the technologies do not allow us at all to track somebody that we are confident is a terrorist, if we find evidence of a terrorist plot somewhere in the middle east that traces directly back to london or new york, we have specific information, we are confident that this individual or this network is about to activate a plot, and despite knowing that information despite having a phone number, or despite having a social media address or an e-mail address that we cannot penetrate that, that is a problem. and so that is the kind of dialogue that we're having to have with these companies. part of it is a legal issue, part of it is a technical question, but overall, i am confident that we can balance these imperatives and we should not feel as if because we just have seen a horrific attack in

paris that suddenly everything should be going by the wayside. we have, unfortunately, this has been a constant backdrop, and i think we will continue to be for any prime minister or president for some time to come, and we have to make sure that we do not overreact, but that we remain vigilant and are serious about our responsibilities there. thank you very much, everybody. appreciate it. thank you. cable satellite corp. 2015] national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next week president obama delivers his state of the yupe i don't know address before a joint session of congress.

we'll have his speech and the republican response plus reaction from you and members of congress. our live coverage begins tuesday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> secretary of state john kerry was in paris today to meet with french president. his visit comes a little more than a week of the deadly terror attack on a newspaper. while attending an convenient at city hall he reiterated america's friendship and solidarity with france. this comes to us courtesy of france 246789 it's half an hour.

>> >> representatives of the civil authorities, ladies and gentlemen, i am particularly moved to be welcome today with you here in this historic building, the city hall, the secretary of state of the united states john kerry.

a friend who has come with a message of affection, support, solidarity. i am very grateful to him. i wanted the short meeting to reflect paris, to reflect what we are. i want men and women, who are working every day, on a day-to-day basis who have responsibilities, political responsibilities, who look after our children, who are living in line with our values, i would like to thank and pay tribute to all the families -- to all the families of the victims of assassinations of these terrorist acts, which really have shaken our city and country, and i think the world as a whole. i would also like to pay tribute

to the heroes. among them, the police, the law enforcement organizations which attacked, and have carried out these operations with great skill. i would like to also pay tribute to the heroes -- notably the young fellow citizen, a citizen from mali, who made it possible to save the lives of many people in the kosher supermarket. he and the manager of the supermarket are here today. this young person saved a lot of lives. we have experienced a very intensive period with a lot of drama and tragedy.

the people of paris, the people of france have risen to the occasion and say no. no to barbarity. no to the objectives of the terrorists as described by them. the terrorists wanted to attack freedom of expression, freedom of speech by attacking "charlie hebdo." and secularism, one of the factors that allows for freedom of speech. some of us this morning accompanied the family and friends of charlie and the funerals.

freedom of expression and secularism, but also the terrorists wanted to attack the authority of the republic by attacking police officers. the terrorists also wanted to attack a fundamental element of our history -- the presence of jews in france in paris -- by attacking this kosher supermarket. we rebelled against this. we said that we do not accept, and we will never accept these values of the republic to be attacked. in paris, these values are particularly important because paris is the city where many of these values were designed developed, and is where the

declaration of the rights of man was published. many members of the jewish community settled in paris in the 18th century because they were fleeing from problems in other parts of europe. paris was recognized as the city where the jewish community could hold its meetings and house institutions. this city has a special history with the values of the republic are not the only guarantee of these values, we want to defend them. in the city hall of paris, mr. secretary of state, the city hall of paris has witnessed many great historic events. the commune of paris in this very city hall, dramatic events.

revolutionaries also fought for secularism and inequality between men and women, and equality among all of our fellow citizens. i wanted to remind you all of this because this is what unites us. this is what brings us together, even though each of us may have different views. the beauty of democracy is to accept controversy. this city, as you have come to visit us here, and this morning you pay tribute to the victims by visiting the places where these attacks took place, i wish to say, this city is a friend of the united states of america. as soon as the world heard that these attacks had occurred, i received a telephone call from bill de blasio, the mayor of new york. he immediately called me to express his solidarity and affection. the fact that he supported us, and showed his friendship and compassion. i also received many messages

from the mayors of other american cities -- washington, philadelphia, chicago. between our cities, there is a great history of friendship. today, we are part of a network of french-speaking american cities. they are part of the international organization i preside over. i chair an organization of french-speaking mayors. in lafayette, next year, we will hold a meeting of french-speaking cities. i would like to conclude this speech by saying that our friendship goes back a long way. it goes back to lafayette, and more recently, we've had the

honor of holding ceremonies, memorial ceremonies, which were very moving. i am referring to the commemoration of the liberation of france. in this liberation commemoration, there was something of fundamental importance -- the liberation of paris in 1944 which was the result of the parisian insurrection, but also with the support of our allied forces notably the americans. i wanted to remind you of this. these are historical events that we have not forgotten. although we are here today because of our friendship, because of the history we have

been developing step-by-step, it is a human story. thank you, john kerry, for visiting us. it is an immense honor to welcome you here as the mayor of paris. >> thank you for that very generous welcome. thank you for reminding us of the extraordinary history that ties us together. what an honor for me to be here in this historic building, which

the mayor just talked about in shared some of the history. a moment ago in her office, she showed me a photograph, historic photograph of the resistance members in august 1944. a reminder of the closest doric inescapable relationship between our countries. i appreciate your very generous comments about our mayors. i know you have a warm relationship with them. not only am i in a historic building, i'm with a historic mayor. she is the first woman to serve this office. that is no small thing. it is a privilege for me to be here with you.

i'm particularly honored to be with members of the law enforcement community. those who were so directly engaged and affected by the events. you honor us, you honor me and my country by being here today. we thank you so much for that. on the day of the living nightmare that began at "charlie hebdo," i had a chance to share a few thoughts with you from back home in washington. today, i wanted to come here and share a hug with all of paris and all of france. i wanted to express with you personally the sheer horror and revulsion that all americans felt for the cowardly and despicable act. the assault on innocent lives and fundamental values. i want to thank the president and the mayor. not only further always generous welcome, but for the great and grace that they have shown at this moment. i also want to thank our embassy personnel for their hard work and their support to the french people this past week. i particularly welcome these

kids who have come here to share their vision of the future. a few hours after this nightmare which all began in the offices of "charlie hebdo," i shared with you some thoughts when i was still at home in washington. today, i wanted to be here with you in order to share with paris, and the whole of france our deep feelings. i wanted to tell you personally the horror and the revulsion felt by all americans faced with these cowardly and terrible attacks against innocent victims and the fundamental values.

i wish not only to thank the president, my friend, and the mayor of paris for their welcome, always warm welcome. i would also like to congratulate the courage that they have shown during this terrible ordeal which france has experienced. i would also like to pay tribute to the team of the u.s. embassy in paris -- our ambassador, and the support that she is given to the french people during these events. i represent a nation which is

very proud of the fact that france is its oldest ally. in the same way as lafayette crossed the ocean to support america, in the same way that general pershing and his men came to france one century ago shouting the same slogans as lafayette, here we are, back again. as we have to rise to the terrible challenges together the united states and france will always be side-by-side, and will persevere side-by-side, will win and vanquish over the days that have passed since january 5.

some people said that it was one of the most painful hours experienced by france, but we mustn't forget the history of our people who over the decades have become, as another american who loves france, knew the price of conflict. the french became stronger, have become stronger. my mother is the source of my special affection for france and the source of my knowledge of its history. she participated in the historical events of world war ii. an american lady born in paris she became a nurse and cared for

the wounded. on the eve of the occupation of paris by the nazis, she fled with her sister on a bicycle and they cycled across france. they fled the bullets of the occupied. they ended up in portugal where they managed to get onto a ship which took them to the united states. one of the most vivid memories i have of my youth was that of my first visit to france with my parents.

it was the first time that my mother returned to france since she had fled during world war ii. i remember the noise -- we saw the ruins of paris that had been bombed and the home in which she lived was completely destroyed only a stone staircase stood. it was only years later that i fully understood the incredible price paid by the generations in the resistance -- the price they paid for freedom. the soldiers left the factories to save the world from tyranny. no nation knows better than france that freedom has a price. france was at the origin of many revolutions, including our own

american revolution. our commitment to freedom of speech and expression is an inspiration to the world. words are often parallels to describe the deep emotions that i have felt when i saw so many people from all over, from near and far, to parade, to march together. those who wanted to divide these powers ended up actually bring us closer together to each other. what the extremists fear the most was precisely that. no one must get this wrong. what the extremists do not understand, what they cannot understand is that decency and courage will never give way to terror.

this reminds us of something else -- the fact that in the deepest, darkest moments we can bring light. for a long time, the fathers will be able to say to their children and grandchildren following these past days since the events, ordinary men and women suddenly became heroes. i'm sure that you will talk to them about a muslim from mali who risked his life to save jewish customers in the kosher supermarket when he heard the attacker entering the supermarket. he didn't think of his own security, he helped over a dozen customers take refuge in the

supermarket. he alerted the police and his actions saved lives. when we asked him why he did that, why he had done that, he simply answered we are brothers. it is not a question of being jewish or christian or muslim, we are all in the same boat and we must get out of this crisis together. i'm sure you will talk about him who was a pillar of his community, dedicated to his family, and passionately interested in his job as a policeman. he was shot down savagely.

when his brother paid tribute to him, he said, my brother was a muslim, but he was shot down by two false muslims. they're terrorists and nothing else. i'm sure that you will also talk about the young man with a great future who tried to neutralize a brutal terrorist and lost his life because of this courageous act. we will never forget these heroes. we will never forget the victims of this tragedy. the world is facing cowardly assassins who are hiding behind

weapons of war. that is the difference between ignorance and knowledge. the difference between life and truth. between cruelty and generosity. between life and death. i know that even as we speak there are passionate debates over the complex issues that this tragedy has raised. beyond politics or religion, satire or culture, is to create a world rich in love and short on hate. today, i will join you in honoring those no longer with

us, and shared with their loved ones sadness of their loss. we simply will not descend into despair. we will turn this moment of profound loss into lasting commitment. we accept with humility the responsibility that falls to each of us to defend the values that our societies cherish and extremists fear the most -- tolerance, freedom, truth. in the end, our engagement, all of us in the struggle, is not a choice, it is a mandate. that at this very moment i'm speaking, debates are taking place on complex issues raised by this tragedy. what should transcend this debate beyond political issues, religious issues, or satire is our aspiration, our joint

aspiration to create a world based on love and not hate. today, here in paris, i join you in paying tribute to those who have left us and sharing with their loved ones their pain and loss, but also the pride of their lives. we will not fall into despair. we will transform this tragic moment into a commitment. we accept with humility the responsibility that each of us have to defend the values which our societies are attached to and which extremists fear the most -- tolerance, freedom

truth. finally, the commitment of all of us in this fight -- it is not a fight, it is a mandate. it is our duty. today, i am with one of my old friends from massachusetts who was a source of inspiration for several generations. he is respected because of his integrity and the beauty of the music that he has composed which is listened to all over the world. he wanted to be here today with me to express his feelings and emotions. we are going to offer you a song, ladies and gentlemen. james taylor.

>> secretary of state john kerry alongside the mayor here at the city hall. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span 2 on book tv after wards brett stevens argues that our enemies and competitors are taking advantage of the situation abroad created by the u.s. as it focuses on dovepls concerns. and sunday night at 10:00 democratic representative steve israel on his recent novel about a salesman and a top secret surveillance program. and on c-span 3 on lectures in history, george mason university professor john turner on the early mormons and their attempt to create a new-sign in the 1830's. and sunday afternoon at 4:00.

the 1964 academy award winning film about the forced desegregation of little rock arkansas's all white central high school. find ourus know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us. or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. although us on twitter. >> next, a look at the causes of legislative gridlock. from "washington journal" this is an hour. two long-time members of congress -- tom davis, martin frost, co-authors along with longtime political reporter rich cohen, of this book, "the partisan divide -- congress in

crisis." en of this book, "the partisan divide -- congress in crisis." in your book gentlemen -- "either of us might have become speaker of the house, but our parties move away from us." how so? guest: well, we were both political moderates. tom was a leader in the republican party, so much so that when he wanted to run forces conspired to prevent him from getting the nomination. that speaks for himself. i was in congress for 28 years. i was a moderate democrat from a southern state, and then as now what my party is. the parties have changed. democratic party has become a more liberal party. the republican party has become a much more conservative party and their is not much room for moderates. host: esther davis.

guest: it is the -- mr. davis. guest: it is demonstrated that there is no middle. conservatives are republican. democrats are liberal. we make the point of how this came about. it is unprecedented really, in america. i left politics undefeated, not indicted, something i am proud of. in virginia, i was seen as a thread in the primary, so they concocted a convention, and it is fine. i would along and did something else with my life. host: tom davis, you are part of the congressional committee. you guys were the artisan pardon me, political hacks. guest: we were the pitbulls. host: i do not mean to be cynical, but all of a sudden now

congress is in crisis? guest: at me walk you through some of the things we talk about in this book. the parties in washington have lost control of this and it has been three macro factors that have taken place that have caused this. this did not come out of the blue. we have good members out there. dedicated people. they really cannot act the way they would probably like to. first is the advent of the single-party district. in the house we have 80% of these districts -- we know which parties will hold those seats in november. it is just a constitution formality. what really counts is the primary. members are putting their votes toward the base, and they're are the ones to participate in the nomination process, either in primaries, or in states like virginia, the convention system, which is more narrowly based. single-party district are caused by redistricting

gerrymandering residential voting patterns were people who think alike tend to live a lie and the voting rights on -- live alike, and the voting rights enclave. all you have in the house in the deep south is white republicans and black democrats and no need to talk to each other. guest: two other factors have come in with media models that cater to a certain thought group. they are successful business models. they work. it is on cable news, talk radio internet websites. basically, the information people are getting, particularly the activists, tend to be pretty one-sided. finally, you have the campaign-finance reform that is worse than ever. the money did not disappear. it is out on the wings.

basically, that is a story. guest: i want to go to your original question because it is an interesting one. tom and i are both partisans. he was a partisan republican. i was a partisan democrat. in the final analysis, we believe you could cover my zen meet in the middle. he could be a strong republican, i could be a strong democrat, but that did not mean we could not ultimately talk to each other. what has happened in the current system because the threat is now in a primary, if harry public in talks to a democrat, suggests they might that if he, the republican talks to a democrat suggests that they might meet, it suggests he would consider voting on their side and the same thing could happen on the democratic side. the democrats as i would like to work with republicans on the chichi, they are subject -- on

this issue, they are subject to a challenge by their own party. the real election is in the primary. that does not mean many incumbents lose the primaries, but it means they change their behavior from -- to prevent a primary challenge from occurring and that is bad for the system. guest: we have a good subchapter on eric cantor's defeat in virginia. this is in the chapter called "all politics is no longer local." host: congressman frost, let's go to the gerrymandering issue. there is a chart where you show the presidential election percentages, but then you sell -- show the congressional seats underneath and in pennsylvania michigan ohio, the republicans hold the majority of the congressional seats -- and all three states won by the democratic nominee.

guest: that is correct. what has happened is you have to do we want types of gerrymandering. one is wrong, political gerrymandering that has happened in western states, northern states, what you are describing in michigan, pennsylvania, and ohio, where republicans control the legislature and they use their political power to draw republican districts and minimize republican districts. the other gerrymandering happened in the south, and did not happen this way. republicans, shrewdly, in some states, were able to make deals with black leadership. blacks had been excluded from congress. the voting rights act sought to change that. blacks deserved representations and what the republicans did in some states was say to the black community is let's get a fake district, give you a 75% -- let's get a faith district, give

you 75% african-americans, and what it did was remove african-americans from surrounding districts so that democrats would have no chance -- that would be no coalitions possible. you have to do we will different types of gerrymandering, one was racial gerrymandering, primarily in the south, which republicans play to their advantage, and the second was in the north and the midwest, which was raw political power to draw as many districts as we can. the problem is that can change. every 10 years there is a new senses, new redistricting, and who is to say the democrats cannot control posted the next time around and use gerrymandering against the republicans? what we suggested is let's have bipartisan commissions in every state where you get together. right now, there are five states where you do that and those states, those districts are more competitive.

arizona, california, iowa, new jersey washington, you have more competitive seats this both parties can draw a reasonable districts for a number of swing district and that makes the process move better. guest: the most creative districts are pennsylvania and maryland. this is modern art when you take a look at this issue. very creative. when leaders look at this, it does not pass the sniff test in terms of what these districts look like. we have a long chapter on race in this book that people do not like to talk about. both of us are from southern districts. we discussed the history of this and what it means, and we do not agree, but we comment on each other's -- for readers that want to know the history and how it has occurred -- the one policy question, 50 years after the voting rights act that is supposed to bring the country together, it has had the

unintended consequence of keeping things divided because black democrats not to talk to whites to get elected, and whites do not have to talk to blacks to get elected, so they tend to ignore them. instead of bringing us together, we continue these divisions. guest: the just the thing we point out in this chapter is in the last 20 years the makeup of the voting population nationwide has changed rather dramatically. 20 years ago, 22 years ago now in 1992, the electorate was 87% white. in the last election, two years ago, the electorate was 72% white. publicans have been trying to run up the score against white voters fishing in a diminishing pool. it will be very hard for them to win presidential elections if they do not successfully reach out to minority voters, and the problem is hispanics are the largest growing minority in the country, and republicans keep giving them the stiff arm saying

we do not want to have immigration reform. if the republicans could figure this out they would still be competitive in a presidential race. if they do not figure it out, he will have divided government for a long time in most normal situations. guest: the system favors democrats for president, the governments for congress, so you have divided government. guest: we spend a chapter on that called the new normal divided government. host: and this is your chance to talk to italy will former longtime --two former longtime congressman. martin frost, tom davis, who have written a book, "the partisan divide." here are the blurbs at the end of the book to give you a sense of the bipartisanship.

those are some of the people that endorsed the book. we have barely scratched the surface in what is in here. charlotte. tallahassee. democrats line. you are on. caller: good morning gentlemen c-span, and happy new year to brian lamb and c-span. i wanted to speak about the state of the voting rights act. mr. davis there was sharing that the voting rights act, in his commentary, was the reason for the partisan divide and the gerrymandering that we now have. guest: i disagree with that. guest: it is an unintended

consequence, not the reason. caller: without the voting rights act black citizens would not have -- that is not the reason for the gerrymandering. gerrymandering is because a legislatures have created the value of partisan divide because of their preference of party politics. i wanted to say if i could, 15 states in 2014 were the first directive states to create new restrictions on voting rights, and those states were primarily states that created them were republicans. host: all right, charlotte. guest: she is raising a question and tom and i have strong views. guest: it is a good question.

guest: what she is talking about is the voter id laws where you have to show a photo id and a discriminate against minorities, old people, because in some states say you have to show a driver's license to a lot of people in this country -- drivers license. a lot of people in this country do not have a drivers license. in texas, you can use a hunting license, but not a school id here in -- id. they were designed to limit the rights to vote and limit people sympathetic to the democratic party. they are being challenged in court. it is going to the supreme court, and hopefully we will get clarity. guest: i will give a different perspective. guest: this is one we disagree on. guest: you want to be reasonable. you do not want to stop anyone from voting, but you ought to be able to show an id. it stops fraud.

a survey shows there are over 10 million voters illegally registered in this country. it protects my vote for someone to show some kind of identification. you do not need to make a burdensome. political regimes will always pass rules that help them, not help the other side. when democrats get in, the first thing they do is say let's let felons vote. guest: people that have served their time. guest: you can have good policy arguments on both, but i'm just saying there is wrong politics on both sides. guest: efforts to restrict the electorate are not good for the country. the country does best when the largest number of people vote. guest: vote legally. host: in the chapter "the way forward," "two suggestions -- bring back your marks and accommodate more bipartisan

fraternization." guest: for the first 150 years of the republic, earmarks were the way projects were funded. this was a huge transfer of legislative power to the executive branch when congress walked away from earmarks. it is ironic that republicans are suing the president for getting to their areas and is serving power when they have given him the power to have earmarks for solyndras of the world. earmarks give everyone skin in the game. members can designate project it gives them a reason to vote thanks. since they took as a, you're not had freestanding appropriation bills. everything is an omnibus, or a c

romnibus. members have a reason to vote for something, and that brings people together. if that is them with appropriate transparency appropriate metrics, i think it is a healthy thing, and it will help bring congress together. on the fraternization thing, we meet every week, martin the chairman of the democratic caucus, the chairman of the republican caucus, we would be up there and it is important to get people together to talk about why we are really here. we used to do that. lisa have bipartisan enclaves, but our own rules -- we used to have bipartisan enclaves, but our own ethic rules make it difficult. guest: it is not an either/or proposition. it is not either you have earmarks earmark -- or all kind

of earmarks. you had to have your name attached so we knew where it came from. secondly limit earmarks to your own congressional district if you are a congressman, to your own state. you had abuses. my former college classmate, who i did not know in college, duke cunningham, both went to the university of missouri the same year, did not know him, was a congressman from san diego. he used earmarks and took bribes from defense contractors to earmark projects. of course that is wrong. there is a constructive way to do earmarks. the business community in texas came to me in texas -- they were not all democrats, but i had a way of getting things done. the republican represented north dallas and his constituents to not believe in the use of federal funds for mass transit. a democratic, snap-on other part

of the county did not want mass transit -- congressman from another part of the county did not want mass transit. not in my backyard. i was the only one that favored mass transit for the city of dallas, and i was able to get an earmark and we now have one of the finest light rail systems in the country and it was with the support of the business community because dallas was the largest city in the country that did not have mass transit. it was a constructive use of earmarks. host: has the lack of order on capitol hill hurt the congressional committees? guest: it killed the committees in general because you have separate offices. guest: you ought to be able to have a full committee process were people vote in committee, and you ought to be able to offer amendments on the floor. that is what we are talking about in regular order, rather

than something been cooked up in the office of the speaker. that has occurred with both democratic and republican speakers. that is not the province of one party. hopefully we will move away from that. host: dave. annandale, virginia, republican line, a district that tom davis used to represent. caller: yes i am at the corner of tom davis drive at the post office. guest: my wife wanted me to ask about that and she sighed and wanted to know if that was named for -- saw it and wanted to know if it was named for tom? caller: what mr. mcdonald did was wrong i want his grades -- host: we will have to condense

that. virginia politics. guest: on the mcdonald deal, everyone knows taking gifts was illegal. if the recipient thought he was getting something in return, and this went to a jury, and they made that assumption -- it will be on appeal at this point. it was not the gift, but the conspiracy behind i am going to take this and deliver something. it is not clear to a lot of us that mr. williams got anything in return. it went to a jury, and the jury made his decision. guest: i will not get into what happened in that case. i now live in northern virginia. i live in alexandria virginia, and virginia, in recent years has had good state government. what happened with the most recent governor was an aberration. host: do you think virginia should continue to restrict the governor to one term? guest: that is a good question.

my wife in the state senate chaired a committee to look at that, and some of them recommended a six-year term. i do not believe in term limits. iran my first time, and we are the only state in the country. it used to be the south in general, many states had one limit. once in a while, a populous government would come in and four years, and they were out. guest: my state of texas might have some problems, but we never went along with this before missed stuff we do not have term limits, and we seem to have gotten along fine. guest: i am glad you said that. the theory of a term -- four years, full-time attention to doing the right thing, but if you go back to georgetown, doug

wilder, they were all running for president. i think maccoll was the one that was not running for president. guest: you never know. do not say never. host: do either of ucl at oral offices in your future? -- do either of you see elected office in your future guest: i do not see it. guest: i am purposely content where i am. i've started teaching a course at night. i know tom to use a course at george mason. i am chairman of the board for the national endowment for democracy, very important organization. i found there are plenty of things to do. guest: i am the chairman of the board of trustees at george

mason university, the largest university in the state. we have had two nobel prize winners and one final four basketball team. guest: i do hope that good people continue to run for office because our system needs bright capable, younger people running for all of us on the local level, and ultimately the federal level, if the system will survive. host: tyler, binghamton, new york. thanks for holding. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have been listening for a little while now, and my question is -- i think it is pretty apparent in the media and among the american citizens that this hyper polarization of the government and of congress is causing a lot of problems, so my question for you gentlemen, is what you think is still feeling the? i think people in congress representatives, they understand this. they know the american people

can see this divide and that it is doing harm. what is the incentive? host: i want to make sure we are kind of equal here. mr. frost, if you could start this time. guest: have talked about some of these things. one of the problems -- you have to understand how significant this is, and what a problem this is for the way congress operates. with these one-party districts -- safe, one-party districts people do not have to work across party lines anymore. there is no incentive to cooperate, because if a republican member talks about cooperating with a democrat or working on a bipartisan basis, the republican member is subject to a very serious challenge in his or her own primary sometimes fueled by outside money that is not even reported. the dark money the c4's will attack a member because that ember suggest they should be bipartisan -- that member even

suggest they should be bipartisan. that should change because the democracy does not function well when a member of congress is afraid to cast a tough vote, afraid to talk to the other side, because in the next election they will have a couple million dollar spent against them in a low-turnout primary, and they could lose. guest: even in the senate, you had four states where the presidential election was within five percentage points. that is a huge seachange from 25 years ago. single-party constituencies -- as we said before, it is not just gerrymandering. it is residential patterns and we spent a lot of time talking about this in the book -- all members, they have to pay attention to their primary voters, and primary voters are a narrow, ideological slice of the total electorate. they tend to punish compromise. i would just say our subchapter

on eric cantor's election illustrates this. guest: we have made specific suggestions, not just having bipartisan commissions draw districts, but also requiring full disclosure, money spent in campaigns. right now, we are suggesting that congress has a law that says that anyone or only organization, any entity that mentions a candidate by name has to disclose all its contributors. congress can do that tomorrow. congress has not done that. we have also suggested having a national primary day. one of the problems as you have low turnouts in primaries now. so eight well organized local organization can control the primary. there would be more media attention focused on what is going on. you have to do something to break the string hold of a very

small, well organized groups that can threaten an incumbent in a primary with money that is not disclosed. our system is a good system. unfortunately, we have had some things happen in recent years that have made it more difficult for our system to function. guest: we have straight ticket voting. we have a chapter called all politics is no longer local where we point out that now in congressional races, it is no longer people voting for the person people -- people basically vote for the party. it is not in the book, what it happened after he wrote the book but the maryland republican chairman wins a packed primary and goes on to win the general election. with virtually no roots in the district against every who had been there a long time. host: from fall 2008 th one vignettes from the back room was a discussion from a conservative district who said i hope you

guys pass this bill. great, we are glad to have your vote. this is close. he replied, oh, i can vote for this -- can't vote for this. i just hope it passes. i could never explain us back home. guest: tom's vignette. host: yes, it is. is this frequent for both of you? guest: yes, it is more frequent today than it used to be. in the old days, the people who casted the tough votes were from a safe district, and if you're from a marginal seat, you are given a pass. they don't consider them safe. but they are not safe and they're worried about the primaries. we call it the hope but no cost. and it is a pre-consistent group up there on capitol hill right now. guest: and i have talked about - in terms of talking- and going back.

guest: i statement on texas is 2 to 1. some of the republican congressman that i know personally are very fine individuals that would like to work on a bipartisan basis. they would like to meet somewhere in the middle, but they won't do it, can't do it because they are afraid of being defeated in the primary. we somehow have to find a way where we can go back to a time when members would like to work across the aisle feel comfortable in doing it and they don't feel threatened every day of their lives that they even suggest that they might do that. host: the book is called "the partisan divide: congress in crisis". go ahead the democrats line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. when i think of this, i think you guys are right on. there is a definite partisan divide.

my parents were both moderate republicans, but they later turned both democrat and remained that way until they died. and i had always been a kind of moderate democrat. ok, they changed after nixon but after george w. bush, i -- i flew really far to the left. you know, to the left side. and, i mean, i think after george w. bush 's -- he would have one, and it showed that the congress and the white house were all democrat. i think that it is just a cautionary tale that -- that if we remain, you know, if the white house, whoever is president, remains moderate, this partisan divide will

subside. host: ok, joy. i think we got a lot there. let's talk to tom davis about that. guest: joy, i appreciate your comments. a couple things. we have a chapter in the book called to the new normal. 80% of the time since 1980 we have had a divided government. three times, we have had midterm elections where one party controlled the presidency, the house, and the senate. each ensuing midterm election, the voters threw them out. voters really don't trust either party. the irony is that about for a percent of americans are self-described independents. the problem is they don't participate in the primaries. and they are drawn out of the safe districts. so, you know, when you put it together. you have a narrow slice of the electric controlling the majority of these districts. i think i will stop right there but that is the difficulty for somebody who wants to be a

moderate, they are not allowed to act that way because the primary voters will not reward that behavior. guest: and assisting experiment going on in california right now. california change their electoral system so that now everybody can run in a primary regardless of party. you can have 10 candidates in the primary, and it is the top two who make the runoff and are then in the general election. so that permits moderate candidates to have a chance. maybe one of those moderates makes it through the system and gets to the final two. whereas under the current system, and many states, the moderates are screened out in the primary process. in california, sometimes you run up with two democrats having to run against each other, or to republicans running against each other. it remains to be seen how the system will work, but at least they are experimenting. at least they tried in california to make it more possible to have a broader range of people competing for office.

let's see how that goes. guest: louisiana has that suit tradition -- situation, as well. to republicans ended in a runoff. one republican when over to the african-american vote in the district. so the democrats, if you will, the lack voters in the district went behind him and ended up winning the special. with democratic votes in a republican runoff. so democrats mattered in that district. independents mattered. he ended up kissing his girlfriend on camera. [laughter] but what happened was the special indicative of the dynamic. guest: we the oldest continuous democracy in the world. our system has somehow managed to survive, and we have survived by making changes. by renewing ourselves. by being willing to consider new

things. we had some very bad practices in the past we had a bowl tax in the south, even some states had an all-white primary. we have eliminated those. we are now at a point where we need to consider making some more changes so that we will continue to be a vibrant democracy. host: farmingdale, new jersey. independent line. good morning. caller: hello. host: where listening, sir. caller: hours wondering whether either of you two gentlemen have discussed increasing the number of members of the house of representatives? there hasn't been an increase since 1910. up to that time, it had been increased every -- host: do think that is what happened? caller: yes, i do. guest: when i was first elected, i think i had hundred and 34,000

people in my district. the district kept getting larger. the problem with this -- people may have trouble understanding this, it is a crazy problem -- you have to build a new office building. if you wanted to make the house larger, you could clearly do that. you could have smaller constituencies. guest: well, i ask again a bill passed in the house that increased the house. it allowed district of columbia to have a vote. it would've have been a democratic and republican seat coming in. in 1958, they increase the house to allow alaska and hawaii to come in. so, there is presence for that. it is within the power of the house. i don't think either party right now thinks it is to their advantage. host: so, tom davis, people are going to see your maneuver and

say, ok, again protecting your own. you're going to protect your republican seats. you are going to guarantee a democratic seat in washington dc. is that just politics? guest: well, it is politics, but it is also the nation's capital -- i thought the capital of the free world to have the ruling congress. we are spending billions of dollars to bring democracy to baghdad and afghanistan, and we don't allow the nations capital to have a vote in the house? the only way i can get votes is to add a votes that would balance that. that is why alaska and hawaii were brought in. they used to do one slave state and 19. it is politics 101, but it is how you get things done. guest: the issue of puerto rico. if puerto rico were to become a state, puerto rico would be entitled to five or six

congressman because of its population. so you would have to expand the house. you're not going to take congressional districts away from other states. the problem with that -- if they elect all democrats republicans are not going to --death guest:, i don't think that is right. you know they have a series of republican members down there. host: can democrats be competitive in texas again? and can republicans be competitive in california again? guest: in texas, it is going to take a while. but time is on our side. the question is how long is that? the population at texas keeps growing here it republicans keep giving hispanics the stiff arm saying we don't want you. turnout among hispanics in texas is not been as high as among other groups. it is not good happen overnight.

eventually, texas will be a purple state. but question is when. without we had a pretty good candidate for governor last time . she didn't end up getting a wide percentage of the vote. texas is still a very tough state for democrats, but time is on our side. guest: i mean, can they stay competitive? that has been difficult for them to win the state wide races in the california. what killed the republicans in california is not just the rising minority vote, which they are getting no share at all to speak of, except of in the valley, but we have some candidate to have made those adjustments, but the cultural issues. cultural issues along the coast. there is only one republican in california who has a pacific ocean seat. every other district -- everything else, even the orange county seat, they are inlets now. but these to be solidly republican. but because of some of the cultural views-- whether it is

drugs, gay rights, some of these other issues -- people who -- abortion -- these issues have hurt the republican constituencies in california. guest: my guess about texas is that when we have a really attractive, really articulate experienced hispanic run statewide is a democrat, it could get very interesting. we have some younger hispanics. we have the castro twins, one of whom is in congress. we have others that i know could be very, very good statewide candidates. that may be the thing that finally pushes the democrats -- the state into being democratic. guest: the audi group--

host: this tweet -- is it to that of the vote for speaker were secret, boehner would not have one? guest: i think he probably would have done better. the reality is, you had a lot of interest groups out there that were scoring this. voters that were scoring this on the right. and i think for that reason, you know -- guest: i don't think that people say would have gotten any more votes if it had gotten close. host: is there a divide between the leadership and the rank-and-file, as it were, in each caucus? guest: there is a bigger divide on the republican side. guest: there is a bigger divide on our side. when you have a president come you can of bring people together. what happens today is when the president party in congress follows the party. it is no longer a separation of powers. it becomes almost parliamentary in its behavior. on the other hand, the more nonie -- minority party

considers themselves the opposition party. instead of mitigating adverse effects and offers members of your districts know on everything -- jill kelley sigrid vote for speaker -- he got thousands of calls in his office saying, dump boehner. so you had this huge push - we talked about the polarized media and the like and the growth of the internet and electronic communications -- that have basically been polarizing the members. they were afraid to cast that vote. spam democrats basically are in

agreement at this point on most major issues. the issues in the past were there has been some disagreement in the democratic party have been on trade and national defense. if you go to a system where you have a fair redistricting system, i think you would probably have more democrats which would be off the reservation on those kind of issues. host: all right. john, maryland. the independent line. caller: good morning guys. my question is about gerrymandering and redistricting. is it feasible or even reasonable that you guys would maybe create a law or a mandate where you would mathematically kind of decide what the districts are? so if you had maybe the narrowest part of the district couldn't be more than like, one half. guest: it is interesting. congress, a number of years ago, did adopt some standards on what should districts-- what

district should look like. congress has the authority, the power, under the constitution to pass legislation requiring nonpartisan, or bipartisan, commissions to create districts. they also have the power to require compact districts --i don't know mathematically how this works -- but to not permit the strangely shaped districts. whether congress ever dues that -- does that is another matter. under the current congress, they are not going to pass a law that does any of these things. and that is unfortunate. guest: the reasonable answer is yes. host: you are on with tom davis and martin frost spirit caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about term limits.

i know that tom mentioned he is against term limits; however, our system was never meant to have full-time, college degree politicians. that is not what we are supposed to have. it is supposed be a government of the people, by the people. our population is growing. and yet the number of politicians seems to be getting smaller and smaller and smaller. guest: could i start on that? it is a very interesting question. and the united states supreme court, whether you like them or not, has spoken on the subject. the supreme court said in a ruling some years ago that you could not have term limits for federal office. their reasoning was that the constitution has the qualifications for being a member of congress. you have to be 25 years old, a house number 30 years old, a resident of the state you're running from, and those are the only requirements.

and you cannot add to the requirement. the supreme court said you could not impose term limits on top of the existing requirements in the constitution. the only way to do it would be to amend the constitution. that requires a vote of two thirds of both houses -- it is conceivable there could be some grassroots movement for term limits, but the only way you cut a compass that on a federal level it by amending the u.s. constitution. guest: the seminal case -- i voted for term limits in a constitutional -- and a constitutional amendment in my first term in congress. you go to the state council than the state senate, then the board of supervisors. yes, it is a professional class. and you take the voters out of it. you lose a lot of institutional knowledge when you limit that, and i think that is really important.

i think one of the issues in congress now is that have so many new people. you don't have a lot of people who understand the way things ought to work. my thinking has evolved on that. i voted for the constitutional amendment change when i first came to congress, but i think now, probably the voters are the ones who should put term limits on, not some institutional bias. guest: and i am opposed to term limits because, one, it gives power to the bureaucracy. you have or get congressman coming in every few years, and the career bureaucrats would have even more power. and it cedes power to the lobbyists and the interest groups. the current system, where people can run for as many terms as they want -- the only check being that the public and decide whether to keep them or not keep them -- i think that works

better than having artificial term limits. california has been a cast because of term limits because the legislator keeps having an expense people around. host: derailment, politically could you have written this book while you're in congress? guest: no. it is much easier to make observations once you are out. guest: no. that too many groups being candid about these things. guest: also, it helps to be out for a while, step back, and look at all of this. i mean, i have been out for 10 years now. tom has not been out quite that long. but it has given me a perspective. and i continue to be interested in politics, i continue to work and help democrats get elected but i have a different view now now that i no longer have to walk in a cast votes every day. no longer have two brought in raise millions of dollars to be reelected. so i think this would have been a very difficult book to read

while i was still in congress. guest: a number of members have read this book, and i think we have been pretty good reviews from members say, right on. host: in effect, you guys right the president party in congress has simply become an appendage of the executive branch. don in myrtle beach. the republican line. thank you for holding. caller: well, thank you. good morning, gentlemen. the reason i am calling --i really getting a kick out of

watching the show this money. you're talking about how we can all get along together. well, you all getting along over the years has brought us $18 trillion in debt. medicare and medicaid will be stopped in the future years. all you really care about is the governing class in washington. you're not fooling anybody with this charade and this book. what you both want is not to be rocked by people like the tea party. and i forget the senator's name on the democratic side -- to run for president. guest: i understand what you -- caller: i'm sorry, what, sir? caller: those are the two that walked-- -- that rocked the boat the most. caller: so all this conversation this morning -- all you care about is to keep government growing.

and keeping your club intact, that is all you guys care about. host: tom in myrtle beach. guest: well, thanks for the kind words. i just want to add that i supported a balanced budget. sooner or later, we know where this game and. you cannot continue to borrow and spend away. but you know, getting up there and saying no doesn't solve anything at all. just doing sequestration and attacking pieces of the budget doesn't solve it. really, the growth of money that you are spending is an entitlement. i have supported raising the age for social security retirement. if he is more familiar with my record -- at the end of the day, you have to come to some agreement. guest: i have family in south carolina --not in myrtle beach,

but in other parts of south carolina --and i have heard that some of them are sour. look, our interests in times of crisis --and we do have some potential economic crisis facing this country -- that you'd be able to work across party lines. that doesn't mean you have to agree on everything, but right before world war ii, when -- the draft was extended by one vote. a single vote. that was done on a bipartisan basis. when the civil rights acts were passed -- the 64 act and the 65 act, lyndon johnson was president, and he had a number of people from the south who were opposed and who were going to filibuster it in the senate. he went to the republican leader and said -- you are from the state of illinois, from the state of lincoln.

we need your help on this important legislation. in fact, democrats and republicans joined together and passed landmark legislation that was clearly in the best interest of our country. so you do need the ability to work together. not on everything, there are going to be some strong differences. we are not suggesting that a party shouldn't stand for principles. but there should be the opportunity for them when there are serious options facing the question that they can come together and solve it. ronald reagan, a republican, came up with a solution to solve social security for a long. of time -- period of time. that was done on a bipartisan basis. there is a need for the two parties to work together. not on everything and not to give up printable, but when there are major problems facing

the country, there needs to be bipartisanship. host: you were a congressman when medicare part d past. was it open for several hours? guest: three hours. i picked up three democrats on that. i can walk you through the whole thing. again, democratic party upbringing is an opposition party. we don't want guys to get credit for this, a. and become expanding, getting the government to do something on health care -- they were very nervous about that. what medicaid costs have done tuesday budgets for higher education --it is just sucking up every spare dollar into health care costs. but the realistic alternative is if we did nothing, we had a discharge position on the other

side that would do a lot more. to me came up with something that were kind of split it to the practical side. and we got very little help from the democrats. and we had people regulating against it. there is a practical side that said it was not just a campaign issue, but if it goes out on the floor on a discharge petition, it will be worse. we see a get some better results from that, but the drumbeat was getting more prescription drug aid for seniors was very, very strong in the polls. host: mike is in akron, ohio. mike, go ahead. caller: yes, thank you for c-span. i happen to live in the 13th district. he is from youngstown. i like youngstown, but i live in no akron. i think it is ironic that the gop will have the jury bantering

in cleveland, when the gerrymandering in cleveland is the worst in the nation. what i would like to say is my congressman from the 1970's and the 1980's was john -- he was able to speak truth to power. he told him, who in the hell do you think you are to try and move it from akron to someplace out of ohio? now we have people who tell the workers of tennessee, if you vote for a unique, you are putting yourself out of a job. that is completely backwards from the good old days. we used to have congressman speak to -- truth to power. guest: we have some interesting maps on gerrymandering in the book. i don't know if you can show it. clearly, the way districts are drawn right now often --those

ways make no sense at all. guest: the political center -- culture in tennessee --they were defending that tradition very strongly, but it talks about the differences in this country. in ohio, you know, a union town and akron. ayres was the congressman before cyber link -- siberling won the seat. guest: and you are forced -- showing those on the screen now. host: we are, but these are some of the wrong ones. we have some that are a little bit more solid in their -- guest: a district in chicago. host: yes, we have this district here. why is it shaped like that? guest: because it is connected to hispanic areas to keep it in hispanic district -- an

hispanic district. host: you have it running along i-95? guest: you would kill half the people driving down the highway. host: we have this here, gentlemen, it is a little bit more solid here. i cannot see the name on it. and here is one in ohio. guest: yes, that is a district along the lake. that put two democrats together. it runs along the lake, and puts his many democrats as they could in the area. that is republican gerrymander. illinois is a republican gerrymander. host: you can look at it right here. they are both chicago. guest: yes, they're both chicago districts. the maryland district and the

pennsylvania district on the next page i even better, if you can get those. i think picasso would be proud of these districts. host: they have a pretty solid district, but then some outliers. this is a maryland district. and here's maryland's third. he is one of these a larger coming? guest: the second is -- i like the one below that to the left. the pennsylvania -- in pennsylvania, it looks like two dogs ticking -- kicking each other. host: and this is district seven. guest: i think it is a new district. a new district designed by a republican legislature. i think these are pretty creative. if they give an academy award, i think that one would be right up there. guest: this district was drawn to try and eliminate a liberal

democrat from congress. if they ran his district down from austin to san antonio, than the could get rid of him. well, he won anyway. he was able to survive but they go to great lengths to try and target individual members of congress. host: what role did you two have while in congress with creating districts? guest: we were in the middle of it. i getting? we were in the middle of it. it was part of the deal in california to preserve 20 republican seats. the legislators draw them, but the chairman of the campaign committee -- we had huge savings in software. guest: we did the best we could do next match our party's advantage. what we are saying now is that we are no longer in congress, we don't have that responsibility. we were able to step back and say that hasn't really served the country very well.

guest: look, we are talking about the rules they gave us a that point. our job was to win seats. the result of that -- the end -- guest: members do not feel free to vote their own conscious. i have been away from this for 10 years and i have now decided that the system that i operated under -- where we used to maximum political power within our states to maximize her own parties districts -- was not in the best interest of the country. i am now for bipartisan commissions. guest: the proof is the appropriation bills. the fiscal year for the federal government starts on october 1. the last time we start the appropriation bills on time, a got the government the funding and time to start was in 1996. so there's always somebody who

doesn't know what their funding is for the year, which means there is no new starts, no innervation. in fact, it really makes it more inspect of -- expensive in the and. they just up the money at the end of the year because they don't want to lose it. guest: one of the things i worked on when i was doing redistrict the and i hosted of texas was to create as many marginal districts, marginally democratic, but not overwhelmingly democratic, where democrats had a chance to win. under those circumstances, they had to speak to all the workers. they had to speak to minority voters, they had speak to conservative white voters. now you have a system where the members of congress do not have speak to anybody other than a narrow group once they win the primary. the results we had when i was

working in redistricting in texas actually produced people who would listen to the other side. now the system doesn't produce those kind of people. host: we get this last caller and that we can make the less comments. heaven in staten island. a democrat. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for this conversation. mr. frost come you have observed that our democracy has divided i renewing ourselves. what are the most promising - -one of the most promising changes i have seen in this country took place in 1998 when or gone voters approved requiring elected officials to mail ballots to all registered voters. the turnout rates in or gone are among the highest in the nation. it seems like this has a greater effect on the primaries, which is a point of your discussion. what is your to opinion -- your opinion of the or gone voting echog?

guest: i think mail ballot makes a lot of sense. i would like to see it used more in a number of states. guest: look, you have your democracy. some states -- washington, new mexico -- over half the ballots are mailed in. but let's understand how this really works. at the end of the day, parties and candidates are paying people bounties to go out and get people to bring their ballots in. guest: we're not talking about bringing ballots in, we're talking about getting them mailed in. guest: you don't ask a get the ballot, but if you -- these are straight up on account. some permissive absentee efforts, for people who are otherwise, you kno --

guest: that is the strength of our country. some things make sense, some things were, some things don't. but we have to try keep making the system work better. we can't just say don't touch a hair on its head. host: congressman frost, one thing we haven't talk about -- talked about is the partisan divide. guest: there is a lot of things you can learn. host: we have time for one. guest: if you look at the chapter on the role of race in american politics, we just scratched the surface on that. i would ask people to read that very carefully. they're going to see how the racial composition of the electorate is changing, and the impact that that has on the two parties. and if the republican party is to remain viable, they are going to have to adapt to this change. if they cannot adapt to it

they're going to go the way of the whigs. guest: out say that our system is not a self direct did system, but a collectible system. we have a parliamentary system both in behavior and behavior of party elected officials. it doesn't fit very well. we need to make some corrections. host: tom davis, martin frost. here is the cover of the book. "the partisan divide: congress in >> on the next "washington journal," michael warren discusses a possible presidential run by mitt romney and who his rivals might be. after that, a look at annual student assessments. and arne duncan's request to congress for an additional $2.7 million.

live saturday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, a discussion about federal spending caps on their impact on defense and domestic programs. this is hosted by the brookings institution. it is an hour and a half. >> good morning. i am very pleased to be here today to discuss something which is in the category of really important and hard to understand, which is the cap set congress and the president agreed to on domestic and defense spending. i am going to give a little bit of an introduction. you should know that c-span is

in the room. if you fall asleep, your mother will see it. they will put one of those hearts around you like they do at the ballgame. the history and the plumbing of all this

is complicated and packed with acronyms. b.c.a., b.b.o. and only jargon that people in washington could event, sequestration, chimps authorization of appropriation. but it doesn't need to be that complicated. when the next fiscal year begins october 1 of this year lawmakers have to pass a new approach that appropriation bills are extend existing appropriations through a continuing resolution in order to avoid a government shutdown and because of a budget control act passed in 2011 and the failure of a congressional super committee, there are now legal limits on spending and newly appropriate spending that were signed into law by the president and although they were altered for 2013 and 2014 by the ryan murray compromise, they are in place if congress tries to spend too much money, there's a system of across-the-board spending cuts that will ratchet spending down. now it's really important to remember we're talking on passing about caps on annual appropriate spending. that's roughly a trillion dollars a year. roughly a third of the federal budget. it's the stuff that funds the salaries of the park rangers the gasoline and bullets for the army, the grants to state and local government. it does not include benefit programs like social security and medicare and medicaid and interest on the debt. they're not subject to the caps. and because nothing is ever simple in washington, we will

talk about this when we get to defense, the caps don't apply to the money we spend in afghanistan noun that we're back in iraq, in iraq. our focus today is the ceilings that apply for the years going forward, fiscal year that starts october 1 fy-2015 through 2021. for this coming fiscal year, the caps are only about $2 billion higher than for the current fiscal year. without any allowance for inflation. that's about -- take about $17 billion more to keep up with inflation. $44 billion more to keep up with the growth of the economy. and some people, most of them republicans, think that's just fine, they want to shrink government and other people, most but not awful them democrats, think this is nuts, that we are squeezing that part of the federal budget that includes almost everything you can consider an investment in the future. some people, including some of the panel here, say it's a little hard to say whether we're spending too much or too little without asking what is the money going for? and that's not something that the caps tell you. the caps are a level. congress punted the decisions on

what to spend more on and less. i think it's important to remember the caps have had an effect. people often think oh, congress does this and then they evade it. in this case, it's not true. the caps have constrained federal spending. perhaps not as much as they initially were intended to. they did play a role in the shrinking of the budget deficit, which has come down in quite a bit. and they in my opinion contributed to a tightening of fiscal policy when we were still suffering of after effects of the great recession. but that's the past. there is no question that the caps will be tougher and tougher for congress to live with over time. although they will increase by 2.4% a year over the next five years, that's roughly enough to compensate for inflation, not enough to compensation for population growth or what i sense is public demand for various programs to help the middle class or whatever. if the caps hold and if current spending trends continue, c.b.o. projects 85% of the increase financial spending over the next decade will go for social security, major health care programs and interest, which are

not constrained by the cap which are largely on autopilot. and the pressure will come on that remaining slice of federal spending. and as a result of that that measured as there the size of the economy the annually appropriated domestic spending will shrink to shared g.d.p. to levels we have not seen in 40 years and the level of public investment will shrink accordingly. with all that's going on in the world, unrest overseas, security threats at home, struggles of the middle class, difficulty of maintaining our infrastructure congress may decide the caps may have sounded good but they're just too hard to live with and without getting too hired i hope in the parliamentary detail, our goal here today is to take a close look at the economics and the politics of these caps on why they matter, on what the money goes for and what congress is likely to do about them. and i'm fortunate to have really a very experienced and excellent set of panelists here. at the far end, michael

o'hanlan, senior felling here and co-director on the 21st century security and research. he's written several books, most recently one with steinberg on u.s./china relations. he worked with the congressional budget office. so did bob hail, who left the congressional budget office and went on to worry about even more bigger numbers. he was for five year the under secretary of defense and comptroller at the pentagon. that means he had a $600 billion checking account to worry about. he's been the assistant secretary of the air force for financial management. he spent time as executive director of an organization never heard of before, the american society of military comptrollers. and i bet that christmas party was just wild and crazy. after a distinguished career in government, he left the pentagon in 2014 and is now at boothe allen. next to him is my colleague who

is co-director on senior families, consultant and spent 14 years on the staff of the house ways and means committee where he played a key role in welfare reform and spent some time but less than a year for reasons you can ask him about in the george w. bush's white house. his most recent book is very interesting one called "show me the evidence," about president obama's fight for rigorous results in social policy. and last but certainly not least is alice rivlin who if i read her resume we would be at 11:30 and i won't. she's now director here at brookings and founding director of c.b.o., celebrating its 40th anniversary. former director of o.m.b. for bill clinton, vice chair of the federal reserve and relevant to these conversations is a fixture on every single commission that we create to do something about the deficit. fortunately, alice, we don't judge you by the results we get and quality of the work.

>> oh, you should judge by the results right now. >> yes, cyclically adjusted. what we're going to do here is we're going to start, i'm going to talk with each of the people up here for a while and then we will obviously have time for questions. because we want to do defense and domestic, we're going to alternate a little bit. but i'm going to start with bob hail. bob, i wonder if you could those of white house don't live and breathe the defense budget, not the people in the american society comp trollers but the other 99% of us, what's been happening to the defense budget over the last four, fine years. what is the historical circumstance in which we find ourselves now. >> just for the record, that job is probably the most fun one i ever had. >> like a bunch of other ones. >> yeah. >> unfortunate thing to say. >> the defense budget peaked in fiscal year '10. since then it has been coming down, total budget by about 25% after frustration for inflation. base part down about 15%.

in fairness it went way up in the first decade of this century after 9/11, and the cuts have not offset all of that growth. so think of a sharp climb up the hill and the last five years we have come down maybe half of that distance. the numbers may be useful as context. i would argue strongly they don't say a lot about what you want to do in the future. that should be a risk/cost tradeoff i hope we can talk more about later. >> explain for a minute though how it is we have this big defense budget when we fight a war, we have to load on money to fight the war. that's part of the increase right?s0 >> the increase is partly to fight the war but there's a fear increase in the base budget as well. many argued we weren't at the end of the clinton administration spending enough

to maintain the size of the military to modernize it, to maintain infrastructure. so war costs certainly played a big role in the sharp walk up the hill but there was substantial increases in the base budget as well. >> look ahead, where are we going? >> so in two weeks, a little more than two weeks, we will get the president's budget for fiscal '16. i don't know. i'm out of government, not sure what it will be but i anticipate the president will propose funding above those cap levels that david discussed for both defense and nondefense. probably 30 billion to 40 billion in defense f they did that, i think there are three broad ways congress could respond. by far in my mind the least likely is they could appropriate at the higher level, not change the caps that.s0 would trigger a formal sequestration next january, and i might add we use that word loosely but that's the only thing that constitutes sequestration, ought matting

cuts if they appropriate above the caps. i think that's the least likely. two other scenarios in my mind are more likely. one, they could leave the caps because it will be a tough political lift to change them but bring the president's budget down to the cap levels. in that case the agencies will end up with sequestered level budgets but at least woe have made considered decisions how to get down to that level. and the last outcome and one i hope happens is that we see another budget deal, probably mini deal along the lines of the two that we saw. there was one in 2013 and another -- 2012 i should say and another 2013 and last one, murray ryan deal that david referred to, that raises the caps at least to some extent and then appropriates at that level. so we can make considered decisions. but as we get into this more later, i at least believe some modest increase in defense is appropriate given the state of threats that we face today. so that's a brief outcome. three scenario, sequestration, formal one least likely in my mind. >> is there an alternative to the third one, since they have this account called overseas contingencies operation, that was intended for money for

afghanistan and iraq, not covered by the cap. >> correct. >> wouldn't it be possible for congress to put more of the base budget in there and pretend? >> well, to some extent, yes. but it is by law supposed to be for the added costs of wartime activities. there's a great area and congress exploited it, so has the administration, i might add, me included in the past to put more money in there. there's only so much you can do i think and still live within that gray area. so yes, poco as it's called is a possible way out if we're going to stay with the current caps for defense t won't do anything for nondefense and that's an important point. there are problems there too, at least i think. >> can we live within the caps on defense spending and be safe? >> david, i think the short answer is we can probably be safe here in the united states. but the world will begin to fray

abroad. and it will be harder to manage china's rise in a way that i think is most stabilizing to the region. i'm not against china's rise but i think if it happens too fast during a perception of american retrenchment, it would be quite destabilizing for the western pacific. i think that the conflicts in the middle east, while no one is talking about putting american brigade combat teams back into any of these conflict zones, nor should they, nonetheless conflicts are far from over and we're going to need to be able to do substantial things in those zones whether we like it or not. most of us don't like it for good reason but it doesn't change the fact what we just saw in france could happen here and we're implicated in what's going on in this broader region. i guess if i could just say one other thing by way of framing my way of looking at this, just to give a couple more reference

points, right now we are planning to spend in 2015 in the course of this year something just under $600 billion on the military. and that includes somewhere in the range of $60 billion to $70 billion on the contingencies not only iraq and afghanistan but ebola, adding some capability and some rotations to forces going to estonia, latvia and lithuania to make sure vladimir putin takes seriously our nato commitments to those countries and a few other sundry things. anyway, we're just under $600 billion. for reference the cold war average for the united states was about $500 billion. so i'm adjusting for inflation. this is 2015 dollars so we're a little bit above the cold war average. on the other hand, we're much below the cold war average in the size of the military so we've gotten a lot more expensive per person. and meanwhile, while we still represent 40% of global military spending, there's an interesting thing going on, china and russia have very clearly moved into the number two and three positions behind us in a way that they

were not in the 1990's. in the 1990's a lot of our big allies were in that number two and number three role as russia was essentially collapsing and china was still beginning its rise. now we're at a point where our budget of just under $600 billion than includes the war costs is still three to four times china's but on the trajectories that both countries are on in the next decade you can start to see convergence. and that raises more questions than answers about whether that's ok, whether that's avoidable. at what pace we should allow that to happen. i am just trying to give reference points. and one last thing in the 1990's, when alice was o.m.b. director and bob was at the air force -- >> the world was wonderful. >> and the world was pretty good. but we were spending about $400 billion a year on the military if you adjust for inflation, once we phased in the cuts in the cold war force.

but that was able to sustain a slightly larger force than we've got today. so one of the arguments people will make is today's world looks certainly at least as interesting as the world of the 1990's yet you're trying to cope with a smaller military finance you sequester or go to sequester level cuts in any way we're going to be forced to cut even further. we can talk more about the specific by specific service later on but these are reference points. $400 billion is where we were in the '90's. $500 billion cold war average. a little under $600 billion where we are now but as you know we're heading downwards towards the $500 billion mark. >> we have a smaller military because we pay each one of the troops more or because we're more capital intensive? >> i will say quick word and let bob, who manages this in detail, add something. we're certainly paying more. military compensation is pretty good. there's a big commission now working on this with a lot of retired military as well as others and i think they're going

to say, we may have to be judicious about how we use military compensation. not because the typical private first class is overpaid. but you have certain categories of people, for example recent retirees from the military who might be 48 years old, have a new job, getting a new salary but still get 50% of their maximum paycheck annually forever. that's part of the military pension system that was designed for understandable reasons and certainly if those people are hurt or wounded and need care in the veteran as fairs budget, they should get it and that's a totally separate part of the budget. not covered by any of the numbers we have been discussing today. but you can ask questions about whether we are overcompensating in certain areas and i think we probably are. and that's -- it's not really just the pay. it's the operating of the force. it's the cost per fighter per ship and then cleanup of military bases. all sorts of things. everything is driving up that per person cost well above the rate of inflation.

>> before i ask you about domestic, i want to ask you a political point about with bob has raised, if congress raises the caps on defense spending, is it plausible that they won't raise the caps on domestic spending? >> yes, i think so. you're asking speculation but remember -- >> the thing is we speculate. >> this is a republican-dominated congress and if they raise the capital on defense t. wouldn't surprise me that they kept the caps on domestic. >> you think the president would sign that kind of bill? >> well, i don't know. it depends what else -- it would be part of a big negotiation and trading off this and that. but we're not in that world at the moment. >> wouldn't you say, alice, this would be a real indication of how republicans are going to

handle the current situation? are they going to be looking for ways to cooperate with democrats? looking for ways not to cooperate with democrats and so forth? they wouldn't might provoking the president but if they raise defense and leave domestic discretionary where it is, that is -- that's a war cry. >> well, maybe -- >> a war crime? >> cry. >> cry. >> you know more about republican thinking than i do but i think there's another consideration here. when the sequestration was first being debated and you remember we thought it was something that would never happen because it would be so unacceptable to republicans to cut defense and so unacceptable to democrats to cut domestic, that no way was it going to happen. we were wrong. >> so let's turn to domestic caps, alice. is it ok to live within these domestic caps, or do you think that would be a mistake?

>> i think it would be a mistake for the long run. we can live with them for another year probably without devastating effect. but i think there are several things to remember. one is that this crazy sounding category nondefense discretionary spending is almost everything the government does except those big entitlement programs and defense interests. it covers the things we want our government to do and have wanted them to do for a long time. and it's not very large. it runs under 4% of our g.d.p. and has for decades forever, actually. on the average. and -- >> something like 17% i think of all federal spending? >> right, something in that order. but if you think of it in relation to the size of the economy and think of all of these different programs, you

mentioned some of them, that are not there, that it's been historically less than 4% of g.d.p. it went above that in the 70's and came down rapidly. went above it briefly with the stimulus but has come down. and it's handed down, down, down in relation to anything, in relation to population. in relation to the size of the economy. so i think one thing to say isn't if you think what we spend for this set of programs is about right now, you should worry about the future. because the caps imply that this set of programs will not keep up with inflation or population or the growth of the economy. i personally think they are too low now, that we should be investing in the future. that means i think a big infrastructure program, and but i also think we should reform

our tax system and pay for reinvestments in the future. >> ron, what's your view on these domestic caps. >> i pretty much agree with alice. i would emphasize i think we're spending too little now, especially on infrastructure. there are several good examples. that's what really comes down to specifically where should we be spending more money? and infrastructure is i think most likely candidate. a lot of people disagree. i should have said first i'm glad we did it. i'm glad we have caps because it shows at least i'm going to call it one third seriousness of congress to do something about the deficit. so they focus all on one third of the budget, discretionary spending and ignore two thirds of the budget and the part that's growing like mad. we used to spend -- think of this, we used to spend almost 70% recently as early '60's on discretionary spending but because demand for social security and medicare has exploited so much, it's a

declining part of the budget and yet that's where they focus anywhere attention. we have to reduce deficit. but i don't see how those caps are sustainable. my only disagree with alice, very bad idea to do that but i do it anyway, don't think caps can be sustained. that doesn't mean everything is going to fall apart. it means they're going to play games. that's what i think they will do. like you have overseas contingencies. you can have emergencies. we do all kinds of things. i bet you this year they will have 25, 30 billion worth of bill expanding under the budget act they can do that. and i think they will. there's no way they can hold these caps continue will be even more difficult next year and more difficult the year after that. >> you could have said that three years ago and probably did. here we are with much lower spending. >> but we still took advantage of some of those provisions. i think we wil