loretta lynch to be the state's attorney general about a month ago. they have yet to hold a vote. her nomination could come to the floor following an upcoming easter recess. on the next washington journal, congressman frank labiondo of new jersey is here to discuss the war powers debate and the u.s. isis strategy. after that congressman tim ryan of ohio a member of the budget and appropriations committees talks about the house debate of the 2016 gop budget proposal. later, a look at the fiscal health of states and the impact of congress of washington on state budgets. our guests are david lilliard tennessee state treasury and james mcentire. washington journal is live every

morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook. here are some of the our featured programs for this week on the c-span networks. on book tv, saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern author peter wall wallison says the housing crisis could happen again opinion direct toror of the earth institute. saturday morning at 10:30 eastern a discussion on the last major speeches of abraham lincoln and martin luther king jr. sunday afternoon at 4:00, the 1965 meet the press interview

with martin luther king jr. find our complete television schedule and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. send us a tweet at c-span hashtag comments. join the c-span conversation like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. tom cotton talks about national security priorities including violent extremism and nuclear weapons in iran. he recently authored a letter to iran signed by 47 republican senators suggesting that any deal would be overturned by a newly elected u.s. president in 2017. following the senators remarks defense experts discuss ongoing work on the 2016 defense budget

by congress. is this event is hosted by the american action forum. welcome good morning. my name is chris griffin. it is my privilege to welcome you today to this event jointly hosted by the foreign policy initiative and the american action forum titled will congress provide for the common defense. this is the second in a series of public briefings on how congress and the president can work together to provide our armed forces with the resources and authorities they require to keep our nation safe at a time of growing threats across the world. this morning, we'll hear from

senator tom cotton and following his keynotes, i will hand off to rachel hoff, with the american action forum, who will introduce and moderate a discussion by a panel of experts -- and aaf president, douglas holts deegan. senator tom cotton was raised on his family's farm in yellow county, arkansas. he attended harvard and harvard law school and after a court ship, entered private practice. like all of us, his life was disrupted by the september 11th attacks. he left the law and joined as infantry officer. he was deployed to iraq and also

to a provincial reconstruction team. after his military career, senator cotton served briefly in the private sector and was then elected to the u.s. house of representatives in 2012. last year, he was elected to serve in the united states senate and know serves in committees of banks, intelligence and armed services where he's chairman of the committee on air land. it has made in speech on the senate floor last week, he warned we have quote systemically underfunded our military. we look forward to the insights today and ask you to please join me in welcoming senator tom cotton. >> thank you, good morning. thanks to fbi and the aaf for hosting me this morning for the important work you do. as the senate prepares to debate and vote on a budget resolution

this week, i have a very simple message this morning. the world is growing ever more dangerous and defense spending is inadequate to confront the danger. today, the united states is engaged again in something of a grand experiment, the kind you saw in the 1930s to allow hitler to rise to power in germany. as then, military strength is seen in many quarters as the cause of military adventurism. strength and confidence -- is not seen to deter aggression, but to provoke it rather than confront our adversaries, our president apologizes for our transgressions, minimizes the threats we confront and the face of terror territories seizes, weapons of mass destructions used and proliferated and innocents murdered. the concrete expression of this experiment is our collapsing

defense budget. for year, we have systemically underfunded our military. marrying this philosophy of retreat with a misplaced understanding of our larger burdens. we have strained our fighting forces today to the breaking point. even as we have eaten away at investments at our future forces. meanwhile, a long-term debt crisis hardly looks any better even as we ask truth to shoulder the deficit redestruction rather than shouldering the arms necessary to keep the peace. the result of this experiment should come as no surprise than the results of the same experiment in the 1930s. ladies and gentlemen, you're welcome. >> as much as these fellow citizens support negotiates with

iran, but negotiates from a piece of strength. where we, where we are dictating the terms of the negotiations. not the circumstances where just two days ago, two days ago let me remind you, atole la ripped up the crowd in iran to say death to america. two days ago, ayatollah in his annual speech whipped his crowd into a frenzy saying death to america. what was his response? yes, certainly, death to america. this is not the man or the regime to whom we should ever make nuclear concessions and in fact -- and in fact, the president's series of one sided nuclear confessions is of a peace with his philosophy of retreat that apologizes for

american conduct and actually undermines our efforts to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon rather than secures it. not just with iran, but around the world, our enemies sensing opportunity have become steadily more aggressive. our allies uncertain of our commitment and cape bable theties have begun to conclude they must look out for themselves even if it's unhelpful. our military suffering from year of -- let's start with the enemy who attacked us on september 11. the president said al-qaeda is is on the run. the fashion, i suppose this was correct. al-qaeda is running wild around the world. it controls now than before. this global network continues to plot attacks against america and the west.

and maintain active in africa, the arabian peninsula and the greater middle east and south asia. further, al-qaeda in iraq -- withdrew from iraq in 2011. given the chance to re-group, al-qaeda and iraq morphed into the islamic state. it cuts the heads off of americans, burns live hostages from allied countries, executes christians and ensaves women and girls. they inspire to plot us here at home, whether by foreign plot or recruiting a lone wolf in our midst. and the threat of islamic terrorism brings me to iran. the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. my objections to these nuclear negotiations are well-known and i don't have to rehearse them here. i will note though that the deal foreshadowed by the president and accepting any expiration date on an agreement to quote

netanyahu, doesn't block iran's path to a bomb. it paves iran's path to a bomb and if you think as i do that the islamic state is dangerous, a republic is even more so. recall after all what iran does without the bomb. iran is an outlaw regime that has been killing americans for 35 years. from lebanon to saudi arabia to iraq. unsurprisingly, iraq, iran is growing bolder and more aggressive as a america retreats from the middle east. ayatollah di in fact two days ago call for death to america just as in recent months, he tweeted the reasons why israel should be eliminated.

militias now control much of our -- a man of blood of hundreds of american soldiers on his hands. iran continues to prop up assad's outlaw regime in syria. iranian aligned and shiite financed militants, the capital of yemen and over the weekend, we had to withdraw further troops from yemen. he has remains our lebanon. put simply, iran dominates or controls five capitals in its controls five capitals in its drive for regional hygimany further, iran has rapidly increased the size and capability of its ballistic missile arsonal and three weeks ago, iran blew up a mock u.s. aircraft carrier in naval exercises and publicized it with great fanfare. iran does all these things without the bomb. just imagine what iran would do with the bomb and aimagine -- largely defenseless against this, but you don't have to imagine much. simply look to north korea because of a naive and failed agreement, that state acquired nuclear weapons. now, america is largely

handcuffed. regrettably, the result of this experiment can also be felt in other parts of the world. take for example the resurgence of russia with whom president obama conciliated and made one sided concessions from the outset of his presidency or china's military build up which is clear against the united states as china purr seuss an ariel deny l strategy to keep american forces outside the so-called first island chain and therefore to expand china's in east asia. now while america is retreated, not only have our enemies been on the march, our allies anxious for years about american revolve now worry about american capabilities. with the enemy on our border, many have begun to conclude they have no choice but to take

matters into their own hands. we should never take our allies for granted, but we shouldn't take for granted the vast influence our security guarantees give us with their behavior. this kind of influence has been essential for american security throughout the post war period. yet it has begun to wane as our allies doubt our commitment and capabilities. and make no mistake, our military capabilities have declined. today, defense spending is only 16% of all spending. historic low rivalled only by a post cold war period. to dip some context, during a cold war, defense spending accounted for 60% of all federal spending, but if we don't end with a treat, this president will leave office with a mere 12% of all federal dollars spent on defense. the pictures is no prettier when cast in light of the economy as a whole and the early poll work,

defense spending was 9% of gross domestic product. today, it sits at a paltry 3.5%. our defense budget isn't just about numbers and arithmetic. it's about accomplishing the mission of defending our country from all threats. the consequences of these cuts are real concrete and immediate. as former secretary of defense panetta explained, these cuts put us on the path to the smallest army since world war ii and the smallest air force ever. and these impacts won't be just immediate. they will be felt long into the future. the key programs will be difficult to restart. manufacturing -- will be lost. the skilled labor pool will shrink. today's weapon system ises and equipment will age and break down. our troops won't be able to train and weapons equipment won't be ready for the fight. in short, we will have a hollow force incapable of defending our national security. what is then to be done? our experiment with retreat must

end. this congress must again recognize that our national security is the first priority of the government and the military budget must reflect the budgets we face rather than the budget defining those threats. this week, the senate budget resolution will reflect $520 billion. while better than defense spending mandated by the budget control act, this is still insufficient. given our readness crisis and the immediate need to modernize aircraft, ship, vehicles and so forth. the national defense panel, a bipartisan group of national security experts convened by congress unanimously recommended a $600 billion floor to the fixed budget.

not a ceiling. i agree that $611 billion is necessary and not sufficient. what then should our budget be next year? well, i will readily acknowledge that we can't be sure how much is needed above $611 billion. the national defense panel explained why. because of the highly constrained department under which the department has been working, the defense review is not adequate as a comprehensive, long-term planning document. thus, the panel recommends that congress should ask the department for such a plan which should been developed without current constraints. i endorse this recommendation. in the meantime though, even if we can't specify a precise dollar amount, we can identify the critical needs on which to spend the additional money. first, our military does face a readiness crisis. from budget cuts in a decade of war. we must act immediately to get our forces back in fighting shape. from flight time and so forth.

second, and related, our military shrinking rapidly to historically small levels. this decline must be reversed. and in strength of the army and many marine core and the navy. third, we must increase research, development and procurement funds to ensure our military retains its advantage as our adversaries gain more access to advanced, low cost technologies. these critical priorities will no doubt be expensive. probably tens of billions of dollars more than the 61 billion baseline suggested. because the massive cuts to our defense budget resulted in record deficits though, the question arises can we afford this? the answer is yes.

without question and without doubt. yes. the facts are not disputable. the defense budget has been slashed by hundreds of billions of dollars over the last six years. the defense budget as i said is only 16% of all federal spending, a low and heading lower if we don't act. and using the broadest measure of possibilities, defense spending is a spending of our economy. last year, we only spent 3.5 on defense. approaching historic lows and it makes you pass it by 2019. to provide context, when reagan took office, we spent 5% of our national income on defense. and president reagan and congressional democrats considered that to be a lange dangerously low amount. that is the point from which they started. if we spent 5% of our national income on defense today, we would spend $885 billion on defense. furthermore, trying to balance the budget through defense cuts is both counterproductive and impossible.

first, the threats we face eventually are catch up with us and they did on 9/11, as they did in the late '70s. we'll have no choice but to increase our defense budget. we'll cost more to achieve the same instate of readiness and modernization than it would have without the intermediate cuts. this is the lesson we learned in the 1980s and in the last decade. second, we need a healthy growing economy to generate the government revenue necessary to fund our military and balance the budget and our globalized world, our prosperity depends heavily on the world economy, which requires global stability and order and who provides that? the united states military. i would suggestion a better question to ask is can we afford to continue our experiment with retreat?

and i would suggest the answer is we cannot. imagine a world in which we continue our current trajectory, where america remains in retreat and our military loses even more edge. it's not a pretty picture. to stop this experiment and turn around american retreat, we must once again show that america is willing and prepared to fight a war in the first place. only then, only when we demonstrate military strength and confidence in america's national security will remake war less likely in the first place. our enemies and allies alike will and must know that aggressors will pay an unspeakable price for challenging the united states. bring about this future by being prepared for war will no doubt take a lot. but i will leave you all with two questions. what could be a higher priority than a safe and prosperous america leading to stable and orderly world and what better use of our precious taxpayer

dollars? thank you, all, god bless you, god bless the united states. >> thank you, again, for joining us this morning. for your insights. it's now a pleasure to welcome rachel hoff to moderate our panel. thank you, rachel. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, chris and to senator cotton for those very inciteful remarks. follow up on the senator's remarks and diving deeper into these questions of current military capacity and capability in order to meet rising national security threats as well as the

defense budget question within the context of the broader fiscal year 2016 budget. previously, he served as director of the congressional budget office next is the policy director at the foreign policy initiative. previously, he was a visiting fellow at the american enterprise institute and served for two years as deputy director in the u.s. department of defense. david also served as a research staff member for defense analysis. and mckenzie, who will start us off, is a resident fellow at the center. she's worked on defense issues both here in the senate and in

the house of representatives as well as in the pentagon. also, secretary of defense and joint staff. mckenzie's served as a staff member on defense council, senator cotton endorsed today. >> thanks for having me. i guess we can pick up, where the senate's going to go this week and the resolutions as opposed. even the president's budget i think the kind of investments that are required that are very similar in line with the national defense panel. which we can speak more about in q and a. i think the biggest question on the table or put another way, the elephant in the room is okay, $39 billion extra in overseas contingency operation spending to get the defense budgets in the neighborhood ballpark of where president obama has them. are a billion over depending on how you calculate it. how is that for defense? well, i'm here to say as

somebody who helped the national defense panel think through some of these issues, it's completely inadequate. it's not just bad budgeting and governing, it's bad defense policy. $39 extra billion in oco or war spending isn't the same defense budget as plussing up the base budget. i know that's hard. i get it. hey, congress has done it twice already and we know they're going to do it again with the deal, some sort of follow on to the ryan murray, but they're not going to do it until they've gone through this long torturous path to get there. but there's the base budget that invests in america's military and basically, the size and structure in the standing responsibilities, the daily global responsibilities. the supplementing spending, called emergency -- there are

two defense budgets and they buy two different things. in fact, the defense budget, one for war spending, has been constricted over time partly because of congress. congress has wanted to restrict the -- it's often in years past particularly when defense budgets were going up, it's the first history -- became everybody's favorite place to stop, stocking stuffer you could imagine that had nothing to do with anything closely related to intelligence. so, to think that even one, that 39 billion ask okay and it's going to buy you the same kind of defenses is inadequate and it's something policymakers really struggle with and don't want to hear. and then two, trying to get that discussion started and what's required for the long-term defense. what's required for changes in

the budget control act and why a base budgeting increase is more important than a one-trm shot in the arm band-aid fix in the oco. is i think the conversation that we might want to get into up here later. but really quickly, why two defense budgets and why two different outcomes? well, the emergency spending money is mostly for sup mentals. for consumables. perishable items, like the milk in our refrigerator or bread on your counter or where ever you put it. there are different type of readness. individual and small unit and large scale maneuver full spectrum. for example, if you were just to take readyness and windle it down, this kind of spending

doesn't buy you the same kind of investments and it doesn't buy you long-term modernization health of the force. so, with that, i'm going to turn that cheery note over to david and stop talking. >> thanks. >> it's on. >> great, thanks. yeah, i only probably have more depressing information to add. somehow, it seems when fpi discusses the state of the world these days, it's not your upper for the morn, but what i'd like to do is expand on what senator cotton said about a long-term trends in defense spending and why is it important to do that. so, of course, we here at fbi and talk a lot about the national defense panel's for recommendations and you get a lot of pushback and it comes from a couple of directions. so, interestingly, this advocacy is often a plank in the center of the political spectrum. if you look at the more than 85 experts that signed the fbi's open letter to congress, you saw

a few notable republicans alongside notable democrats making the case and we hear from more people on both sides. i've discussed this even with veterans who consider themselves progress. they say, no, how can you want to add more dollars for defense. isn't the real strength in economy. look at our debt, our deficit. how can you advocate more spending when these are at historically high levels. if you look at the context, you understand why those are not the case. so, for example, if you look at a choice between defense and education, in the constrained political environment where we have sequestration caps that apply to defense and nondefense spending, one dollar for one is one less for the other, but the fact is, we have it because

there's never been either the political will be or right answer to helps people take on entitlements, so when you look at it, when you hear senator cotton say anywhere from 12 to 17% from this year out to the next five years is consumed by defense spending, that means 80% plus is on nondefense spending. overwhelmingly, that goes to increasing entitlements, so it doesn't need to be a one for one trade off. it's that we have one part that's somewhat out of control and another that has been decreasing sharply. if you look at the contingency budget, that peeked at almost $200 billion in real terms and now, we're talking about whether it should be $50 billion as the president proposed or more. so, 75% there, we're sort of reaping that benefit. and then the base budget has fallen by 15% in real dollars as well, so these are cuts across the board. sorry. now, when it comes to driving the deficit. it's really the same story with entitlement. those are the areas where you're getting more and more spending. they're not under control by the

bca. senator cotton mentioned we were at 5%. if you go back further, it was regularly in the 9 or 10% range in the 1950s. and it sort of gradually began to come down on a glide path. we probably got close with all the sup mental dollars, but now, we are headed down to a place that's less than 4% and may be going down to 3 if the current projections hold. if you think there are three ways to look at the size of the defense budget, one is as a percentage of gdp, what that tell us is that given the size of our economy, can we afford this much. at one point, we were spending 10% and now, under 4, that tells us the overall growth of our economy has outpaced the change

in defense spending. which has followed an up and down shape over the years, where as our economy has grown tremendously. as the percentage of every dollar, how much is spent on defense? again, the norm in the early day of the cold war, it have half of the budget. like spending $1.7 trillion on defense. no one's even proposing that of course. what the panel wants is about a third of that in the base budget. you'd have more if you added in oco. you've seen that constant trend because entitlements has really moved and expanded to fill that gap tremendously. i think it's when i talk to people, i try to add these historical factors because sometimes, they understand it's really a different question. it's not how do we train one for the other. it's how do we get the out of control spending areas so we can afford to spend what we need to, whether it's more scientific research or education and on security spending as well.

i'll turn it over to dr. holts eakin. >> thank you and i want to thank -- i want to thank fpi for joining with aaf for this event and i appreciate the chance to be here. the larger dynamics have been in play for some time. it has been utterly foreseeable that the baby boom generation would age one year at a time every year and we would ultimately get to the point as we are now, where we get 10,000 new beneficiaries every day flowing into social security, medicare, where we see rising spending on medicare, medicaid, social security, the other components of entitlements, which are driving two things. number one, they are driving an enormous amount of projected debt in the united states. if you roll the clock forward ten years, we find we're running a trillion dollar deficit. of that trillion dollar deficit, $800 billion is interest on

previous borrowing, so we as a nation are getting to the point where we're taking on a new card to pay off the interest on the old. it's an extraordinarily dangerous position for the u.s. it is driving out of the budget the kinds of things the founders would have recognized as the role of government. it's driving out investments in research on the nondefense side and driving out spending on national security and those dynamics have been predictable and in play for quite some time and are starting to show up right now. now, faced with budgetary crisis, congress did what it does, which says how did we solve this last time? last time was the mid to late '90s and the quote solution was put caps on defense and nondefense spending.

don't touch the entitlement programs and pray things break your way. well, the is that unlike 20 years ago, the baby boom is not 20 years from retirement. it's here. it's retiring now and those spending demands are going up and that's so we're not going to solve the problem. number two, ultimately solved it with pretending that we had a piece with the fall of the soviet union and it turned out to be eliasive. we weren't as safe as we thought. we went on a procurement holiday for half a decade, which we had to make up in the early 2000s. and then third, ultimately, balance the budget by having a dot com bubble.

we need a new strategy. unfortunately, they've now caught the basic problem in the bca. it's attacking the wrong part of the budget and has put these caps in play and the ultimate solution as david has pointed out is the trade. we need to spend more on defense and nondefense, discretionary spending and take money out of mandatory spending to do it. needs to be undertaken every year. and increasingly large amounts. that solves the debt problem, which admiral mullen identified as our number one threat. that solves the ability to develop the investments and readiness and weaponry and strategic capabilities on defense side. it is unusual for me as the budget guy to be the ray of optimism in an event, so let me try. this a different moment than a lot of the moments i've witnessed on this discussion. in the past, the only people who are ever in favor of entitlement reform are people like me, budget geeks who drew lines and said that's going to be bad and everyone else said no, we want medicare and social security as we know it. now, this is changing. number one, we've done all this, but we don't have good programs. the social security program stays solvent by promising to cut benefits 25% across the benefit. disgraceful way to run a program. the medicare program runs a cash

flow deficit of $300 billion every year. and doesn't deliver high quality care to our seniors, so there's a recognition these programs have to be better in their own right and there's now advocates for changes to the entitlement programs. i spoke to the nondefense discretionary coalition. it exists. the single worst named coalition in washington. need a better name. but these are now advocates for entitlement form because there's the recognition we need to get this done. and so, that's at the bottom pressure politically through the grass roots. from the top down, anyone who runs for president in 2016 and everyone's running, anyone here running? any way, their advisers are going to tell them you want to be governing in 2024. if so, you're the president overseeing the debt crisis and defense readiness crisis. the 16 cycle is going to have to

foreshadow the need to get the budget in order. that's top down politics that have been missing recently. no leadership from the top. to make big changes. so, i think there's a chance we can get this fixed. it's never simple or easy. just sort of complicated in the united states. but the recognition of these dynamics is here and it's time to change the bca and get the right policy in place. >> well, thanks very much. a bit of a ray of optimism, which is unusual. >> always go for an economist when you need some fun. >> it's true. it's true. let me start off with just some questions for the panel of my own, then we'll turn to the audience for your questions. here in a few minutes. let me start with david. you outlined several different ways to conceive of the defense budget. percentage of gdp, share of the federal budget, another way that the defense budget is often

portrayed within the context of global defense spending. critics of increased domestic u.s. defense spending would point out we spend more than any country in the world on defense. can you help provide context by putting it within the context of global trends in defense spend spending. >> absolutely glad to do so. so, you know, that number you hear is correct. we do spend more than the next seven, eight, nine countries combined, but there's important things to consider. that must be evidence to spending too much. what is the role that america has in the world. again, senator cotton has his head on. we are the guarantor of expansion in the stability of people. if you look at how the world was before 1945, when there was no single dominant power, you could

sort of have a major systemic war that left vast destruction in its way for every 30, 40, 70 years, they kept recurring from napoleon to the mid 17th century and world wars 1 and 2. since 1945, there's been another power causing a lot of trouble for the first 40 years, but with the one dominant one in place, that could help secure the order as well as have an expansion of freedom because there have been dramatic increases in the number of democracies. if we continue to see ourselves playing this role, so, how much does china spend on defense? we don't exactly know. they're a relatively credible estimates or considered to be the best. there's a swedish think tank. the pentagon does some. people think it's around $180 billion, so around a third of u.s. defense spending, but china doesn't think about spending in order to achieve global stability. it's more about this is how we can push the u.s. and its allies back in the east asia near our shores. we're going to design a strategy and therefore, we have the burden of going to meet that strategy it's important to realize we're going to be play

ing away way game. if it's march madness, the nfl, in war, it's better to play an away game because you won't like what's going to happen to your home land in the war takes place there. if we think about the air force and navy, they cost a fair amount of money and what allow us to project power pretty much to any corner of the globe and have us deal with a kris or threat there. of course, china's not the only region. whether it's iran or isis in the middle east. we are investing in the ability to project power there. the threats they present or if you look at what putin is doing, of course, he only spends a fraction of what we do. it's not like the soviet union. even know, it's difficult to know how much they were spending. the fact is, we have to look at the obligations of nato. so it's really only the united states that has this global role and so, even if you add up the value of the next seven or eight

or nine however other many powers, it's not going to give you the right answer. that's not a way to arrive at what you need. you have to take a strategic approach, what are the threats we face in these different regions and what are the military forces we need to deal with them. and one last note, it is worth observing that certain countries, china and russia especially have increased their spending dramatically that in a decade, it's been almost double, if not more. if you go back further, they were starting at a low base. follow the russians four fold. it's disturbing and they're increasing their capability. ultimately, the biggest question is how much power. and finally, ls the question how much bang are we getting for our buck and one of the pessimistic note, we've been getting less bang for our buck in the defense department.

some is just the fact we're a prosperous economy and you have to pay highly qualified personnel more, so the costs rise over time as the economy grows. we've had persistent rise in the cost of operations and maintenance and we've had some well-known troubles in acquisition. if someone wants to frame the debate and even senators, not senator cotton of course have done this, they say, oh, we're spending too much because we spent more than the next seven or eight powers combined. think about america's interests, not just abl dollar figures. >> doug, you say this may be a different moment and we may have a chance to finally fix some of zooming in particularly on the fy 16 budget resolution, it includes a deficit both sides now include reserve funds for defense. can you provide some context for us in terms of these reserve funds, how have they been used historically -- >> so, it is such a joy to

see people pay attention to the budget resolution. i recommend that be everyone in this room. the budget resolution is not a law. it is passed as an agreement between the house and senate. it often includes as it does this year, both an allocation for spending on defense and adheres to the cap and the bca. and then other mechanisms, should you wish to raise that allocation. and the mechanism in play this year is a deficit neutral reserve fund. what that says in english is suppose they pass a bill that comes in above the allocation of $499 billion. then the budget chairman can stand up and say, i invoke the deficit neutral reserve fund. you can spend $525 billion as long as we get some in offset somewhere, so it allows the congress to break its own budget an in the process, it avoids having a point of order against proceeding to the appropriations bill, so it's a procedural mechanism that gets taken out of the way. allows you to go forward with a

defense bill. those that have been around a long time. when we passed the prescription drug bill in 2003 -- all of this is important to remember is very nice. but it doesn't change the law. the fundamental problem is we have a budget control act that says no matter how much you appropriate, we are going to cut it back to 499 unless we change the budget control act and for that purpose, the budget resolution sets the debate up, but doesn't solve the problem. we need to pass appropriations bills and pass changes the budget control act that give greater funding. >> thanks. and mckenzie, picking up on this question, provided no change, if there is no change in law, no change to bca, but congress does appropriate funding for the pentagon, what are the consequences for these kind of

short-term fixes for our military and for feint gone in terms of plan something. >> the first is what's going to happen on the floor. not the budget debate this week or next week or however long it goes on. we've already seen in the recent paths and boy, if anything is predictable, it's these congresses in the past six years. i should actually, it's been outlined, they like to take ideas off the shelf from 20 years ago, so this group is a highly predictable one. we've seen in recent congresses are members banning together on the left and right to strip oco money back. heard this line before, good friends like collin and john in the audience have written the story a thousand times, but the pentagon didn't ask for it, so it becomes a edition about does that need more money and if not,

then we're going to take it out. chris van hollen, congress from maryland, nick mull vainy have been in many times to do this. there was an amendment. a total account of 5 billion. took $3.5 billion out and they agreed to it. so the $39 billion in the extra money is allowable. it is the ceiling. that is not what will be appropriated for defense. and there will be fair and legitimate arguments to take that money away. congress itself said no to f-22s and the emergency spending bill several years ago. the -- the leadership is going to want to put hardware and equipment into oko and that is not supportable by most members of congress and the question is what will happen on the floor. once the pentagon loses money

that they think they might be able to get it will take it back to the last four years of the wild swing in defense planning and no fiscal certainty for the department and that is alone the most insufficient things you can do for pentagon. there is internal bureaucratic thinking that is unjustifiable for taxpayers. and if they are looking at this, program managers hoard their cash, whether it is sequestration or caps or continuing resolution that starts the fiscal year, however it turns out, it is not the number we are talking about this week for defense. it is a number lower. that is a fact. that is a guarantee. you can go to vegas and tell them mackenzie sent you. when that number is finally appropriated and the president signs it into law and it could be 2016 when it happens and it

could be lower than the total amount than this week. and that means contracts are held in abeyance and things are deferred and in anticipation of the uncertainty on capitol hill. and even when the money is approved, there is a debate about how much more readiness certain components or services are needed, particularly right now. for the readiness right now there are pockets of incredibly high readiness at the d.o.d., and that is good, but you can only pour so much money into readiness without wasting it. some of the readiness are in large-scale maneuver and longer term readiness and some of it is function of readiness. and some can't get through the national training center. we don't have another national training center and money isn't going to solve that problem. so the third consequence is what you can buy with that money and what is needed is modernization

and what you can't spend this money on is modernization. >> let me sneak in one more question for doug before opening it up to the audience. you spoke about how defense spending might play a role in the -- or fixing these long-term problems might play a role in 2016 problem and one of the pieces of doug's bio i didn't mention is he served as domestic director for john mccain's campaign. so how do you speculate not just fixing the long-term problems and the question of entitlement looking forward to 2024 but how might sequestration play out for the 2016 candidates on both

sides of the aisle? >> my reasoning on this comes from really two pieces. number one, it is always better to figure out what people have to do rather than what they want to do. and we have to fix this. i mean, the numbers are overwhelming in terms of the accumulation of debt, the financial instability of the federal budget. if you just stay on auto pilot for another eight to ten years. politicians have correctly stay add way from the programs because everybody has seen granny thrown off the cliff but she's quite durable. and that has to change. and anybody who has done the arithmetic knows that so you have to lay the groundwork. you won't see big details in '16. but from 16 to 18 to 20, you'll see medicare is not serving our seniors and we need to fix it and make it better and all of

those things. and the second piece is if you look at the polling on the ground right now, people are scared about our security. period. the american public understands this is a dangerous world and if you sort of ask all of the questions about -- the fiscal hawks favor about controlling this and that and getting deficits down and they agree with that. and ask about projecting american values around the globe and securing national interests around the globe and if you pit them head to head, the defense hawks defeat the fiscal hawks on the ground. presidential candidates know this. and they poll all of the time so they acknowledge the fiscal problem but talk about the need for a stronger defense budget and better national security. >> so turning to all of you. we have about 30 minutes to take some of your questions, three quick advisory points, make sure

for the microphone to reach you for the benefit of our cspan friends at home and be sure it is a question. so we have a couple right up front here. and we'll start out right here in the front. >> colin clark. breaking defense. so i don't think there is anybody around here who would disagree that something has to be done. so far nothing really has been. as you guys look over the next couple of months, what are the appropriators going to do? >> i'll start. they've been broadcasting it loud and clear and i'm sure you know.

they will appropriate to caps, period, for defense. it is 499-051. $499 million for the base. the authorizers are a different story. that is interesting. i believe both chairman are marking towards the president's budget request of $553 billion, 051 again. and what will they do with oco. it seems they will coalesce around the amount, no reserve fund, which is troubling because this is all debt financed any way when you are talking emergency spending money and the half of it they were trying to make offset allowable is going to be taken away. so will they mark up to -- well,

it is 51 plus 39 -- $90 billion for the defense department. a couple of things regarding that. one, $51 billion is too low any way. we know the emergency supplemental for defense is too low. last time around, mr. freeling asked, things have changed, ebola, isis, crimea, what is the new number and pentagon came back with a new number. and the same thing that happened last year will happen again. and how much does the defense department come back and say is needed. it is higher than the $51 billion but we don't know the number. it is probably in the 60's range. i don't know if it is the low or high 60s. and that will flow to the department. and you still have an extra -- you still have 25, $30 billion that you can play with allowable under the budget resolution for the contingency account. and the question is what does

pentagon leadership do. and that is something being discussed by the civilian leadership at the defense department right now. how do we react to what congress is possibly going to let us do. it is possible that pentagon leadership says we don't want to want the extra money and that's going to change everything up here because congress is going to want to hand the department money they don't want because it is not the kind of money we need. that will change the dynamic and keep the number a lot lower. it will keep the number closer to $70 billion total in oko. i don't think we'll get near $90 billion, there just isn't enough to spend it on the things needed. >> and to just add a quick note. one of the attractive things in theory about adding oco money especially on a budget resolution stage is you don't have to do a political trade of one for one of plussing up domestic discretionary you have the advantage oko is in effect, not restricted by the caps, there are complex ways in which it is. you can sort of put money there and the cap will rise along with

it and you act as if you have that more money and you don't have to have the tradeoff. there are ways everyone could agree to go along, that even though oko is not was not really meant to be long-term modernization funding, if you say black is white and white is black and then appropriators, the administration and then the white can be black in the case of oko and it can be used for anything but once you get away from the people that need to put together a budget resolution for that tallies in the right way, you'll have problems. mackenzie explained how there is a potential for a democrat-republican coalition that does not like unjustified oko and if the pentagon says they don't need it, it is especially problematic. i think there's potential that omb, the administration can say we don't want it and we don't consider it oko and i think the doctor can speak about the precise rules but if omb doesn't agree it is oko or overseas contingency operations, for those who get thrown off by all the acronyms we throw around, they don't have to go along with

it and that may even be a bargaining tactic, because obviously the administration does not want oco to be a way to plus up the defense budget without having to bargain with democrats for additional domestic discretionary spending. so while they can't get in the way of republican majorities passing budget resolutions like this, we will come to points in the road where democrats have their say just as minorities have their say in other situaions where they also control the administration. >> rachel, i left that point out. one last thing on david's point, i believe the president when he said he'll veto the defense budget that comes in at caps, regardless of the oko, i think he'll do that. so that is why i know we'll start this year with a continuing resolution, unfortunately. >> so the outlines of the deal are clear and the tools are there to get it done. so you'll spend more in the base budget on defense and you'll exceed the caps. the price will be more nondefense spending and the president will demand it and the democrats will demand it. that is no big deal in the

senate. all that you have, if you exceed the allocations is a 16 point of order against the bill and you need 60 in the senate to pass it regardless. so you get the money if the deal is struck. and the deficits are dealt with by reducing mandatory spending and in both budget resolutions have included reconciliation instructions to all the committees at minimal amounts, but you can exceed the reconciliation instructions. they have littered it with the capablility to get mandatory spending reductions to offset the senate on simple majorities and reconciliation is only useful if the president wants to sign. so otherwise there is just a long and time consuming way to get a veto. but that means that you have to get a deal. you have to get presidential leadership that says i want this, you want that and i will sign the offset to make sure that we maintain our deal with the american public on deficits. we haven't seen this white house

successfully pull that off in any setting so far. but it is on the table if they want to get there. and that is the right policy argument. presidential leadership would make it a better political argument. >> yes, sir. >> peter humphrey, a former diplomat and current analyst. my concern is the pentagon isn't getting in on the future of swarmed warfare. imagine dozens of cruise missiles instead of another overpriced f-22. imagine hundreds of drones instead of f-22, imagine if we lose an aircraft carrier, what can the congressional budgeters do to compel the pentagon to look at buying a thousand millenium falcons instead of another death star? >> it is part of the discussion and the debate in the policy

making communities the reserrection of mass an attrition of base warfare of the future. and where numbers just matter. again it is not just the extraordinary capability the u.s. can bring to bear but how much capacity do we have. and normally when people use the word capacity, they are talking about army but it can apply across the fleets and services and units and capability sets. there is an appreciation that is the thinking that is required. these budgets don't support it even if it's a lower cost item. back in 2013, this is not just the budget control acts one but the sequestration and then sequestration level spending that have hit the pentagon modified since. the hardest hit spending is not just in modernization and specifically in procurement but in all of the minor procurement programs.

we think about the major defense acquisition programs and they have certainly taken reductions but really it is the 60% of those -- that spending on all of the little things that the defense department wants to buy has taken the hardest hit. the death by a thousand cuts story. so as this debate continues and we see this play out for the fiscal year '16, pentagon leadership has said the plurality of reductions that will happen when we don't get the president's request for defense will come out of the same account and will probably happen in a similar way budgetarily as has happened in recent years. so right now it is important to have discussion but i don't think there will be much action on that kind of recommendation until there is more fiscal certainty for the department. it is definitely in the conversation leading up to 2016, however. >> i think that is a great look at the political dynamics.

i would add that part of the question is built around the idea is it possible for congress to exercise that kind of intellectual leadership in dealing with future threats. in general, i'm not optimistic. it's part of the system. the pentagon is larger and with centers in every service dealing with intellectual service and new doctrines. i don't think congress is that inclined to challenge fundamentally the kind of strategy and technology and weapons systems proposed, so the most effective channel for reform may be within the schoolhouse or the different services or the defense intellectual community. congress says we don't like things but it is often at the margins. it's not a major rethink. it's we don't want this plane or we do want that plane. it's too early to cut the a-10, we have to keep the a-10. i'm not sure we see too many cases. there is room for something striking. what if an aircraft carrier was sunk but that might have to be a war with china for that to happen.

there's room for unexpected events to change thinking, and also again that might act through the defense and the military before congress stepped up to the plate. >> i'm not a defense expert but my experience in agencies across the government is congress is much more likely to cement adherence to the past than to change things for the future. and you know, all of those members have districts and they have stuff in it from the past and they don't want to change it. and that is a more common dynamic than really forcing an agency to change the way it does business. >> other questions? yes, sir. >> i have a question about foreign propaganda. isil have videos where they are executing assad regime members and videos executing russian intelligence agencies and i believe that is for the western

media, not for those particular countries and so my question is given russia's case in syria, and they sponsor assad's regime, they became a super power, because russia with ukraine is a super power and they have better ways of going through the turkish straits than we do because of the convention, and we can only have a token presence in the black sea and the syrian port is the first port they come to, so they can expand their navy with that, so we have this supposed conflict between assad and isil and the iran, iraq and the shooting down of the malaysian air could be an article five offense, certainly if -- i think that is the only time the article five has come into effect, but the afghanistan war was due to shooting down september 11th aircraft and the shooting down of the malaysian air would be just as much as an article five offense, so how do you maintain a balance and dispassionately plan your

defense budget when there is propaganda that is designed to provoke rage and passion which you have to put aside. >> do you want to go first? >> no. you go first. >> no, i'm glad to. a lot of the propaganda is targeting the west. i'm not sure how much of an impact it has on planning and spending. many people might say that the decision to sort of brutally execute a number of american journalists is an effective provocation and has led to us taking more action and on the other hand i think there is a strong case we are ignoring the threat and they did us the favor of alerting the american public as to just how grave it was, this is a group that really sees no limits on the brutality and the ambition down the road for theological and ideological reasons is to attack the american homeland. so in some ways it provides a complement to a strong rational

case for dealing with the threat. in terms of balancing between regions, the administration proposed a few years ago as part of the current strategy, still nominally in place, the pivot to asia. it wants to believe that europe was a place spreading security to other regions and we could do less in the middle east without having it be a quote unquote priority and put more into asia. and part of the challenge is we can't trade off one region less and one region more. they each have the potential for major threats to emerge and whether only panels are considering this, you have to have a structure to deal with the threats in all of them. and that does mean the defense budget will go higher but we tried to make the point before, not higher by the historic levels or even approaching the cold war or reagan's level. regean's last year in office, i believe 27% of the budget was for defense and if we went back up to the low 20s or around the same percentage of gdp, we could

handle all three of these theaters so i'm less concerned about having our balance distorted by propaganda, except for the chinese. the chinese are trying to have the opposite kind of propaganda. they realize the smartes kind lulls us to believe there isn't a threat and the other regions have propoganda that exagerates the threat, which only provoked a response. >> and i appreciate your point about emotional reactions and congressional -- emotional actions and congressional reactions. this town is too good at managing crises as opposed to solving problems. i don't think we should expect much different, and unfortunately for the next two years, however there is a growing recognition that there is a problem in doing this, and that has been identified already. senator cotton in his key note mentioned this. there will come a moment when we spend more. and i guess what i would say is,

not just this congress, but this administration, there is no spigot turning back on for defense regardless of the threat, that is a problem, one. and also it is a challenge, too. and let's pretend things changed and it did. but one, there is an increasing conventional wisdom in town that the pentagon can deal with anything and everything and it will have to deal with what it's got and what it's got is continuing to get smaller and older and less capabable so that is not -- and as that happens, we're dialing down the strategy and we're dialing down our objectives globally which is its own challenge but i don't see any threat to cause a windfall in defense spending for the next two years. it is not coming. this is a discussion for beyond 2016. but then the discussion is when it is time to rebuild, if that is what is agreed upon by the left and the right in washington, then where do we put those investments and where do

we spend any extra money. and again here, washington is just not -- doesn't have a good proven track record, particularly in response to crisis. if 9/11 happened again, knowing what we know now, i don't want a dni and security intelligence apparatus and department of homeland security. there are so many things wrong with the dollars we poured into security in 9/11 and so much inefficiency. i'd argue we weren't prepared for the crisis that turned it back on, but we won't. >> next question here from jordan. >> thank you. jordan slopie, nato special operations headquarters. my question is a little bit larger and broader. our partners and allies watch our budget debates and actively watch our congressional engagements, and see the dysfunction we portray on the flip side we have our national leaders criticizing nato members and criticize partners and allies that they don't spend

enough or accurately and what advice can you give the partners and allies to not only spend more and granted i do think they need to spend more but how do they spend better. and that is the bigger question. not just pouring more dollars but what should the dollars go towards? >> sure. that is a fair point. and something we've had defense secretaries preaching to our allies for years now. and it is a good question. and i don't think the message was sinking in until now until our friends are charging the hill and turning around and realizing we're not there. it's only a function of reality at this point. we can talk until we are blue in the face and it wasn't going to be enough until we realize that our smaller military can't do everything that it has promised in the past and in some cases overly promised. that is a whole worrisome

problem as an american for other reasons but it is truly what it is. we have declining capacity and capability and technological superiority, so it is really a function of naked self-interest and we have to have those adult conversations with friends and allies and we need those adult conversations in america about entitlements. it's completely unaffordable. david and i are never going to see a dollar of social security, that's the end of the story. if you are under 40, you're not going to see it. let's have the adult conversations, and i think that's one of them. >> i'm willing to think i'll see half. >> maybe a quarter. >> and a question right here. >> good morning. my name is joann chase. i want to thank senator cotton and every member of this panel.

i have a question. you mentioned something to the effect that no matter the interest we have in increasing this budget, the will is not there within our congress, is that correct? >> the will? >> to raise the budget and vote on increasing it. >> oh, right now. i don't think the will is there in washington. as we've seen recent threats emerge, like islamic state, like russia and china's aggression in the south chinese sea. no one has made the case, the leadership case for more defense spending in to a world of rising threats. the pentagon's making the case they need to tread water but no significant increases. >> is there anything we can do, the members of the electorate, congressional districts and senatorial districts and can we make any difference or are we having the conversation to educate the people for the next congress? is there something we can do

now? >> that is the question every panelist would love to hear. that is truly the right question. i'm going to let you guys take the first stab at that. >> i was going to say, a little part of political party analysis, what is blocking greater defense spending. so now we have the democrats control the white house and republicans have majority but not a veto-proof, not a filibuster proof in the senate. and if you listen to the armed services committe hearings in the senate, you hear them denounce sequestration and its limits again and again and if the armed services committee were the entire house and senate, they would be fired up to do something about it but they would still hit a road block because when democratic members speak, what they can't say explicitly is they need to have the one for one. for every single dollar of defense spending, to bring the entire party on board, you need another dollar of nondefense

spending. and then when you look at how republicans react to that, those on the armed services committee can tolerate some degree of tradeoff that the security threat is so acute, if the political price to pay is some additional defense spending, nondefense spending they will have it but yet party as a whole isn't in a place to be comfortable with that tradeoff. that with sequestration and all of its problems, a fair number of people on the republican side say this is the exceptionally rare case where we controlled -- brought down federal spending by about $100 billion a year and we don't want to give it up and first of all, even if we do come to a deal, it is inefficient. and if the democrats said it is a price one for one. and so only half of it can go to defense. even if there is a willing block on either side for more defense spending, the related conditions about needing more spending or demanding less spending don't want to go along with it so you can imagine a major tilt in either direction. if the democrats came out of the next election with both houses

of congress, including 60 in the senate and the white house, they could pursue the plus-up strategy of lift sequestration and have another $100 billion for defense and $100 billion for nondefense discretionary. and if the republicans controlled the 60 in the senate and the house, they could pursue something which would be more defense at the expense of other accounts or push through entitlement reforms unacceptable to the democrats to generate money for other concerns but without one side having a dominant hand, the conditions each side imposes on defense spending prevents them from doing that much even though they all say this is a terrible situation. >> thank you, i'm a little more optimistic than these two. i really am. >> because you're getting social security, sir. >> that is true. i am. i'm getting 75 cents on the dollar. so post 2016, there is the chance to fundamentally make some changes. that won't happen until then. but in terms of incremental funding of the defense

department, i think there is more will than these folks believe. because the president came in above the caps. and so he's laid down a marker and, yes there will be a price, the nondefense discretionary spending, absolutely. yes, there are people who hate that. but that is the nature of deals. deals are not clean victories, they are coalitions of the disgruntled getting half of what they want. and i think, again, the key is going to be what are the offsets? it has to be offset. it should be offset over the mandatory accounts and the president has to give republicans cover on the offsets. if he hangs them out to dry prior to the 2016 election, nothing gets done. but if the president does what presidents should do to get the right policy, then there is a chance to get a little deal in '16 and it will look like ryan murray, some discretion for mandatory offsets.

most of the mandatory offsets were gimmicks. there will be some gimmicks involved here as well, and you'll do it again for the fy-17 budget and it will be tiny amounts of money, enormous amounts of money and political pain and they'll decide the year after that to stop the nonsense and do something bigger. but i think there is a chance for it to prevail. >> let me round that out and it is -- incredibly true. >> nothing is incredibly true. >> it's so much pain and fake money any ways, and it's not even that much but that is how it will ultimately happen. because i think there will be a deal prior to the primary. i never discount good old-fashioned politics. my colleague here from the american enterprise institute and former senatoe, he says when a poitician says something three times publicly, they own it. it becomes their thing. they want to make it an issue. if they're not hearing this is a

priority and they will deal with whatever is the next crisis at the front door. they are not going to fix the leaking roof if the car has a flat tire. and we're talking about the leaking roof, the long-term systemic problems and the squeaky wheel metaphor and that will get the grease. and if they don't think that is a priority of those who spend time with elected officials in both branches or appointed in some cases then it won't get attention that it deserves or the long-term attention. and i keep reading the headlines that -- in shock and a little bit of awe to borrow a defense term that speaker boehner and nancy pelosi are working together to come up with a permanent fix to come up with a permanent doc fix and they made a budget deal and every time the bill comes due for medicare or something or other, you can speak to what it is, i live in a

defense world, they continue to pass ways to pay for it so this cut to doctor's payments to medicare never becomes a reality. it is over $200 billion, and we can only dream of a way to fix this for defense. and there seems to be a will and a way when it comes to a big three entitlement that needs some permanent fixing. and they've shown they can be bipartisan and they'll find the money. so this clearly isn't a priority. if they don't show it is a priority, it won't be a priority. >> and they went through the doc fix 17 times in order to fix that so there is a slow learning curve on some things. >> jeff steel with the american legion. chairman thornberry spoke at csis on acquisition reform. the post had an article, and they quoted gordon adams'

skepticism and i'm curious about what you think about thornberry's reforms and their possibilities? >> i was so busy preparing for this panel, i honestly didn't read the article, i didn't see his speech. he gave his maiden speech, on house committee chairman and he previewed what he will do on acquisition and talked about the fact it will be a bite-sized look and not a sweeping levin mccain bill like two congresses ago which i think is finally a good thing. usually when you add more people, bodies, regulation and dollars it is a recipe for more acquisition dollars in the future. i don't know the specifics of the proposal but i think his fresh approach and in some cases unwinding but i'm more interested in not what you are going to add to the defense system but what you take away so i'll give the report card of the ratio of adding to taking away and if he gives more adding than taking away then you gets an a.

>> i would like to put the issue in a bit of a larger context for the audience. on one point, another thing that you often hear from both sides whenever you talk about the need for more defense is how can you ask for a single more dollar when so much is being wasted. the unholy trinity of waste, fraud and abuse and until you exhaust those, how can you ask for more. and there are scandals at the pentagon when you heard about fraud and abuse but waste is the biggest problem that people are targeting. and we can't reform our way out of this budget crisis. because the impulse is well if there is this waste to get rid of and it is the acquisition of procurement that has the greatest trouble of any of the major areas, let's deal with it that way. so obviously, in some ways the jury is still out on the wasara or the mccain reforms and they tend not to have big-ticket savings in the near term, so

even if you had effective savings, it might take a long time before you knew you have those savings. and acquisition reform in general in the defense community is an area where so much intellectual effort has been invested over so many decades and people don't seem to have engineered the problem correctly. perhaps it is more about a cultural problem or the leaders who can force someone to be accountable. and senator mccain, one of his standard questions he throws at witnesses was how much was the ford class carrier over budget and the answer is $2 billion and he'll say how many people lost their job over that and the answer is none. and it is hard to find a point of responsibility and that is the point he's making and there is no point that somebody should lose their job even when something is $2 billion over budget. the general issue is even with

all of these reforms, we won't generate what is necessary to make up the difference between sequestration level budgets and national defense panel level budgets or what might be necessary if threats continue to grow as they have in the past year. >> i'll just say, i never wanted to learn about acquisition reform so i hired rachel to learn it. so that is her problem. but the thing i would stress is the pentagon budget has the same problem the u.s. budget has on a smaller scale. it has a retirement problem and health care problem and there isn't enough acquisition reform to compensate for those things crowding out what we think of as real military capabilities so there has recently been a panel to propose compensation reforms and that is important and that is the reform we need to see move forward to clear out reform in the pentagon budget. >> and my apology for double dipping on a question, but i agree with that. those areas, they're not often thought of as waste when we think of money going to troops, there is no way to compensate

them when you think their lives on active duty or the risks they take on the field and there is no right answer but we need to control this cost growth and mackenzie said it quite well, we have these two binding obligations to the troops, to compensate them appropriately because they've given up other fields and to make sure they have the equipment, and we want to satisfy both all the time but we are increasingly at the point where proper compensation is muscling out the other parts of the budget. at an event, michelle florring, who was under president obama, a member of the national defense panel she talks about it through her own personal experience, as a navy wife, the benefits are important in terms of pension and health and other things, but she's also a navy mom with a son going in, i believe to annapolis and that concerns me much more, i'm worried about my son having the right equipment they need to accomplish the mission and survive than i am about a

marginal decrease in the benefits. but it is politically difficult. that's not what a congressman is going to hear because there is a huge amount of pressure from tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands who don't want benefits cut. and the line which you hear in which one can have sympathy is why are we balancing the budget on backs of veterans before we take on entitlements for people who haven't served their country. >> we'll leave it on that provocative note. thank you to the panel for a wonderful discussion and to senator cotton for getting the conversation started today and to my panel on aif and thank you to all of you for joining us. [ applause ]

coming up on c span 32 the brookings institution will hold a commission on the future of the u.s. postal service. they'll address the current state of the postal service and changes needed to improve the financial condition of this government institution. live coverage gets underway at 10 eastern. at one 30 more of our continuing coverage of the 2016 budget with fbi director joems comey. he'll be testifying before a house appropriations sub committee. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend. on c span 2 book tv saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern an

afterwards. an author says government housing policies caused the 2008 financial crisis. sunday at 5:director of the earth institute on a development plan to counter global issues like political corruption and environmental decay and saturday morning at 10:30 eastern on american history tv, a discussion on the last major speeches of abe ra ram lincoln and martin luther king jr. and then the 1965 meet the press interview with martin luther king jr. let us know what you think about the programs you're viewing. e-mail us, call us or tweet us. join the c span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter.

now several of president obama's cabinet secretaries address attendees at this year's national league of cities krchgs. this portion features homeland security jeh johnson. and interior secretary. in addition to agency priorities, the administration officials talk about public private partnerships on the city live. it's about an hour and 20 minutes. good afternoon again, and welcome everyone. we welcome you to this afternoon's general session. thank you to jimmy robins for entertaining the crowd and to the city of nashville for bringing him to washington. thank you so much. let's give him a round of

applause. this morning we were honored to be part of a historic event for the national league of cities and its members. i believe this afternoon's session will be memorable in its own right and very informative as well. we will hear from several representatives from the administration as well as a thought provoking panel decision on infrastructure and climate change. it is now my pleasure to introduce our first speaker this afternoon. secretary of homeland security jeh johnson. i know from my experience, you will really enjoy him and we're going to learn a lot. he was sworn in on december 23, 2013, as the fourth secretary of homeland security. prior to joining dhs he served as general counsel for the department of defense where he

was part of the senior management team and led more than 10,000 military and civilian lawyers across the department. as general counsel of the defense department, secretary johnson oversaw the development of legal aspects of many of our nation's counterterrorism policies. he spearheaded reforms to the military system at guantanamo bay in 2009 and co-authored the 250 page report that paved the way for the repeal of don't ask don't tell in 2010. his career has included extensive service in national security, in law enforcement and as an attorney in private and corporate law practice. from its role in facilitating u.s. infrastructure and enforcing immigration laws to his responsibilities for coordinated responsibilities to national disasters and other large emergencies, cities recognize the importance of strong leadership in and area of homeland security.

please join me in welcoming secretary jeh johnson. >> thank you, mayor. it's good to be here. good afternoon, everybody. welcome to washington and 60 degree weather. i know we're really happy about that. as i was in the back waiting to come up here, i had a moment of great trepidation listening to the musical segment. someone said to me well, you know you have to sing. i said oh. well, i can't sing. your secretary of homeland security does not know how to carry a tune. i do know a few things about the national league of cities. i'm here to pay tribute to this

organization and to thank you for two very, very major and important positions that you have taken over the last several months, and i haven't asked, which i will get to. i have an important ask. first, i have to tell a story. thank you for the wonderful and warm welcome you gave our president this morning. i recall. this is a good group. i'm going to enjoy talking to you. i recall eight years ago, january 2008, des moines, iowa, introducing senator barack obama for the first time to my 12-year-old daughter. then twelve, now a college freshman. he walked into the room. there were many cameras.

there was a lot of excitement and my daughter was standing right behind me, and i said to her follow me. i'm going to finally introduce you to our next president of the united states issue senator barack obama, and we pushed forward through the crowd, and i turn around to introduce my twelve-year-old to senator obama and she is gone. and the reason she is gone is because scarlett johansson has walked into the room. so i found my daughter. i scolded her, and she said i'm really sorry, dad, and to my twelve-year-old's credit, on her own, she pressed forward through the cameras, through the fans, and introduced herself to senator obama with the words mr. obama, i'm really sorry. my dad wanted me to meet you but i had to meet an important

person first. i'm sure you all would agree that our president is an important person. all of you are important people for reasons that i am going to discuss today. i was in selma, alabama yesterday, and as i sat through the almost four-hour church service listening to the speeches and sermons, my mind turned to -- i'm a graduate of morehouse college, class of '79, my mind turned to martin luther king jr. one of my favorite quotes from martin luther king is the following. the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments

of convenience and comfort but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy. today, of course, we have to modify that to say man or woman. today i'd like to say to you the national league of cities, the ultimate measure of an organization is not where it stands in moments of convenience and comfort. but where it stands at times of challenge and controversy. so i want to thank the national league of cities first for your stand with the men and women of the department of homeland security as we fought for a full year appropriation last week. i want to thank you for standing with the 225,000 people in our organization who were members of

the coast guard, the secret service, fema, immigration enforcement, citizenship and immigration services. i could go on and on, for your courageous and unyielding stand in support of the homeland security of this nation, in support of a full year appropriation for our department, and in support of our people. many people have said to me, congratulations you membership happy, and i had to respond, we walked back from a cliff. i would have had to furlough 30,000 men and women of our department who depend on a paycheck. you mayors out there, imagine having to tell your own work force, you must come to work but i can't pay you during the period of time that you come to work. so we avoided the shutdown and we now have a full year appropriation for fy 15. it is a good bill.

it is a good appropriation. we are now able to fund our vital homeland security missions which includes important grants to states, towns and cities like those represented in this room for purposes of homeland security. it is especially important that in these times we work together on our joint homeland security mission. the reality is that we've evolved to a few phase in the global terrorist threat which requires that we evolve to a new phase in our counterterrorism efforts. the global terrorist threat today is more decentralized, more complex. it includes the phenomenon of foreign fighters, those going to places like syria and then returning to their own

communities. it involves effective use of the internet to reach into communities, perhaps your own community in an attempt to improve and inspire someone to commit an act of violence. we're concerned about the independent actor, the so-called lone wolf who could strike at a moment's notice. for my part and the u.s. government in general, it makes working with state and local communities, mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs all the more important. we do this through the issuance of joint intelligence bulletins and through our grant-making activity. the reality is that given how the global terrorist threat as evolved in this country and in other countries in europe and elsewhere, the cop on the beat

may be the first one to learn about the terrorist attack. in 2015, therefore, homeland security must also mean hometown security. on our end we're engaged militarily against isil in iraq and syria along with an international coalition. we're engaged in our law enforcement efforts to interdict and prosecute those who provide material support to terrorism. the fbi does a terrific job. i have directed the enhancement of our federal protective service at federal buildings in major cities around the country. we've enhanced aviation security in this country and at last points of departure airports

into the united states. this, by the way, must include working with cities, municipalities on airport security as well. we're moving forward with our preclearance capability to establish more security on the front end at airports overseas. every opportunity i have to defend the homeland from the 50-yard line as opposed to the one-yard line we should take. we are evaluates where are more security is necessary for our visa waiver program for those who would travel to the united states from countries which we do not require a visa. we're working with our counterterrorism partners and allies overseas to deal with the global threat as it has evolved. we are enhancing the effectiveness of fusion centers. those are things that many of you in this room are familiar with that exist in every state.

we have revamped our if you see something, say something campaign. if you see something, say something must be more than a slogan. it requires, and it calls for public participation in our efforts, in our homeland security efforts. we are engaged in what we call countering violent extremism around the country. i have personally been to places like columbus, ohio, los angeles, boston, minneapolis to talk to community leaders in communities where there is a potential for young people to turn to violence. many my view, given how the world situation has evolved, it is all the more important that we do that here in the homeland so when i go to these engagements very often i'm with

the police commissioner, the mayor, the city council member, the sheriff and so forth. the other thing i want to thank this organization for is your support of our efforts to reform the immigration system. we would have preferred congressional action, but the president and i identified nine actions we could take within our existing legal authorities to reform our system. we've issued reforms to facilitate the employment of high-skilled workers, something the president talked about this morning, to facilitate the issuance of green cards for high-skilled workers. we've strengthened border security. we've embarked on a southern border campaign strategy. i'm pleased to report that this january and february the numbers of total apprehensions on our

southern border are, and apprehensions are a number of total attempts to cross the border, the numbers month to month are now the lowest they've been in several years because of seasonal factors and frankly because of our efforts and those of our partners south of the border. last year as many of you know, we saw the heart breaking spectacle of a number of children unaccompanied by any parent attempting to cross the southern border. i personally met with hundreds of children. i'm happy to report that this year, this month, last month there was a 42% decrease in the numbers of unaccompanied children from where we were last year. we are through our executive actions encouraging citizen ship through greater public awareness and permitting people to pay for citizenship applications by

credit card. we're embarking upon pay reform for immigration reform personnel and we are revamping what we call prosecutorial discretion. we're focusing the use of our resources to deport and remove people on felons, not families. we want to stop tearing families apart. [ applause ] we're emphasizing national security, public safety and border security over tearing families apart. we have created a new defer ed we have created a new divert action program for parents, for those who have been in this country for years who have been

integrated members of society. there are by most estimates something like 11 million undocumented immigrants living in this country. the reality is that given our resources, they're not going to be deported by any administration, republican or democrat. the most striking thing about that number of people is at least half, perhaps more than half have been here in excess of ten years. so the president and i in november directed the creation of a new deferred action program for those who have been here five years who have children who are citizens or lawful permanent residents and who have committed no serious crime. the reality is we have to deal with these people. we have to account for these people. and we should encourage them to come out of the shadows. as all of you know, our actions have been challenged in the courts. and i thank this organization for your support of our position in that lawsuit in texas, the

national league of cities filed a brief that i think says it best. dacca and to be baa the deferred action program for parents, will fuel economic growth in cities across the country, increase public safety and public engagement and facilitate the full integration of immigrant residents by promoting family and limiting family separation. that's from the national league of cities. thank you. for my homeland security point of view, from my homeland security law enforcement point of view, we need to encourage people who have been here for years to come out of shadows, be held accountable. frankly, the litigation and the decision and the injunction puts us in an untenable position. the judge does not quarrel with

the notion that we have the ability to engage in prosecutorial discretion. prioritize criminals over those who have been here and not committed any serious crimes. i want to take the additional step and encourage them to come out of the shadows so that we know who they are. the injunction basically prevents us from doing that. we're supposed to somehow leave these people in the shadows. we want to take steps to bring them forward, have them pay taxes, apply for deferred action and apply for a work authorize, to encourage these people to be participants in society, report crimes, pay taxes, and get on the books, so the only thing i'll say about the case is this is what appeals courts are for.

so what we say, what we must say to people in your communities who i've personally met with now, don't lose hope. as martin luther king said, the art of the moral universe is long but it always bends toward justice. those who in this country struggle for citizenship, struggle to be something more than a second class person know that history is on your side. now here's my ask. we have eliminated through our executive actions one of our executive actions, the secure communities program. secure communities, the reality is was controversial legally and politically and we've replaced it with a new program called a priority enforcement program.

in my view working together with mayors governors, sheriffs, police chiefs so that we can focus our resources on convicted criminals is a public safety imperative. that was the goal of the secure communities program, but it had come legally and politically controversial, but the overarching goal in my view is a public safety imperative. in 177 jurisdictions, states, cities, counties, to one degree or another, there were limitations placed on that jurisdiction's ability to cooperate with our immigration personnel in the transfer of criminals for purposes of removal. since january 1, 2014, over

4,000 detainers by our enforcement personnel were not honored. frankly, in my view, this state of affairs puts public safety at risk. so we've done away with the secure communities program and created a new program in its place which in my view solved the legal and political controversy. we're no longer placing detainers on individuals except if there is probable cause to solve the legal issue. we're replacing that with requests for notification. we're no longer putting detainers on people based simply on an arrest. we're now only seeking the transfer of suspected terrorists, felons, convicted felons, those convicted of aggravated felonies josh those in street gangs. those convicted of significant misdemeanors and those convicted of three or more misdemeanors.

here's my ask. we want to work with you to restore this relationship. we've replaced secure communities with a new program for the benefit of public safety, but i need a partner in those in this room, in governors and mayors, county commissions and so forth. we've done our part to end the controversial secure communities program. now i ask that you and others get with your city attorney, your city counsel, your police commissioner, your chief, get ahold of the policy document that i issued in november to see how we've replaced the secure communities program for the benefit of all of those we serve, and if you're one of those 177 jurisdictions, you will get a knock on the door

from me, because we want to work with you to rebuild this relationship. many my view, it is a public safety imperative. elsewhere in our department, we're moving forward on our cyber security mission. we had legislation passed late last year. the administration has a new proposal for cyber security this year which we hope the congress will act on. we're doing a number of things to reform the way in which we do business in the department of security. the department of homeland security, we've filled all the senior level vacancies. we're rebuilding morale within the organization. we're moving in the intersection of more transparency and so forth. so this is a good time right now for homeland security. we have a new budget, and we're moving forward with our very important mission but any overarching message with all of you is it takes a partnership with the men and women in this room for homeland security, for

hometown security, for safety for all the people we as public servants represent. the last thing i'll say to you is for my part i recognize that homeland security is a balance. it's a balance between basic physical security and our american values. the things we cherish, our right to travel, diversity, the diversity we cherish, our immigrant heritage we cherish. i like tell audiences that i can build you a perfectly safe city. we could build higher walls. we can interrogate more people. we could erect more scanning devices. we could screen more people to create a perfectly safe space, but it would not be a shining city on hill. it would be a prison.

so homeland security must be a balance between security of our people and the preservation of the things that we value as americans. i look forward to working with all of you in the days ahead on our joint homeland security public safety mission. thank you very much and thank you for listening to me. >> secretary johnson on behalf of the national league of cities and its members, i want to thank you for joining us today. i also want too thank you for all the work you do to keep our cities safe, our country strong and our citizens protected. it is now my great pleasure to introduce the members of this afternoon's panel on infrastructure and climate change. at this time let me introduce

our panel and each of these panelists are incredible folks and what they do on behalf of all of us and in their particular focus for us with cities. first dr. ernest moniz, the secretary of the department of energy. [ applause ] please join me also in welcoming gina mccarthy, the administrator of the environmental protection agency. [applause] and finally i would like to invite to the stage peter rogoff who is the undersecretary of transportation. peter, thank you for joining us. [applause]

>> i'm going to ask each of these panelists to just give us a brief comment and then we're going to go into a series of questions that are topics that are so important to us as cities as well as in their realms of responsibility. mr. secretary to you first. >> actually. >> it doesn't matter. >> mr. secretary. why don't you start? >> thank you, mayor becker and also greetings to my administration colleagues here. i'm not going to get into things that you know very well like the importance of cities and the importance of cities also in the context of our climate challenge. but let me focus on a few items in these opening remarks. of course, all of you have tremendous responsibilities in terms of managing a lot of

infrastructure in this country. let me say a word about the core energy review that we expect to have coming out in a few weeks. this is a study that's been going on for over a year across the administration looking specifically at the issues of energy infrastructure. transmission, storage, and distribution of energy that includes electricity and fuels. it includes looking at reliability, resilience, safety, security of infrastructure. and we'll be coming out with that shortly. some of the findings in there, i'll just note, things like looking at analyzing the risks from storm surges, for example. there's modelling there showing that category one storms could inundate about 1,000 vital substations over these next decades.

heat waves, degrading our infrastructure but also increasing things like cooling requirements. oil and gas supplies depend upon reliable electricity to operate but in turn, particularly our power sector relies on natural gas, a complex interdependency that we have to be careful about. the energy industry, another different aspect is by 2020, we expect to need to fill about 2 million jobs in the energy industry, and, of course work we need to, therefore, focus on some of the training areas which we are doing. the -- in addition, some of the outcomes of the qer are already in our fiscal year 16 budget, so i can talk about those. for example, we will have in

there $63 million proposals for state grants for reliability and for energy assurance. so hopefully the states, the cities will be working together to come forward with those planning activities which then in turn can lead to eligibility, we hope, for what will be major infrastructure project support. also in the budget there's something called the local energy program, and that is $20 million to help cities and counties accelerate investments in efficiency and clean energy. so these are just some of the items that are in that budget. let me just mention two new things today. we are issuing now a notice of technical assistance for our 16 climate action champions.

one of them is seated here at the table. so he's happy. maybe there are 15 more of you out there happy with that particular grant. but also we're also pleased to announce $6 million for our clean cities program for alternative fuel vehicle market growth projects, so this will support 11 community-led projects to reduce market barriers and improve buyer awareness of plug in electric and other alternative fuel vehicles. one such project will enable visitors in orlando, for example, to rent and receive information on plug-in electrics and a whole bunch of other projects as i say that will be announced today. to those are just a few of the things that we have moving forward in terms of clean energy, climate, and energy infrastructure reliability and resilience. thank you.

>> great. thank you so much, and i hope everyone is taking notes on opportunities there may be to help advance efforts in your community through these department of energy initiatives. administrate. >> first of all, thank you for moderating and thank you for being one of the really best mayors in the u.s. it's so exciting to see all the work you're doing. and he's also finding time to help with our committees, and so i thank you for being a great advisor to the agency. first of all, thank you, and thank you for letting me be back again. i don't know what i did wrong last time but maybe i did something right. it's great. i know you're all dieing to get to your questions. you always are. we always follow up with them so let me be brief and thank them for letting me join. i just want to mention a couple of things because i know that communities across the u.s. are

particularly, our cities and towns have been really wonderful partners for epa both in 1995ing how best the spend things like a state revolving funds effectively to look at ground fields redevelopment and to support that. our fiscal year budget this year, the president's request has really been recognizing what a great partner you are and is looking in a variety of ways to advance that partnership with additional dollars. i wanted to point out a few things. number one, the 42% of epa budget goes to state local communities 'describes. the president is looking to provide us additional funds to continue to work together and particularly on climate resilience so we can provide you expertise and tools that you need to address your changing weather patterns. the extreme weather events but also we know that climate is most significantly challenging on water infrastructure.

so we're dealing with the new challenge of climate change and the old challenge about what do we do with water and waste water infrastructure. what you all investigated in 40 or 50 years ago is needing repeal as well as the new challenges on the drinking water side. we're going to continue to work with you on integrated planning but we're also, the president has requested a significant increase over last year's request in the area of srf. we're looking at new ways of continuing to support water and waste water infrastructure not just in terms of helping with resilience and helping you look at how to do planning and green infrastructure but we announced the water infrastructure and water finance center. that's a way to have one place to go to think about whether there are creative financing opportunities that will bring private sector dollars to the table. build partnerships because we know that the money that we have

in the public sector is not going to be able to get the job done that we're seeing because there's $600 billion in infrastructure need out there over the next 20 years. we have to pump it up and find new ways to finance it. we're also moving forward this year to lay the platform for our center under wifia because that's an important opportunity to take advantage of creative financing that the transportation agencies have found effective and we want to do it as well. we're going to be building up that center as well. hopefully we'll be creating our partnership and enhancing it and looking for every opportunity to understand what your needs are and to support that as effectively as we can, and i think i'll stop there. >> thank you. >> well, thank you. first and foremost, i need to express my apologies from a former mayor and former nlc member anthony fox. he is recovering from some minor knee surgery but he's just not up and about otherwise he's be

here with you today. let me also echo what a great partner mayor becker is. he's not just a great advisor to us but he and his city have been a great grantee. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008