one person is not enough during your tenure you created to ad hoc entities to address rapidly dangerous issues our troops, rm wrap task force and the intelligence surveillance reconnaissance rsr task force. ..

>> >> whether the price of the

department's mission mayor still confronting those issues today. finally not only for the military but the soft power the diplomacy and developmental efforts the ability to communicate our goals and values to the rest of the world out also be interested in your thoughts of national security enhancing civilian elements of power and the impact. eight you for your service in and look forward to your testimony probably the least since your sentence is mr. chairman it is a pleasure to be here with you today a. [laughter] short of a subpoena and never expected to be in a

congressional hearing given the things i have written i am surprised to have been invited back. they give for your remarks and to address defense reform and that also come into to transcend the daily headlines to focus this committee and the congress on an institutional challenges we see the established diastole stated touch with my successors of from 2006 and to be engaged in into wars it may not necessarily account for the changes taking place i do my

a bit in defense of the country with the advantage of that perspective while it is tempting with conventional wisdom to assert the challenges facing the united states international have never been more numerous or complex but an unpredictable times have occurred to challenge leaders since world war ii with the immediate postwar period saw the soviets tie their grip in eastern europe, and surprised by dedicating the first atomic device the caribbean war, confrontation and china over taiwan taiwan, pressures of the joint chiefs of staff by using nuclear weapons anwr in the middle east and revolution in cuba during the '60s the war in vietnam

another arab-israeli war from berlin to cuba and in the '70s soviet assertiveness is the then soviet invasion of afghanistan. ladies had surrogate contracts -- complex like the intervention of panama and in the '90s the first goal for, the military action in somalia in haiti missile attacks and the first al qaeda and attacks on monday united states. americans coming in and our leaders regard international crisis as an aberration when in fact, they are the norm. convinced a new era of tranquillity is that he an actor major conflicts presidents and congress tended to believe they have

a choice given national security priority and reduce the resources provided to the defense since the department a year and cia. in the short term, they do have a choice than they have their way but in the long term there is no choice. we may not be interested of those half of rolled away day are always interested in us or inner allies and friends. we always discover we went too far to cut but the cost of the flood of the young men and women is far higher than if we remained strong all along. the primary question before the congress is the priority given to defense at roughly 15 percent is the lowest percentage since before

world war ii. no amount of reform accomplishes the missions assigned to it. the pointer made to your deliberation and is our record to predict where really using military force next is perfect we have never once got in their right to. and grenada, lebanon, iraq three-time is, afghanistan is, afghanistan, panama, som alia, haiti and west africa. because we cannot combat when dash predict military engagement we must cover premium to acquire equipment to get the forces the most merciful capabilities across the broad spectrum of

conflict. these to lessons on flexibility in spending whether it is on bureaucratic organization or command structure or budget. is completely legitimate to ask if the defense structure gives us the best possible return on taxpayer dollars and the answer is no. in this context the questions the committee is considering is namely if the institutions of national defence or is in ways that deal with the security challenges of the 21st century to spend the the defense dollars over the next 15 minutes and will make observations about gold bader nichols the interagency process and the budget did recant television

to these and other matters and. first the question of the ambition of the region of legislation has been filled or fit is thus similar magnitude of lighting changes taking place over the last three decades. my perspective is shaped primarily by my experience of secretary to oversee a military fighting two wars i discovered i lead a department designed to plan for war but not to wage it in the long term the swift victory seemed to validate all the changes including the landmark legislation the pentagon clearly was not organized to deal with conflicts that contrary to most are not the last

campaign waged by the military goldwater nicole succeeded all too well by church gave the services into the equipment providers walled off from responsibilities now that domain of combat commanders. this was problematic from those that were significantly different from the pipeline. one example of there was the joy process to deal with those ongoing commanders it is left up to the commanders to reprivatize the budget for the funding for those needs it is no surprise that the service decided the battlefield needs to not have as high of a parody as the long term programs.

there were weapons systems that had sacrosanct status in the military services making it difficult. i assume they're the only way to get new or additional equipment within weeks or months was to take control of the problem solved through special task force this is the case with the vehicles fitted reconnaissance capabilities to shore ted medevac time it even the care of wounded warriors. color to the secretary made it a personal priority and held people accountable and was possible to get a lot done quickly even in a massive bureaucracy like the pentagon's best satisfy critical operational cannot

depend solely on intense personal but the involvement of the secretary ed is not sustainable all the challenges out to institutionalize the structure that encourages wartime emergencies simultaneous with long-term planning and acquisition the final thought that through my tenure as privileged to work with to chairman of chief staff, were true partners of providing independence defending professional military advice the chairman with the vice-chairman is the one senior military officer with a stake of current needs and future requirements one of the great achievements of goldwater nichols was to strengthen the commanders and the chairman and elected to the service chiefs.

i've believe both would be strengthened to give them four year terms this would not diminish their accountability to the president or the congress. and what has been a focus of this committee is the acquisition process. natalie of goldwater nichols hdl was established because the service driven acquisition system yielding to video were designed and over budget and over schedule programs the theory was by giving a deposition responsibility that was

removed from parochial service them wiser decisions would consume so what could we say? speesix he did to build a new layer of rockers a and a new process to feed it but the results are mixed. i found despite the mechanisms are two major programs were ridiculously overdue. and they're no longer relevant to the high asperity. recapped more than 30 major programs with the cost of taxpayers $330 billion where does that leave us today for reforms for the future?

leading to greater centralization that led to another set of problems of a central bureaucracy of delays and related costs without discernible benefit. my sense is the right to answer is the better balance with decentralization from what we have venda strong word of caution he was not weekend the authority of defense i cannot imagine this service secretary and able to overcome intense pressures to do away with programs like the armory future combat system the

simple fact is such decisions are not just programmatic but political only the secretary of defense has the clout and of the power in such a decision to make them stick. in with the accountability for it with that basic blocking and tackling with that acquisition process beyond a certain pori day competitive prototype whenever possible were realistic cost estimate in

mr. chairman the streamline acquisition process to encourage more products into the pricing to retract were nontraditional vendors to the market. that said at the end of the day it will matter last the meters to execute programs willing to take unpopular choices with strong measures of accountability. >> whether people or programs the effort i began in 2010 to reduce overhead costs to be renewed in a

sustained in in just four months we found $180 billion over a multi-year period we could cut a river of money flowing from the pentagon there is no line item in the defense budget called waste is extremely hard work by a light day easter egg hunt is a brief word of across-the-board cuts i have received countless washington reform efforts this salamis placing is not reform but managerial to make those choices and tough

decisions to reshape and the organization into an efficient enterprise. said judges and needed programs because of interest with the closure of one quarter of all defense facilities deemed access to burden the department with expensive requirements. my third played to to reorganize the national security apparatus the goldwater nichols working at the defense department when push comes to shove everyone

in and out of uniform are working for one person the secretary of defense. when multiple cabinet departments are involved the national security council were created to coordinate and integrate the efforts in the talented and skills of a national security advisor in works poorly as the secretary of state and secretary of defence cannot stand each other as was a good part of my timing government and it is not an honest broker the efforts of state and others are

integrated there's nothing the congress can do about it. i will conclude with three of their reasons why they're paying more today and getting less and less. men and women in uniform but that technology capability comes to the hefty price tag. could very real problem that i know this is beginning to make some inroads of utility. this is the role of congress itself and i am talking about the yearlong budgetary impasse between the congress

is a the president the department of defense had been enacted appropriations bill to start -- start and lasted years in the last seven all began entering a continuing resolution. during the first six full fiscal years of the obama administration the defense suburban has continued under a continuing resolution over one-third of the time. leaders had to deal with the threat and the imposition because of the inability to find a budget compromise defense spending was reduced by $37 billion per call of those turned to 2500 by items to require precise management to comply with the entire deficiency act

cut 30 percent of day-to-day operating funds. but then the largest organization in the planets has to plan for five potential government shutdowns. in the fall 2013 with sequestration ongoing with 85 percent of the civilian work force it is hard to quantify the cost the cuts are the continuing resolutions for lausanne shutdowns and unpredictability the inability to execute programs on schedule to ramp up production to start

programs to take full of vintage of savings from multi-year purchases been a time-consuming process to reprogram small amounts of money with some poses a tremendous cost of the taxpayer it doesn't begin to account for the hundreds of thousands of man hours required to cope with this managerial nightmare. the imposition of full-scale sequestration absent a bipartisan the agreement given the harm of u.s. military the rhetoric coming from congress about looking for men and women bring this hollow. this legislative dysfunction is embarrassing with allies and friends look for reassurance.

all those reforms to be of little use to plan or set priorities to manage resources of a strategic way. the failure of congress because of the partisan does -- to abide and the continuing parochialism with failing programs with the needed facilities not only greatly increase the cost of defense it has broken faith with men and women in uniform. to protect those in uniform. i also hope you urge your colleagues to break with the recent past that the system

of government as designed by the founders and it is called governing. >> and wish all 535 members of congress could hear your closing remarks i will quote them quite often and liberally. there was said the mta and accurate indictment of those 300 million americans of the security of rhodesian said

to have a substantial number of members of congress that we will not vote to increase the debt limit and anyone that does is a trader and doesn't care about the responsibility it is also looking at a president and secretary of defense it was up policy bill that is what defense opposition is about by increasing non-defense

spending when there is nothing that this committee nor the author raising process can do to change that that members will vote to sustain a presidential veto on the issue that we have nothing that we can change it in your remarks is interesting to make a single comment. >> i have thought about that their staff provided me with some of the issues you might want to discuss today.

then i would say no to that question that does strengthen the civilian leadership of the military and if there do so on a day to day basis that the secretary of defense could not do to reiterate that to make that clear in his actions but the symbolism to members of the services there is a civilian who was responsible and accountable

that i think is important. >> going back with this relationship the uniform service chief, secretary of defense, you cited a couple of cases going around the entire process, where is the balance? we tried to do give some more authority and responsibility to the service chiefs to have nine but yet at the same time not return to much because of their advocacy with there shanker sank a long term programs that is important to their services.

>> i wish i could give a precise and specific answer. although i made the decision it was those executed the program because they had average canadian their idea is due whenever and into the defense department were there the acquisition or anything else affects multiple parts of the

department if the comptroller has a problem he cannot tell atm what to do they couldn't tell anybody else what to do they all the report to read or to the secretary. the reason i found myself cheering these meetings was because there is enough different parts of the department involved in in the decision that no one below the secretary could save this is what you have to do when dash carter was etf no - - 80th undersecretary we would talk all the time how do we

institutionalize this meeting be surgeon needs in friendly when i left we had not solve that problem but the service is to have a 30 m procurement in frankly my sense is it seems to be quite capable but how you realigned the roles of hdl with this service procurement or acquisition officers i don't have an easy solution all i can suggest is that there be a dialogue between this committee and secretary

carter with how you adjust the balance. it is clear it has shifted too far. but central to that is forcing those service leaders, the chief of staff upheaval in the secretary to hold people accountable. i know appear testified tuesday give we would cater fire be a bad is the extreme but the accountability is a big piece i don't have a lion drawing or a paragraph

here is where you redraw the balance. >> eight you very much for your insightful testimony. but only to give advice it will help us immensely bellwood played to that you made with phase three operations is usually phase for so much of that depends upon and capacity and though local nation and that depends upon the non diu deal of its u.s. seen that in iraq and afghanistan and

this comes back to the point is if the agencies are not properly funded or an integrated, debris could succeeded the initial phase of battle but is that a fair assessment? >> i can only reminded the committee from the commanding generals about the desperate need for more civilians in iraq and afghanistan and. and the value that they brought. the secretary used to chide me or the other foreign service. it is an action the when i left ever met in 1993 for

having 16,000 employees dedicated professionals accustomed to working in dangerous and difficult circumstances in developing countries. they brought but there was stabbed 3,000 employees mostly contractors. that is a measure of what is happening the development part of our broader strategy. in for those of us at a certain age with a strategic communications and today is a pale reflection of that. that a whole civilian side has been neglected for a very long time.

>> and that is exacerbated by sequestration with the short-term funding the test they don't function well. but the overall response is that your? >> i believe so. >> we have tried to find the money and the account the bears the ball to budgetary account with the regular budget caps is this is the

terrible way to budget. is of a gimmick. it does provide the resources but it is hard to disagree with the way things ought to operate if there is the sense on the hill that the budget needs to be cut you go through a regular order of business and you make tough decisions the you retraces.

in then you go to the budget in the money flows. end end the courage paralyzed state maybe there is no alternative right now to get the money this way. but it is one helluva way to run a railroad as the saying goes. >> 84 years extraordinary service to the nation. >> they give for your service i believe you represent one of the best defense secretary is the nation has ever had to have served the dedication with the defense department some

of your favorite cabinet colleagues put the secretary of health first in education first iran and roads first. we are pleased of every department in we don't have as much money as we would like. so the budget process the president has said the republicans care about depends you will not get more money for defense:get ready for non-defense. said the process to move forward at the defense to part request but has not met the nine defense increases because we are already in debt so we borrowed the extra money. it is a difficult time be your correct. history teaches us conflict

comes back we don't know what it is like kim and i thank you for your vice this be back that we as a nation and our allies succeed to develop a strategy to buteo adherent can we do that? rebecca a. fink we face a generation of conflict in the and though easter girl least for simultaneously. she is lot of and reformers person libertarians and the

islamist forces secular is the in the artificial countries like iraq and afghanistan and syria is comprised of the adversarial ethnic and religious groups if they could hold together at all. it has become the epicenter of all that so to reach that strategy on the part of the united states of how we intend and one of the

benefits of containment and there are a lot of disagreements but i will always believe that critical to our success in the cold war is a broad strategy called containment practice by a ninth successive administration since that had bipartisan support the general notion. we don't have a thing like that with respect to the middle east. so we're dealing with each crisis individually rather the impact the neck up to say what is the long term game plan?

endeavors stuck with month-to-month terms. >> i have been around end of a leap the possibility of bipartisan support for that vision we have big disagreements on spending and other issues that we could bridge this and i appreciate your thoughts. i've met with the german group yesterday and raise the need for europeans to contribute more to their mutual defense bill leader of the group pointed out it is unacceptable nato is funded 70 percent by the united states. key and acknowledge that you have spoken on that in the past very clearly to have any further ideas so we might do to have the allies carry more of the load? this is one area one might hope in the long term

mr. putin has done as a favor to remind the europeans that the world has not gone on to where there is peace and tranquility of the time. but many years ago nato countries all committed to spend it said gdp on defense. >> that gives you a measure if others in including in brussels with last speech republic never be will come at but the more the members of congress but that could

only help in the review. >> given your speech that he hits you even turn into a mess with the difficult the for variations challenges coming upon the next few months to have a opinion is to what the earth and to

have some thoughts on that? >> i think where expressed my view of these tests of arrangements where decisions made with fewer or less dollars but they would say have predictability even year over year would be helpful. so i think obviously a regular order business in terms to manage the of business is what i was talking about it is the way things ought to work and they have not worked that way at least 10 years and that needs to be fixed.

by this same token i was a secretary if confronted with this situation typeface now license would be to take the of monday because what is my alternative? what kinds of programs to buy half to cut to accommodate certain defense needs? let me give you example of a place where read a big mistake. 2010 this committee and others were unhappy about supplementals to move away from those. i knew when the wars were over would go way. a lot of the funding for military families of wounded warriors were being funded

through the supplementals. i've moved all of those programs into the base budget as i could with the belief we would need those four years and years to come. guess what? know they are all all hit by sequestration and continuing resolutions. so what i thought would protect those programs ended up making them ponderable of of of left them in the oco there would be fully funded so those are the perverse consequences not having regular appropriations bills. another observation about eisenhower his military-industrial complex speech is quoted a lot the when he made that speech the defense budget was 51% of federal spending.

today it is 15. >> shifting gears coverage you have general but it's how you build a culture of incentives and values that the you of the chauffeur solutions where appropriate within the acquisition process rather than having this inherent bias toward explicit new programs and products? >> there are obviously areas in which you ought to buy off-the-shelf kerry abilities. and frankly one of the great cultural chefs of the national security read occurred in the '80s we

always led the way to develop data processing and storage and management and discovering the private sector was outstripping us in terms of their capabilities. so we begin to buy off-the-shelf parts were and software so the private sector is way ahead of the government if we can buy off the shelf capability to improve our capabilities. there are some areas that have to do with military capabilities you are in the realm of new technology and the place where you have to take risk in rose have for the last 30 or 40 years have

had cost overruns because we deal with doing things that have never been done before spinneret they give for subjecting yourself to this today. [laughter] >> i agree with the statement made by the chairman nowhere better suited for the reform for what we're hoping for their annual. we also want to say with the various incarnations you have that i have enjoyed working with you you go out of your way to have tenders with individuals and work with us more than anyone has. in 1961 at 51 percent of the budget it is now 15% that is

a problem the lowest percentage since rolled were to. but we talk about the tooth in detail you talk about shrinking the headquarters jury your respective times it in august of this year with a memo entitled cost-reduction targets ordering preparation for 25 percent cut it is great race support it with the defense authorization bill with a lot of language that says this is what we need to do. it is the major problem.

think about what has not been brought up at an observation of the problem with bureaucracies in general. they don't want to get smaller they want to grow so every time it seems there is a bureaucracy that's is asked to reduce its overhead or its headquarters, the date will cherry pick some saying that they do i have introduced legislation that addresses the faa and their treatment of the general aviation. i had problems with reams of bureaucrats from the department knowing they had a lot of people up there, if

you look at the faa in the 1990's the total number of pilots they regulated with 625 pilots to date is 593 so the workload is reduced but in the year 2000 the budget was $9.9 billion and today it is it grew from 9.9 billion up at 16.6 billion. now what do they do if there is an effort by meatier talk about the inflated bureaucracy.

>> what did they reduce. >> so with these examples i don't have to. so is there a way to handle this? that should be discussed even though i have to leave by a suspect that perfect was not brought up. >> it just so happens in january i have a new book coming out. [laughter] that specifically addresses the subtitle lessons on change and reform 50 years of public service valued the it and change the bureaucracy. how you bring about change. one of the elements in the book for example, cruz how to use up period of budget

stringency to change the way an organization does its business. creates an opportunity for a leader who is determined to change things because if you don't have all the money to do we have been done we a have a lot of programs intended the for ruth period make him up with $180 billion of overhead cuts some of those created a strong reaction including here on the hill and senator mccain will recall the action when the shutter the joint forces command. i had the entire delegation of rhodora step in and in my

office. [laughter] >> including the governor who was the worst. [laughter] but to cut $80 billion out but i assigned a the services to find $100 billion of cuts on their own justin the services. but with the approval of the president was tell him that if you find $100 billion or the cut in meet the target i have given, and then you show me new military capabilities or expanded capabilities, i will give you the money back to invest in those. . .