i think one question is whether there is actually about when the russians and chinese happen to do these operations. i don't think we have answers yet on those types of issues. i don't know if anyone else wants to say any thing. >> you see some level of cooperation in certain areas in russia and china, although they have conflicting interests in central asia, they came together useecent years to try to their influence to get some of the central asian countries to call for the ending of basing rise for u.s. military forces located in the region. they did join together to limit the u.s. footprint in that area.

to that extent you see the two having the cooperation of impacts on this strategic situation area generally the two have shared a number of views on world politics, geopolitical issues. they tend to want to see u.s. our limited -- power limited. they tend to support the role of u.n. -- in forcing the they tend to also oppose activities, actions of the u.s. which seem to promote u.s. power . the development of ballistic missile defense systems, russia and china share opposition because they see those as

working contrary to the to benefitnd working the military capacity of the u.s. itself. nato has tended to oppose expansion unnecessarily -- not necessarily for alignment of interests, or see russia assert or reassert hegemony, because they do not want to see the u.s. military alliance stronger. you see those sorts of exercises . >> since we are talking about: -- we ared elliptical talking about cool version and political alliances, u.s. taking a strong stand on that is a good thing. if we are talking about anti-ship missiles and other missile-based ways in which bullying its neighbors,

perhaps in the hope of a softer outcome, success through a softer outcomes, one of those things that china continues to say to its neighbors, you are not going to get involved in missile defense are you? why not? the information sharing agreement from last december for the u.s. are ok, that reflects to other nations in the asia-pacific, that kind of stuff ought to be expanded. it serves the basic village terry underlie, and the political one. we have to be willing to articulate to ourselves that we ought he taking steps depend -- defend threats of this brand. that is the first step.

>> if i could take the moderators privilege, a useful way to characterize it, this touches on the point all was making, you have seen a high level of cooperation on issues at a global level in terms of their vision of what the international order should look like, the role of the u.n., the role of the u.s. and its allies, the real question is are they going to be able to overcome what happened, fairly different approaches to a number of regional security challenges in central asia and southeast asia and the indian ocean. until we have answers we are not going to be able to answer the bigger questions, is this kind alliancetemporary

based on the fact that beijing and moscow are in a position where they are under pressure from the united states or is it significant of a broader strategic shift to deepentionalize and cooperation? those of the places you want to look in the next several years to see how that is going to go. can they overcome this use vastly different perspectives on russia's relationship with vietnam, for example. russia's providing naval capabilities to the chinese and the vietnamese, and to the indians. does russia pull back from some tf those activities and par out of deference to the chinese? we have time for a few more questions.

get the microphone. >> i am going to take the bait cooper brought up with the sanctions, threats for cyber related activity against russia and china and ask the question you put forward, is this going to move russia and china closer together, and is a creating even more amnesty u.s., russia, and china? >> it is a tough question. the authorities already exists to take action against these companies that are engaged in cyber espionage. the obama administration pursued these authorities over the last several years and they have not

exercise them. what i found interesting in the myate the last few weeks is assumption heading up to wouldsit sh have been talk about cooperation between the two countries and not a lot of talk about anything that might seem to spoil his visit here. i was surprised the last couple of days to see major newspaper article tools which had clearly leaked that the president would put sanctions on before the visit. it really shows that there are some people in the white house who are frustrated with chinese actions in cyberspace and feel a need to respond. do i think there could be a it is not veryt

vulnerable to sanctions. dollars, the control can't easily be sanctioned i russia or chinese government that is not have the ability to influence dollars or the international financial system. the sanctions challenge is one where the u.s. has an asymmetric advantage. policymakers are looking for. them ans give asymmetric edge. it is going to be something that is talked more about and the next couple of weeks. this, iay i look at don't think that the cyber sanctions is going to be the straw that broke the camel's russia drive china and

together. this will be a low-level issue, one of the areas of divergence between china and the u.s. and will be managed. we will manage disputes over trade. for the two to really decide key to theirgive strategic alliance, something else has to happen. the russians are close, having gone through the ukraine crisis and become more estranged from the west, we see it into the post-cold war attempts between russia and nato and the european front to try to come up with some peaceful way of coexisting. the ukraine crisis has demonstrated that there are some divergent interests and driven china and russia to be much closer to china, to try to hedge against what is now

deteriorating with the west. china is not there yet. they are integrated with the west and the trade with the u.s. is six times the trade with china. integration, manufacturing is tightly connected with the west. relations, buying u.s. debt. for those to come together there would have to be a shock in the western pacific, some kind of taiwan crisis where something is short of that, some dispute over that rises to the level of hostility, something that would cause a real break between china and the west. then you would have the confluence of events that will cause those to come together even more.

>> i would add for a lot of russians, china has lived for many years like a kind of alternative to the west. if the west won't have as we can turn to china. i think there has been a more active pursuit of that and russia over the last year. it faces limitations because china doesn't have the same capabilities. the russians are discovering with some of the energy deals they are trying to side with the chinese, that the chinese are not going to give them a discount and are going to negotiate hard, understanding the negotiations -- the russians are in a difficult situation. and that china is not an endless fountain of technology or money, now with the economy slowing down and the stock market plummeting. it looks like there is going to be less chinese money available

than the russians anticipated for these investment projects. that is not only going to be an issue in the energy sector, but elsewhere. the projects they are going to invest in, their are going to insist on getting a good deal of financial and nonfinancial terms. side, inchnological the energy side where u.s. and western companies have been sanctioned, especially looking at some of the offshore arctic projects, the chinese don't have comparable technology. it is not as a having been cut off from access the russians can easily go to china and get the same capabilities. i am sure that is true in the military and other spheres as well. it is not as if they are equivalent in that sense. russia give something up if they cut himself off to access to

western capital. >> for mr. cooper, for anybody who wants to answer, one thing that was not addressed was the japanese naval capabilities vis-à-vis the chinese and one thing that perhaps could be addressed would be commander control officer training, leadership skills, the japanese have a navy with considerable experience in the past 70-80 years. the chinese to have a naval tradition that the level the japanese or americans would nor do they have the leadership skills. thank you.

zach: that explains part of why we're seeing the chinese and the east china sea so focused on coast guard's rather than navy. when the chinese operate in the east china sea they send perhaps three coast guard ships out and around, and the japanese will 4-5. them with if they escalated to the navy level and you were using action groups, there would be no question the japanese of the more efficient. especially if you got into any kind of crisis, which is why you are seeing the chinese trying to ensure any time the japanese or the united states uses military forces in what was previously a coast guard encounter that the chinese will claim it is militarization.

that is the first thing bring up because an effort to keep the game at the coast guard level ofre given the rapid size the chinese coast guard, 10,000 ton coast guard ships, giant ships. they are building lots of them and will do it faster than the japanese. it will have an edge at that low-level paramilitary coast guard level and they will push until the japanese or the united states navy has to show up with military vessels. i think that is where we are heading. our navy and the japanese navy are highly ancient. we have a huge advantage in that is not going to change. but it is not going to solve this coast guard on coast guard challenge, especially not in the south china sea where the asian militaries are struggling to find out what the chinese are

doing let alone matched them. >> you are right. the japanese have a formidable navy in their own right. it is on the minds of chinese military leaders. they have 40 highly capable destroyers, more than the , and somerrently have capable diesel electric submarines. so the chinese do not just focus exclusively on the u.s. threat in building access capabilities. they have to focus on threats around the region. the taiwanese navy is well-developed, having developed the capability to try to at least survive the early phases of an engagement with china for some time. you are seeing what constitutes an military arms race, modernization and southeast and

vietnam, and malaysia, building up their naval capabilities to address future disputes with the chinese. the vietnamese have bought a lot of russian technology. submarines, the chinese were not happy about that transaction because they do -- they are deficient in submarine warfare. ultimately the chinese in terms of their ability to match were fighting capabilities have a ways to go. they know it. we have made significant strides but they are not up to the u.s. standard by any stretch. part of the reason they will not engage in exercises with the russians, training, the chinese rely on conscripts, they are only starting to develop a mid-level nco, three for their

experienceind of low commander to make decisions so that the officers are controlling all of the activity from above to far away from the battlefront. they are getting there. they are striving to move that forward. not entirely sure they can benefit from the russians in some areas because the russians suffer from the same problems. >> russia also saw their defenses to vietnam. >> and coastal batteries. rok, both ofjapan those navies have leaderships but the ability to tie them together and talk to each other and talk to us better, and have the capabilities to not only looked but defend themselves against these threats can be done more.

in terms of the capabilities against this stuff, it is the strike. not merely the time when these that are looking at offensive missiles to strike, the rok has kilometer1:52 500 arrangement with the united states in what we sort of agreed to permit, agreed to allow. which means there is no limit any in terms of rok. ,hey had embraced a kill chain building up offensive missiles themselves. this goes back to not only contending with united states, that is another wrinkle, and often sent missile strike among those folks. >> maybe one more question.

>> if you extrapolate the logic of what we're watching here, and what is in the back of my mind is a naval race like world war i, and walking through five years, 10 years, do you see the inevitability of a naval clash in the pacific? security, some kind of security framework, we reassurance measures and regimes, and stuff like that, and walk away from that at some point? thank you. >> it is difficult he which way it goes. it is a close call, i will say. the chinese, if they continue to build their naval capacity at

the rate they are doing, there is going to be probably 15-20 years of being away from fielding the capable force that could match up well against the u.s. navy. they have a number of deficiencies in their fleet. because of those deficiencies that is why they have tended to rely on asymmetric means to counter u.s. military power, land-based missiles, submarines. only recently they started to with the money into building up their fleet. they will be forced to take detours along the path. they are starting to deploy an aircraft carrier. they are using it to learn from it and they plan to develop more going forward. to do that is going to take money away from building up the rest of their surface fleet and in addition they, as act

indicated, there are reasons resources with the coast guard guard. the coast guard, what they deployed to handle these smaller scale disputes that they have, ultimately if they get over the hump on building these three aircraft carriers they will develop over the horizon .argeting capability they will operate a significant distance from their shores. our allies will be increasingly less clear to them that they can rely on u.s. security commitments because china will have the real visible capability

to prevent us from potentially moving forces up to the commitments. >> just one quick comments. this is a topic for my dissertation. i think if you look at the pre-world war i naval competition, there are two countries to look at. germany and the united states. and the u.k.. in terms of rising navies, those are the two. they do the same thing the chinese are doing now. at the end of the day they probably could not have competed with the british. the germans make one major foray out in the first world war and they go back home, all the money was wasted. i don't think that lesson tells you how they are going to act on a political side but it tells

you on the military side it takes a long time to catch up. of the the strength amount of money he has been able to amass there are going to be your credit competitions funding fornavy to be a real match the u.s. navy, even for the next one or two decades. >> somebody else who wrote a dissertation, let me just remind you that that conflict broke out of a thing in the balkans. yes, there is this larger naval dynamic going on, but if there is going to be a clash there are other factors that might go into it. it is hard to predict the future. thank you all for coming and grab a copy of the were on your way out. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> this weekend, three days of politics, books, and american history. here are a few of the features for labor day, monday. a town hall event in seattle discusses the pros and cons of the data and civil liberties. a debate on how to reduce poverty between president obama and the president of the american enterprise in two, and mark cuban and bill clinton and george w. bush on leadership skills. sunday at noon. a live three-hour conversation cheney.pth with lynne

she will take your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets. , catherine hedin talks about how families from chicago to appalachia and the mississippi delta are surviving on no income. like erik loomis , and coulter, and others show their that share their opinions on american cultural issues. on sunday, crowded out. crowdediscussing schools in the post-world war ii baby boom. and our interview with david rubenstein. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. andednesday, robert hale

congressman don buyer discussed the federal budget process. michael o'hanlon of workings -- the brookings institute moderated. michael: good morning everyone. it is great to have you here. get ready for an exciting month ahead. i have a pleasure to talk to two gentlemen who knows what is going on the next few months and the downsides that could happen if we go wrong with the budget picture. we are going to be talking about the looming potential budget problems in this country and the

.istorical recent past and the basis for our initial conversation will be a paper he has written, which you will find website atkings.edu the department of defense when he was comptroller, especially the 2010-2014. he ran the association of military comptrollers in the united date. he had a similar job in the air force. that was during the clinton administration. he was my boss of the congressional budget office. he's graduate of stanford. sitting to our rights is recentlyan don beyer,

elected, with a diverse background and accomplished individual as anyone in this area knows. across the country, extraordinarily successful businessman, lieutenant governor of virginia during the 1990's, , one of in that time his proudest accomplishment, legislation considering disabled individuals and management reform, remained engaged in issues concerning the disadvantaged after leaving office and became president obama's ambassador to switzerland in the first obama term before becoming the elected representative across the river here in virginia where he represents alexandria, arlington, falls church and fairfax county, which means much of the area where the pentagon is updated -- located.

we are going to talk as they say first about the past. the recent past. what we know about the effects of all the budgetary problem's that have occurred here in the last 5-6 years in the united states with terms that we didn't know existed in english language , like sequester, and inside baseball terms like continuing resolutions, and shut down. that is simpler. we went through all this. bob is going to bring us through a quick to her of the lessons from that time. what we also know, in terms of where we stand today, you all know this is september 2, which means the fiscal year ends in four weeks. we will face a whole new world for which we are not yet ready. begin i have a budget for the government for 2016 which begins

in four short weeks. there are all sorts of possibilities that lynn, some of which could resemble the recent past. we will hear largely for the worst if we are not able to see some kind of a compromise. legislation,marine or compromise approach of 2013 is expiring. that was named for congressman paul ryan and settled -- and at -- and senatory patty murray, which softened the restraints on federal spending that would have kicked in under the budget control act of 2011, the vehicle that has brought us to west race and. compromiserray soften the blow for two years. thatsn't easy street but relative relief is ending and now we have to face the budget .omptroller ac

thank you for your patience. i'm what to turn to do with it going all were. and thank them for being here. join me in welcoming them to the stage. [applause] michael: thank you for your paper and getting us going with that. first of all, explain about what happened in these last 3-4 years that was so tumultuous. then any background on where we stand with the fiscal 2016 debate. mr. hale: thank you, thank you and brookings for having me. michael: thank you for joining us. mr. hale: i'm one to talk about

dod because i know more about it but many of what i will talk about affected all federal agencies. 22014 -- until 2014, it was the year of infamy as you will, we saw sequestration, $37 million cut, which translated because of detecting wartime funding and because we are halfway through the year, to a 30% cut in the day-to-day operating budget. no sooner we get through that then we shut down the government. those of the events everyone knows about. there were others going on creating problems. to shut the government down five times. you have to identify people who can't work. to send them letters. very disrupted. we lived with continuing

resolutions. every year. two of those years were for six months. they are difficult to manage. we had a large reprogramming. we tried to move money around. we did several budgets a year. a lot of chaos and a lot of the facts. effects michael:. that is a helpful introduction. we would like to ask bob to explain the more detailed points and the cost to the government ableere worse that he was to document and experience. then we will ask congressman beyer to comment on the points you would like to raise. then we will have the conversation involve you and go to the current debate as it is shaping up as congress prepares

to return next week. the main questions i would like to ask or about the actual cost. the simplest way to begin is by documenting or itemizing the clear, direct cost to the government. then we can get to the indirect or harder to measure. mr. beyer: the two biggest rings were the training. the training, 30% cut in the budgets. the services tried a number of things. they stopped maintenance, put civilian hiring freezes on. particularly the army and air force stopped training for a couple of months for the air force stopped flying. the army did not send combat teams. the result for the country as

we had a military less prepared than it should have been. fortunately nothing happened. the military is paid to be ready and they weren't as ready as they should have been because of sequestration. the other big event, furloughs. civilians were for low to save money. 350,000 under the shut down. that caused a number of problems. our civilians prioritize the work. .he longer-term item suffered anecdotal evidence that we saw people saying skilled technicians i am not sure i want to do this, leaving. i supervised or coordinated the shutdown for sequester and shut down. i were member walking around the pentagon and people would wave

things -- it was a tense time. those are the big events. they were in a number of smaller things. inve wasted taxpayer money ways that i found discouraging. the most obvious occurred during shutdown. , they had toilians be for a load. we sent them home. they cannot even consult their blackberries because it workituted in the legal activities. four days later we brought them back and then congress agreed to back pay for them, acknowledging it was not their fault. we paid $400 million for these employees for days we told them they could not work. we waste a lot of time. , the seniorme leaders time, i remember writing

memos to secretaries gates and panetta, and at the end i said this is a colossal waste of time . to me that captures much of the for all ofwe paid this budgetary chaos. there is one more thing. maybe the most important. it lingers to this day. we harmed the morale of dod employees. some of them were laid off or in other ways had problems. ,he focus on the dod employees they were not furloughed because of the way we pay them, they were not furloughed. they were very uncertain whether they were going to get paid during shutdown. it turned out to be an averted shutdown.

it had gone to afghanistan. he commented when he came back the church did not ask to many questions about the status of the outcry and -- of the afghan war, i was asked if the troops were going to get paid. he couldn't give unequivocal answer because there were circumstances in which we would not have been able to pay them. the real harm occurred with civilians. we furloughed them twice. retirement benefits and -- theys, some members wasted billions. we got a lot of criticism of our civil service from congress. the result i think was a morale .roblem, and the dod as a whole

you can see it in polls like the one conducted which showed a 12% morale.in i think this may be the biggest wound caused by this turmoil and one that lingers today. michael: i know you thought that was one of the central . when you were ambassador you solve the foreign-policy implications, but now you are facing the potential of the federal government. could you please comment on how you see the problem, how you describe it.

the one we are about to face and the lessons and historical realities of sequester and shut down so far. mr. beyer: thank you. i enjoyed reading your paper. , theast couple of minutes most important part, i am privileged to have more federal employees in my district than any other in the country and more federal contract employees. thise coup de grace of negative impact was the shutdown . it started long before. i didn't really get the sense of the until serving overseas in switzerland surrounded by wonderful foreign service officers from fbi and homeland security, whoal complained to me about years and years of feeling unimportant, neglected, back to the ronald government offt

the backs of the people. when you are overseas and the exchange rate -- many of them were 25% behind where they started. you come to the shutdown and that was part of my directive. it was amazing how much angst we got from our customers. they couldn't afford to fix the cars. they would postpone and cancel appointments. the showrooms were full. they just were not buying anything. they were reluctant to have these conversations. we heard werefederal employees who not getting paid because of the shutdown. who knows what happened to the money. people, during the shutdown, the legislation that would pay people back. that did not ce until after

the fact. there was this enormous anxiety. the older i get, as a leader and primaryman, the responsibility of the leaders is to set the culture in which everyone can survive. people are motivated and working together, feel valued and respected. every leader praises too little. we have the opposite of the bell shaped curve with our employees which is a terrible way to run a government. the second thing is what this into the local economy. we have been blessed by the fact that the federal government investment in northern virginia has been so good over the last 30 years. i like to brag that led the business through six recessions. virginiannorthern recessions.

$16 billion diminished in this economy. terry mcauliffe, he found a development in his year as government, and virginia growth rate was 0.0%. only city in america that has a worst performance was atlantic city, new jersey. we have been hit hard by it. the contract space, the they have been able to preserve their workforce. the littlest guys have enough set aside. but the medium-sized have disappointed -- disappeared. rates that vacancy we have seen in our lifetimes. the third piece, we have not learned anything from it. if you asked me about what is coming i do not see us getting a

budget by september 30. most people anticipate the omnibus of last december happening again just before we adjourn for the holidays. that was before the planned parenthood video. now a ted cruz and rand paul threatening no budget ever until planned parenthood is zeroed out. which provides about a third of the birth control for american women. so a spike in abortions and stds. god knows where we are going to go. we read your paper and learn nothing from it. good to be optimistic about it. [laughter] michael: very clear and compelling. to take us out of the beltway, since we do have a national c-span audience and the nation is focused on this issue, we

know the federal workforce is national. how would you make the same argument to a skeptic who was watching this in the midwest where there is a little federal presence and thinks the government is too big and too expensive and has a hard time feeling sympathy for a few days of furlough. i am caricaturing what some people would say but i know some have that thought. you both have good answers to that. for me, watching across the river, the essence is the existential fight between the conservative republican base that feels the major problem is the budget deficit is too large. new congressman from michigan republicans who said he would never pay the pension until he found out about the public that he is here for his grandchildren, versus the left

perspective which is the way we get better is the investment in education and health care, and infrastructure, all these things that require money. they are reconcilable unless we address entitlements. , 70% of and medicaid the budget. on its way out. the fed raises interest rates, that is 6%. a doubling is going to push us into the 75% rate. we have to deal with entitlements. the most difficult thing to do, to create a larger pull for the investment versus budget slashing compromising that takes place. michael: i know you have thoughts on this as well in terms of the contra usually made to the nation security. wantale: let me underscore don said. we need a broad budget debate

that considers revenues and what we do about them, as well as discretionary spending. i don't have hope that will occur until after the election but i hope it is a high priority for the next administration and as part of that, the need to consider ways to get rid of the sequestration approach, and to give the federal departments some security, some sense of where the budget is heading. we very much need longer terms. i terms of federal employees, know how hard a sell it is. some of the public, some midwest and the other places view them as symbols of a government that is too large. i would plead with them and say these are people that are trying to do a job just like those listeners are doing and part of that job is to some or national

security. let's separate them from the issue of how big government ought to be. that is a legitimate debate and one we ought to have. but let's not treat the federal civilian work force as the symbol for that. a rather do what employers should and make clear to them that we value what they are doing. there are changes to the civil service for sure. we need a waste to higher than more play. we need waste of fire the lower performers more quickly. changes. suggest i don't want to see them as the symbol of the distaste some americans have for the government. let's take that on separately from them. michael: one more question on that before i go to another matter. if you could explain about where

we stand with the federal work force. a fair amount of it is aging. we are dealing with a different job market. the younger generations think differently. had we think about where we stand attracting them into government and how does that relate to the conversation today? mr. beyer: it concerns me greatly. there is no mandatory retirement. the bad news is that in virtually all of them you get numbers like 30% are eligible to retire in the next two years. trouble especially as slow as it is to hire. since 1960 the federal workforce has grown 9%, whereas the population in the private sector were many times that. the number of federal workers is at a low went in our lives. , it is tove to do

pump up the perception the federal work force, a job in government is a meaningful career, great career path for you can make a difference. people are motivated by important work, for work they feel is valued. i have for a millennial's are not attracted to it. mr. hale: i share the worried. we are going to have to recruit a number of workers. i am encouraged that my good friend and secretary of defense has included civilians in his workforce of the future initiative. i'm hopeful coming out of that will be some new thinking about how we used federal workers, and train, and when necessary, fire them as well. michael: i'm going to make a quick comment about myself, living in this area you come in contact with intelligence

personnel who have helped us not get attacked again since 9/11. department of homeland security personnel we have done the same. people who work at the national institutes of health are researching. these are federal dollars at work. inflateit is people who different images. aboutould, i want to ask the direct costs that occur on the weapons side. here i am thinking the pentagon has such a big touch it, you can't complain about losing 5% of the budget. 30% of your trading budget was taken away, and the second half of 2013 made a difference. you quoted 25% of the army and air force that had to go to lower readiness standards. in addition it seems to me you're your paper, if

accused of being a guy running a bloated pentagon, you responded by saying in the paper we are trying to buy weapons more entering into multiyear contracts wherever we can. these prevent you from doing that. is that a fair summary? cut ofe: it was a 30% the department of defense known as the operation and maintenance accounts. it was more than training. almost all the day-to-day expenses. the uncertainty that has had aed has definitely chilling effect on some areas of ways we purchase weapons. theiyear contracts and authority under the law to enter into a multiyear contract with a company to produce weapons, they have the mature in have entered in a number of tests, they have

ve, and then they will commit to making those purchases. out specific examples but i have to believe that there is a good deal of uncertainty about the future budget that led many men -- weapons managers to not commit. it occurs most on weapons that , but missileses in smaller weapons that we buy at low rates, at or below quantity levels. we should be entering into multiyear deals which would allow companies to produce more efficiently and result in savings of 10%. that is a long way from being

ready. it is still being design. it illustrates a point that applies today and will of life in the future. we need to do things to hold down costs in the department of defense. is one.r contracting in this environment it is difficult to make it happen. michael: congressman, i don't know if you want to comment on the same russian. you have thought about newport news and other areas where virginia produces weapons. on congress, think of the domestic side of things. other implications? mr. beyer: not so much weapons. --e heard the feedback from the carrier contracts are much more efficient to do. it is the two-year that jumps out at me. i grew up in richmond where virginia has a two-year budget. the general assembly touches up on the second year.

the two years plan makes you a different perspective. if you have the two-year planning throughout the federal nowrnment, there's a bill that i am cosponsoring for the two-year resolution. itdoesn't do everything but is an important step in the right direction. michael: continuing resolution works in the opposite direction. mr. beyer: we were on a continuing resolution all four years read we were spending significantly less, anticipating the cut, and then september 10 they would say the budget is approved. people would around like crazy sending money after bad projects trying to catch up. michael: this is a great foundation for us to bring you win. would like to have two different parts of the conversation with the audience.

i would like to ask for questions concerning anything we have been talking about looking backward. the effects that we have seen from sequestration and shutdowns , continuing so far. in we can get into the conversation about what is coming in the next four weeks. i would like to try to ask us to separate those into two parts. could i ask for anyone who has questions for either of these gentlemen on what we have been through the last four years and they have been talking about today, if there are no takers we will launch into the conversation. identify yourself. >> george nicholson. session, a three-day the topic was national security and national debt. he had alan simpson there. former defense secretary gates. he had rick perry of the

treasury under reagan baker, the secretary of the treasury under clinton. they came out and said the problem we have, and you alluded to two of them, we have a problem with entitlements, with revenue, and and the tax code. the problem we have been congress is each of those has such advocacy that we are not going to solve it unless we bundle them together and come up with a solution. what is the solution? he said it is not on my watch. along the same lines, i said i have heard people say we don't need to worry about the national debt. we have lenders that will always lend us money. mysaid you don't understand previous existence at goldman sachs. what is happening to the world financial markets now with china

and the everything else, what is the confidence? will they continue to lend us money we are pointed have to make it more attractive and drive up the interest rate shall be the original sequestration problem? michael: ok? >> i don't want to be too pessimistic. we solve the erskine bowles commission. we saw what was close to a deal that didn't come to pass that was broad in nature. i think a new administration that pays attention to this could begin to solve these problems. at least take a bite of the apple. i don't think it is going to happen in the next two years but i hope it is a high priority for the next administration.

entitlements, revenues, the tax code. and discretionary spending. i don't want to give up rep. beyer: i am optimistic about this, too. a responsible security 2100 plan that addresses social security through 2100. on corporate tax reform, there are a lot of different ideas out there. i think of this administration and the republican leadership would like to see tax reform at the 35% rate. democrats and republicans on the budget committees to come together and take away the worst parts of the budget control act. i also look at the fact that in

virginia, judges are going to be district some of our congressional seats. governor hogan is doing the same thing in maryland right now. several states are into independent redistricting. the more we can get away from those seats, the more that politicians have to appeal to the middle. you may eventually get a politic that will let these things happen. >> ben bernanke was talking about the budget situation earlier. , apologies if i'm not getting this quite right, but you can check it out on our website -- he said deficits right now is of a semi-tolerable level. the problem is it is not like that in a few years from now. but it does give us a moment where we don't necessarily have to sequester or shut down the government or go to a continuing

resolution to impose an immediate austerity. we can actually have the debate, have the campaign, and hope that until then, we can have a new consensus if not by 2017. we have deficits down to about 2.5% gdp. that is still large. and it will probably grow. but it is not necessarily an urgent crisis the way it might have been a few years ago. i think that is a fair summary. yes ma'am, on the sixth row. hi, i am from a synopsis newsletter. i am hearing rumors about budget deals brewing on capitol hill. however, the way that it would work, as far as i can tell, to push the bca cap 22020. it's kicking the can down the road. -- bca cap to 2020.

how do you feel about that? >> i think we are seeing what people's interests are. if there is to be a broad to your budget deal -- 2 year budget deal, it is likely that some congressman will want it to be paid for. they may raise the caps on defend and nondefense. they may raise productions in lower priority entitlements. to get spending scored is to extend the caps. right now the congressional budget office, which does the scoring, we look through 21, and get some credit for that. it is a possibility.

was a dealnt, if it that got us in the next two years with budgetary certainty for dod and other federal agencies, i would live without. expanding caps is kind of way out there. i matter how much substance there is. i think it's more important that we find a way to make a deal. i didn't answer one of your earlier questions. maybe i should do it quickly, which is review the bidding on where we are at defense. it's been an interesting year so far. we have seen all four committees and both houses pass both appropriations and authorizations bills for defense. all at the level of the president's budget request, which was about $35 billion above the cap. they did it without changing the , by doing what i call in

overseas contingency fund fix, used to pay for wartime funding, which is exempt from the caps. it's called emergency spending. they put about $40 billion of base budget into that program. everybody agrees it's just a way of getting around the caps. the president said he will not accept that, in part because nothing has been done on the nondefense side, and in part because of the thabad president. -- bad precent. -- bad precedent. the bills are sitting there. the president said he will veto them. it's back to, can we get a budget deal? if we don't, and i am less confident than i was a few months ago, then several other things could happen. probably the next best option, in my view, was to see congress

appropriate at the cap levels. that's about $500 billion for dod in the fiscal 16. that gives authorities the department they need to operate. even worse, on the spectrum would be a continuing resolution, which is congress essentially saying we canterbury -- we can't agree on a budget, do what you did last year. in dod.priations that will cause loss of problems. the spending would be below the cap levels by about $4 billion. authority for new programs that covers hasn't approved. you don't have a lot of the authorities that you need. it's not a big deal. trying out for a whole year would be a nightmare though.

the least desirable in my view would be shutting the government down and hoping that that forces consensus. a terrible way to do it. but with the planned parenthood issue and maybe others, i am more concerned than i was a few months ago about the possibility of another government shutdown. i certainly hope it doesn't happen. it is disruptive. it will be another one to the morale of our employees. -- another blow to the morale of our employees. i don't have the same confidence that i had a couple months ago. your sense of where we could be headed on the current default, or you're thinking about what kind of deals may still be possible. we welcome your thoughts. rep. beyer: to her question about kicking the can down the road. of advice myiece father, if you can take the hit, take the hit. we are looking at the highway trust fund, which we have not added money to since 1983. we have its enormous $3 trillion

structure backlog. one shining moment of hope happened when does he met with speaker boehner tort -- to work out a fix for physicians. we passed it. we didn't fund all of it, but we stopped kicking the can down the road. everybody goes back to that example and says, do that again. host: more broadly, do you think there is a possibility of a rewrite -- ave maria ryan -- a murray ryan 2? rep. beyer: i would love to be part of the committee. what interesting is to watch the appropriators making those decisions. new programs, killing old programs, only to realize that if he goes to a continued resolution, all at work goes out the window. and we just did what we did last year. host: let me ask you to give a

few examples on the continuing resolution issue. maybe it's easier to do with weapon systems. be as specific as possible. but a couple weapons that we would buy more of that we don't need, or a new weapon that we are ready to buy now, but are delaying because we are not allowed to do new starts. do you have any examples that come to mind? mr. hale: you also can't ramp up production. i don't have the same details as i used to. buywould be forced to weapons that you didn't want, even if you are trending down. but the money would sit there and you would have to find some way to use it within the same appropriation. and of course, there would be no new starts.

believe a tactical vehicle maybe in a new start. covers is not approved at yet, so you cannot forward. there are some environmental categories of spending. where special authority is needed. the department wouldn't be able to go forward with that, unless they got authority for military construction, they wouldn't be able to do construction projects. it's a bad way to run a railroad. brettn hold its financial for a couple months. --financial breadth for a couple months, but extending that to a year, serious problems will result. effectively it less and it will harm dod's mission. we will be back in the situation we have been in for the last five years. host: other questions? yes sir, in the back. >> hi, with bloomberg news.

how effectively over the last three years has a military and pentagon conveyed to the 99% of the public not connected to military the impacts of sequestration. two, last april, your successor pointed out a pretty useful book on the impacts of sequestration, down to the program level. they have not done that this year, for whatever reason. was that a useful tool for a to getting the public? should they do that again? -- tool for educating the public? mr. hale: let me do the second what first. i know what you are referring to. it's hard to do those. there is a document probably still up on the consulate say whathat tried to would happen at cap level spending at each major weapon program. yes, i think it would be useful.

i think an update of that, especially as this debate progresses. i think we will end up at the cap level. so how effectively has security conveyed? it's hard for the department to convey on a national level. the secretary has national standing, but for the most part, they are focused on defense. i think dod did a good job he can clear what it would do to members of congress, to interested constituencies. probably not as good. i wish they were able to do it in a national way, because they generally don't have a national pulpit. you need to depend on the president and others to make those kind of national statement. host: when you are overseas in

switzerland and working on issues like iran sentients, but also -- iran sanctions, but also money laundering, tax interests in europe, many of the things. during the time of resolutions and shutdowns and the sequester, how did affect what people said to you about the u.s. and what they thought about the country? i'm not asking you to over dramatize the point. i am just curious to know. usm curious how people saw over there. rep. beyer: we mentioned the impact on the workforce. it was fascinating because it came up all the time. i was in switzerland. this was coming after the wars in iraq in afghanistan, abu ghraib and all of that stuff. what they heard from the state department was to improve the

perspective on the american people. i realized all the movies, all the books, all the music is all ours. they are totally in love with us. everyone has been to the grant canyon, they'll have harleys. but they could not understand how this shining city on the hill could be so dysfunctional. their editorial writers, their politicians, their business leaders did not understand the debt cliff, the shutdown, the sequester. they certainly did not understand the budget deficits, running $1.5 billion surpluses every year. it is very confusing to them that we can be this old, wonderful democracy and still be so dysfunctional relative to them. host: did it reduce our power in any measurable way, or just distract conversation from more productive areas? rep. beyer: i don't think it

reduced our power. they were mostly obsessed with the u.s. department of justice etc.,t credit swiss, which they thought was economic warfare against us. they explained this was trying to hold americans cheating on their taxes responsible and accountable rather than attacking their banks. host: when we have conversations with my colleagues that are asia specialists, they assert that in asia, the combination of the great recession and is washington dispatch melody really were eroding our prestige in the pacific in ways they could see becoming continuing much longer. that led to the rebalance of pitch strategy. rep. beyer: which is one of the more link arguments for the treat authority, that we had to assert our leadership in trade again to be a factor in the pacific./

this is very helpful, because all the pieces are interconnected in different ways. congress did just get something done on cpa. to those who say this congress can't get anything done, are they right, or does the cpa prove them wrong? we are in the september period where we hope for a miracle. is that a possible hope? rep. beyer: two major cyber security bills, trade promotion authority. not everything, but something. what we have to do is come back next week. on things like the transportation bill, the budget, get those same type of coming together fixes. host: next question. >> yes, i am with government executive. this workforce of the future

plan, i understand they want to reclassify some civilian jobs. i am wondering if there might be obstacles from unions. i wonder if you can address that. mr. hale: i'm not familiar with the details, so i don't want to go too far. but i will say nearly half of the dod civilian employees in the federal government, i would hope they would have some clout to deal with unions. i might add, they didn't say so much about this in the paper, but the unions didn't work with the dod during the worst of these times, sequestration and furloughs. they didn't have any authority to stop them. but they did have authority to make dod's life difficult. and they realized that the department faced a crisis in budgetary terms in 2013. i was pleased that they worked with us. i hope they do the same.

themiscussions i had with on any reclassification, any other changes that could improve the civil service. i'm afraid i can't give you any details. host: yes, standing in the far back. >> thank you all very much. back in 1986, a different era. two part question for caucus met beyer. i have known you since 1998 approximately. talk about the virginia delegation on these issues. where do you see leadership on the other side of the aisle within the virginia delegation, republicans to democrats. if you think about the debate on september 16 and the democratic one in october, what question would you like the candidates to be answering with respect to these issues?

thank you. host: i'll give you time to think. it's interesting how people have their different niches. guy oforbes is the navy the virginia delegation. the two most thoughtful. gerry connolly as a democrat, ranking on oversight democrat reform. very good on federal government issues, good on budget issues. gerry is a real keeper. on the republican side, rob wittman is very thoughtful, and has done many things in government. once again, i think he brings a good perspective to the whole process. i'll take a shot at your second question. it was a perfect world, i'd like to see the debates actually address broadly, and i understand they can't get into detail, their willingness to

uncover mice on issues -- willingness to cover my's on issues like -- to compromise on issues like tax reform. some of the republican side and democrat side would treat the question differently. i would like to hear that question get started. there are those on both sides that understand it. i think clinton does. jeb bush does and others as well . i have hope for that. i would settle for a commitment that we need to achieve some stability in federal budget ting. that would mean, in my mind at least, a two year budget deal. getting some stability so that we don't continue this a budgetary chaos that has afflicted us. i would settle for that. i think this is a wonky inside the beltway play, but i think the whole the mystic

discretionary budget is just a morass too many people. -- the domestic discretionary budget. abuse, orur worst whatever else. in fact, it is what funds infrastructure, it is what funds science research, it is what funds science research. all sorts of various kinds of efforts to promote diversification of our energy, which are controversial, but nonetheless relevant. it funds long-term environmental sustainability, which is crucial for our way of life. i would like to see candidates show that they at least understand the different pieces and healthy american people understand them. -- and help the american people understand them. that part of the budget is just as relevant to american national power as dod. it doesn't get the attention

partly because it is so confusing. there are many things that are hard to talk about. but it's not impossible. there are 6-10 big things that i would like to see candidates at least safe, this is what i would like to do in 1 or 3 of them. that is a realistic goal and would help in the education of the american people as we think about optimal budget plans. it relies on the department of state, which we need. it funds the department of homeland security, which we need to maintain internal security. and it funds the veterans administration, which is clearly the likely related to national security. --clearly directly related to national security. and many others as well. so these directly or indirectly affect national security.

host: yes sir. >> let me just clarify that i am a donor. my question is, what happens when these budgets get into rivalries between forces fighting over it? how does that get adjudicated? we have seen a lot of the "sky is falling" stuff last year from the army, and that didn't seem to work. i am wondering how this plays out. you definitely see the tension rise in the budgeting cycle now. i took office generate six, so i have to confess i have not went through it yet. --i took office in january 6. people will be waiting for 1-2 people to come up with an

interesting idea. you can get up to boehner and nancy pelosi. it's not just republicans versus democrats, it is often house versus senate. the difference between the senate budget and house budget was pretty significant. somehow getting those four leaders into the same room on the same page, and the ability to go back to the offices. john boehner has the toughest job in washington right now. he has 245 republicans, 40+ of them belong to the freedom caucus, who cannot be trusted to be within on any given issue. -- to be with him on any given issue. leonale: this did work for at a. -- he says you stuff people in a room, give them pizzas, and to let the come out until you get a deal. -- and don't let them come out

until you get a deal. the needs to be urgency. you may give broader guidance, but in the end, you need to work out the details. once they convince senior leaders, you have to sell it to members of the house and senate. all of this is hard, but it is doable. i don't want to be too pessimistic. it is always darkest just before the dawn. think if you had gone back to the times before the american taxpayer believe act and the bipartisan budget act, you would have heard many of the same words -- oh, we can't do it. i hope we do, but not as confident as i was a few months ago that it will happen. host: you mentioned the word army and urgency, where the army couldn't train properly in 2013. i want to drive this point home. a lot of people may say, big deal, the army didn't train as hard last summer, they probably

need a break anyway. they can make up for it later. no, they can't make up for it later. if you skip these rotations at the national training centers in louisiana or california -- these are the big events that army brigades therefore -- brigades prepare for over a period of time. they can only handle so many brigades at a time. it holds all the pieces of the u.s. army together. this is what got us good in the 80's. realistic training with these culminating big events. we stopped doing them because of the sequester last time. we really stopped. you might sell, we can do it later. -- you might say, we can do it later. they don't have the capacity. plus the soldiers themselves move on. if someone is lieutenant at one in their career, they'll have one opportunity to do a training

rotation. if they don't do that, maybe they go to a desk job, maybe don't go as a captain four years later. total different set of responsibilities. they have no knowledge of how the unit is supposed to perform. it's that practice to stop units from doing brigade level training. that is what happens from these unexpected budget showdown, and possibly continuing resolutions. depending on how it happens, you may be able to protect more. i was at the national training center a couple weeks ago, and i would underscore what you said. we very much need to protect that. host: next question, here in the front. >> hi, i am from the charles group as an intern. for your proposed to your budget, -- 2 year budget, what

do you see happening if that doesn't happen for the department of defense, specifically for the national guard? as i mentioned before, , iwe don't get a 2 year deal would hope that congress would appropriate at the cap level. come down to the budget control act gap, about $500 billion. better to appropriate at those makes so that congress decisions about what not to do, including the national guard. the worst event would be a true continuing resolution with no special authorities. i would rather see an appropriation bill. the guard is coming down modestly in size right now. i assume that is likely to continue. congress has some as rations, as you are well aware. -- congress has some

reservations. when you would see, if they came down to the cap level, is it some tightness on training moneys. i don't think they would accelerate the drawdown. if we make this decision and things are tight, it will only be for fiscal year 2016 and dod would stay around to fight again in 2017. money is already pay money is already tight in the guard and elsewhere for training, so that would be a bad thing. anould not anticipate acceleration of the drawdown. host: in the third row. >> question addressed to both of you, and congressman, if you could talk from the industry perspective and mr. hale from the buildings perspective. within the framework of sequestration and drawdown and reduced finances that go into

that, we have spoken about morale and relationships that exist today. how do you see the conversations and relationship between industry and the building in the current environment and moving forward? onmr. hale: d.o.d. depends infrastructure to build national security, and it should. it builds many of the smaller products d.o.d. depends on. something on the order of half of the defense budget goes to private sector firms. i think there is still a reasonable relationship. i will take my best shot. i think there is a good relationship. these companies depend on d.o.d., but as i said, d.o.d. depends on them. will it be frayed at the edges if we go through another shutdown?

yes, i think they were frustrated. i did interviews of industry people and a lot in connection with this paper. they were frustrated. they did not have clear guidance as to what happened during shutdown. if we have to go to a lower budget level down to the cap level rather than the president's proposal, we will have to cut back and that will be frustrating. do i think it will strain the fabric of the relationship? no. they need us and we need them. i think for that reason, that relationship will survive. but there will be some strains. i don't know if i have answered your question. >> i was thinking related to undersecretary kendall's initiative and the alignment of profitability. from that perspective. mr. hale: if we end up taking a billion and bring

it down to $500 billion, we are going to have to make major changes in buy sizes of weapons. a lot of the growth was in procurement. d.o.d. cut a lot as the drawdown occurred. it takes time to reduce the number of d.o.d. employees and save money on the personal side. the 16 fiscal side began to address that factory balanced program. a lot of that will have to go if we go to a lower level, so it will harm better buying power because it is inefficient to produce at these lower rates. i think in a strange environment that will be there -- strained environment that surely will be there, some of the relationships will be strained. as i said, we need them and they need us. i think this relationship will continue. rep. beyer: my experience of the they are all adapting

my crazy to the budget control act, to this new world in which we live. they are very much for getting away from lpta. everybody hates that and is looking forward to what they will do with procurement reform. part two is they are all adapting. their big growth area is in medical technology. northrop grumman has a huge thing on climate change and what it will do to norfolk. part three is it will be interesting what ash carter's visit to silicon valley brings wherethe pushback millennials have no idea of what it takes to do government contracting or multiyear systems. it will be a fascinating debate. mr. hale: you've got to have it as a their medical physics

physicist.edieval >> catherine ballenger, former military construction analyst in d.o.d. questions. you can answer the one you want. one is, with the development of ever-increasing sophisticated weapons platforms, they seem to be crowding out other procurement programs. which ising of jsf, now the largest procurement program, to be followed by ohio class replacement. how do you afford both of these without an increased procurement line? with cap's, it means you have to spend less in other appropriations. the second question was when secretary mcnamara introduced

the planning, programming, budgeting system 50 something years ago, it was supposed to minutely -- modulate the annual planning the services had done deviously. 55 years later, this is something we can do to be more agile because the services start planning and programming 18 months before the budget. rep. beyer: let me try the first --mr. hale: let me try the first, the crowding out problem. have to take a number of steps -- we will have to take a number of steps. we have not much -- but much for the army in terms of major weapons in years. typically what we do in highly constrained budget environments is not efficient. that is that you stretch all of the programs out. i'm afraid we would see that happen again.

also, we will probably have to try to move money, or d.o.d. will, from other areas of the budget. things like military construction, although they have cut that a lot already in order to get money in procurement. i don't want to give up with the notion. given the state of the world, and i know this will sound strange sitting here in september of 2015, but i believe if we look out over five years, there is a chance we will see increases in the defense budget. i say that for two reasons. one, the defense budget is notoriously cyclical. in the sixth year of the real the total budget, there have been longer drawdowns but only went to my knowledge. it would not be surprising to see that turnaround. the other is the state of the world. defense budgets are clearly influenced by threats to national security. with north korea and continuing problems in iran and who knows what else, i think those threats remain quite high.

so i think there is a chance of added funding. the department will have made some personnel drawdowns. hopefully, that will allow us to pump more money into procurement. on the planning side, i am an advocate for the planning program and budgeting system. it has many critics, legitimately so. everybodyk it does -- has a chance to have a say. i think the biggest problem with it now is we don't know what we are planning for. you always have some uncertainty with budgets. uncertainty now is quite broad. it is about this year's budget, the fiscal 16 budget. i think the biggest thing we can do to improve the effectiveness is to get some consensus in the country about the fence -- defense for more than a year in advance so planners and programmers have the opportunity to shape a budget and actually educate it or something close to

it. i don't know if that answered your question. thank you. host: congressman? i'm going to add one small thing. on the programs you mentioned, the f 35 and ballistic missile submarine replacement, i think these are programs the size, shape, and purpose can be debated and should be debated. i'm not in lockstep with the pentagon on either one, especially i don't think we need 12 new submarines costing $6 billion each. what i would say in the context of today's conversation, the current shutdown debate serves no purpose in relation to that conceptual and strategic conversation. it distracts from it. to the extent we should be debating more, what do we do if putin further intensifies his

aggression's in eastern ukraine? we cannot have that conversation as easily because we will consume the oxygen with an unnecessary self-imposed crisis. that is one of the lessons that comes out of your paper, the amount of senior, congressional time spent on these unnecessary showdowns. editorial comment. in the back. >> my question is a follow-up to the question earlier about the national guard. as we see turmoil in the budget ,nd drawdowns with personnel marines being the biggest example. i was wondering if the reserve component is going to be used as you fill in the gaps were talking about. there are still threats abroad. i'm wondering if there will be more pressure and responsibility placed on the reserves at that point. do you think that will affect

retention and recruitment within the reserves and military personnel more broadly? you were talking about struggles with morale in the civilian sector. i wonder if that played out within the other military personnel as well. mr. hale: i am amazed at what the reserve components have done since 2001. if i could date myself, you can tell from the color of my hair i have been at this for a while. i go back to the commission that set up the all volunteer force which said one thing in all volunteer force will not be able to do is buy a long-term war because in a volunteer environment, we would not be able to mobilize the reserve components officially. they proved that long, i think it should be proud of what they have contributed over the last 10 years. into a we are heading

time when we have no major wars going on, there will probably be relatively less use of the guard and reserve. and also the [indiscernible] although they are morton's -- involved in eastern ukraine and others. there will probably be some drawdown in the reserve components. there are modest ones planned in the army, although it is contentious. i would expect there would be some drawdowns there. i don't see us moving away from the fundamental dependence on thereserve, both to augment active forces during peacetime, but particularly to augment them if we find ourselves in a major contingency. they have proven they can do it, and they should be proud of that. i thk we will continue to depend on them. host: congressman? reserveer: not

specific, but connected is the impact of the budget control act and slowly growing defense budget. military benefits in general and the commission. we have many active-duty and retired military living across the river. many of them worry about the commissaries, contributions, the new discussion about -- do you have to serve 20 years to qualify for a military pension? how do you do this for someone serving 8, 12, or 19 years? .ery complicated a huge part of defense is spent on personnel. at the same time, trying to integrate that with personal experience. i was at a food bank about three weeks ago. the majority of the people we saw in the food bank were military families. wives withkids --

kids who come in saying they are not paid enough to support the family. these are pfc's and the likes. host: other questions. questioner in the back. >> lauren hirschi. thank you for allowing me a second question. climate change was raised. you said general dynamics was the firm paying a lot of attention. ini learned recently virginia in the tidewater area, there's a lot of flooding going on. apparently, national security costs to be incurred. is it mr. hale or dr. hale? mr. hale: mr. hale is fine. >> has someone looked forward over a long-term horizon to see how this rising seawater is going to affect our naval bases around the united states and around the world as well? mr. hale: somebody probably has, but it was not me.

i'm not aware of the outcome of that to be candid with you. can either of my colleagues help? rep. beyer: northrop grumman's presentation off the lobby looks at norfolk because of the naval base there. it takes data back on surges from 1910 through today, and draws a straight line and says that base by 2050. 35 years from now. andbases in portsmouth norfolk will be underwater. i continue to try to make the climate change argument in congress, which is not always friendly place to do it, that it is best to come back to the military stuff. there have been military -- many military leaders in the climatent talking about change inciting conflict around the world. one thing that goes unsaid in

syria is the initial part of the syrian conflict had to do with migration based on drought. host: i'm going to ask one last question and invite each of our panelists to add any answers and concluding thoughts. it will come back to this question of what kind of a deal could possibly avert the train wreck we could be headed for. i may -- i know you may not want to talk about that not being one of the negotiators, so you get a pass if you prefer, commerce and. let me hypothetically put this on the table. we know the murray ryan plan allocated roughly comparable amounts of money for defense and nondefense. part of this bacon 2015 has been the president saying i want to do that again in the congress saying no, the pentagon needs it dere than the domestic si and we will use the war supplementals to help the pentagon. that is the philosophical debate. each side things he can win. each side thinks they can win

taking it to the voter. it sounds like the spirit of our conversation is take it to the voter next year. in the meantime, do good governance. i don't want to put words in your mouth. wouldn't a reasonable compromise be to add the $35 billion for the pentagon budget that the pentagon wants, and add half as much to the domestic side? a literal mathematical compromise on the fundamental dispute. it leaves aside all of these other issues, which may actually be the driver. it may be lame parenthood -- planned parenthood or some other matter. if you are trying to solve this on the mathematics of the budget, wouldn't that be the kind of proposal that might be a meeting halfway? if you could comment on that, bob, i will start with you now that you're out of government and can opine like i can. has tosman beyer

worry about where he sits on the hill. any other concluding thoughts to bring to the discussion? mr. hale: there are some very important aspects of nondefense funding. they affect national security and many other programs. roughly, defense is about equal to the nondefense side. i'm not prepared to say we ought to go to a formula, half nondefense, in full for defense. i would like to see some negotiations. if it yielded that result, i could probably live with it. but i'm not prepared to endorse it at the moment. there will be another aspect to budgetary negotiations that will be important. are these paid for through offsets? both the past two deals did have offsets in fairly obscure entitlements and changes. that would be another important thing that will have to be part

of the negotiation. i think i'm on the we panetta school -- leon panetta school. put them in a room, give them pick people you trust, and tell them they have got to come up with a deal. i will offer one administrative comment and a parting shot from the. the administrative one is if any of you are interested in further contact with me on paper, kimberly is here from booz allen. you can get hold of her. on the substantive side, you rarely get to write your own headlines. never, if you are in government. if i was picking one on this for me, it would be former d.o.d. comptroller pleads for and to budgetary chaos. we need it badly. i hope i have made that clear in the paper and my remarks today. that only hope we see during this next couple of

months, or at least a mitigation of the budgetary chaos. thank you for offering a constructive approach. the president has said it is not acceptable to skip the budget caps for defense and do nothing for the domestic side. that there has to be some middle ground. i would just as soon a budget compromise that addressed rabbit ears also as dave camp's proposal last year coming out of ways and means. there are so many budget gimmicks and the like that give us that opportunity. thank you. it is a great end line. i enjoyed being with you, bob. michael, thank you so much. thank you for giving us education as we push forward. we wish you good luck as

you go into this big month for the congress and country. thank you both for being here. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] "newsmakers," the archbishop talks about the pope's trip to the united states later this month and issues in which religion and public policy intersect.

"newsmakers," at 6:00 and 10:00. >> the stanford professor talks about her book, which takes a critical look at the legal profession in the united states, the high cost of law school, and a lack of diversity in the profession. >> i think we need a different model of legal education that includes one-year programs for people doing routine work, two-year programs as an option for people who want to do something specialized in the third year. and three full years for people who want a full, general practice legal education we now have. it is crazy to train in the same way somebody who is doing routine divorces in a small town in the midwest and somebody doing mergers and acquisitions on wall street.

we have this one-size-fits-all model of legal education is extremely expensive. the average debt level for a law student is $100,000. you can train everybody to do everything in the same way. i am licensed to practice in two states, and i would not trust myself to do a routine divorce. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern &a."pacific on c-span's "q an >> governor walker addressed issues such as immigration, the iran nuclear agreement, defense spending, and education reform. this is 25 minutes. [applause]

>> good evening everyone. our guest is wisconsin governor republican scott walker and tonight we will be getting to know him and where he stands on all the key issues in this race. i will ask the candidate some questions and after a break, we will bring our studio audience in for their questions. before that let's have a quick , look at the candidate's bio. scott walker was born in 1960 7 in colorado springs, colorado but spent his early years in plainfield, iowa. his family moved to wisconsin in 1977 where he was involved in a number of activities including boy scouts. he achieved the rank of eagle scout. he attended marquette university and worked for ibm during school before he dropped out to work full-time for the american red cross. walker was elected to the state assembly in 1983. in 2002, was elected as milwaukee county executive. he was inaugurated as governor of first wisconsin in 2011 and into his second term in 2015. walker wants to transform the educational system, reform

government, and invest in infrastructure. he is married and has two sons. got that out of the way. governor good to see you. , you are official now. how does it feel? gov. walker: it has been nice. it has been great to be here in new hampshire and across the country with my family. my wife and sons have been with us. it is a lot of fun to get out and see people and know it is official and talk about our vision and hopes for america. >> a lot of issues in this race. recently, the deal with iran. you were very vocal in your criticism of it. why? gov. walker: i still remember as a kid my brother and i putting yellow ribbons around trees when iran held the 52 hostages. this is not a country that has changed much. not only do they have the ability to have nuclear infrastructure, but i am even concerned in the short term. this is the chief state sponsor

of terrorism in that region and the world. they are a direct threat to israel. they are a threat in other ways with what they have done in connection with the rebels in places like yemen. this is not a place we should be doing business. as president, i would terminate that bad deal right away and i would work with congress to reinstate existing sanctions and put in place more crippling and commence our allies to do the same. >> this is a country that has a long way to go to earn the right to be trusted. gov. walker: i would deal with them but i would do a deal on , our terms, not on their terms. i would get rid of the illicit nuclear infrastructure they have. i don't think this plan has the kind of transparency we need, including being able to go in on the moment into their underground fortified facilities. as i mentioned, deal with the problems they have in that region. they are the chief sponsor of

state-related terrorism throughout the middle east. in many ways, we talk about radical islamic terrorism and they are as big of a threat not just to the region and israel but to the world as our groups like isis. >> lin let's bring it back home. here in new hampshire, a major issue is heroin. it is a crisis in this state. as president, what kind of federal response or role do think the white house should have? gov. walker: it's tragic. in my own state dealing with it, it is a drug -- you don't take it, it takes you. i talked to the mayor of manchester about this. my own budget writing chair has a daughter who almost went through an overdose and has been in and out of jail. he and i worked together putting together a comprehensive package deal with heroin and opiates. a lot of young people get into it because of addiction to

prescription opiates and open the door toward heroin abuse. there was a 72% increase in my own state in heroin overdoses. this has become a major concern, particularly in rural and less densely populated areas. it is not just a drug problem in the big cities, it is all over the country. as president, i believe that is all the more reason why we need to take major portions of our resources and send them from the federal government back to our states and local communities. i think local and state officials are much better equipped to be more effective, more efficient, and more accountable with those dollars. >> does it also play into the equation when it comes to immigration reform, particularly on our borders? this drug is coming across the borders. gov. walker: securing the border is a problem. people think it's about immigration. that is a sidebar issue. you have international criminal organizations penetrating our borders with drugs. and with human trafficking.

this is all tied together. if we have a truly secure border between infrastructure, technology, and personnel, we can do it. earlier this year, i was in israel. i saw the fence they put up. they have it manned. they use technology to enhance it. since they put that fence up, they have seen terrorist related 90% plus.wn by there is no reason why we can do something as effective on our land-based borders. if we had these sorts of attacks in our water-based ports, we would be sending in the navy or the coast guard. we are not doing enough when it comes to our land-based borders. >> if you don't know a lot about scott walker, you are not afraid to mix it up. gridlock is a big problem in washington. how do you make the case, you know what, i can take a fight but i can also get along? gov. walker: i think the biggest frustration most people have is people can't get things done.

in my inaugural address, i said the difference between wisconsin and washington, we get things done. i think that is what people are craving. they don't have to agree on every single issue. a lot of people in their own households don't agree on every single issue. the bottom line is that americans want someone who will fight and win. get things done for people like themselves and their families. that is our track record. more than anybody else in this field, we have shown we can fight and win and people's lives are better because of it. >> what makes you different from all the rest? gov. walker: there are a lot of great people. many are friends and fighters and winners. i have done both. i withstood the pressure of over 100,000 protesters. we had death threats and attacks. we had protests again. we had a recall election. we didn't back down. we did what we thought was best not for the next election, but what is best for the next generation.

>> we will get to studio audience questions after the break. stay with us. >> now, conversation with the candidate continues. >> welcome back. tonight's guest, wisconsin governor scott walker. time to bring in questions from our audience. i will jump in if follow-up is needed. our first question is coming from joan. good to see you. >> what do you see as the needs for the department of defense and homeland security in the next administration? gov. walker: i think one of the most sacred duties of the commander-in-chief is to protect the american people. right now, i think we have had a real problem in that regard. in my lifetime, the best president for national security and foreign policy was a governor from california. he helped rebuild the budget. he helped rebuild the military budget. he stood up for our allies and stood up against our enemies.