Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150117

Put in place to assure peoples privacy and to make sure that government is not abusing these powers, and on the other hand there are times when Law Enforcement and those of us whose job it is to protect the public are not thinking about those problems because we are trying to track and prevent the a particular terrorist event from happening. It is useful to have civil libertarians and others tapping us on the shoulder in the midst of this process and reminding us that there are values at stake as well and we welcome that kind of debate. The technologies are evolving in ways that potentially make this trickier. If we get into a situation which 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 email address that we cannot penetrate that, that is a problem. And so that is the kind of dialogue that were 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. [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] next week, president obama delivers his state of the Union Address before congress. We will have his speech and the republican response, plus reaction from you and members of congress. Our live coverage begins on tuesday night at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan. The deadline for the cspan student camera competition is tuesdays a bigger entries completed now. Produce a five to seven minute documentary on the theme of the three branches and you for your chance to win a 5,000. For a list of the rules, go to studentcam. Org. Secretary of state john kerry was in paris today to meet with the french president. His visit comes a little more than the week of a terrorist attack. Secretary kerry reiterated americas friendship and solidarity with france. He spoke after a moment of silence and brief remarks from the mayor of paris. This comes to us courtesy of france 24. It is half an hour. [speaking french] representatives of the civil authorities, ladies and gentlemen, i am particularly moved to 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 daytoday 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 frenchspeaking American Cities. They are part of the International Organization i preside over. I chair an organization of frenchspeaking mayors. In lafayette, next year, we will hold a meeting of frenchspeaking 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, weve 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 stepbystep, 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. [applause] 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, im 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. Im 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 sidebyside, and will persevere sidebyside, 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 mustnt 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. Im 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 didnt 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. Im 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. Theyre terrorists and nothing else. Im 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 im 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 that is in each of us to defend the values our societies are very much attached to, in which extremists fear the most. Tolerance, freedom, truth. Finally, in the last analysis, our commitment of all of us in this price is not a choice. It is a mandate. It is our duty. Today, i with one of my old friends from massachusetts, who was a source of inspiration that for several generations he has respected because of his integrity and because of the beauty of the music he has composed, which is listened to all over the world. He wanted to be here today to express his feelings and emotions. We are quite offer you a song, ladies and gentlemen. James taylor. [applause] that is the u. S. Secretary of state john kerry speaking alongside the paris mayor at city hall. Here are our featured programs for this weekend. On cspan 2, on book tvs afterwards, wall street journal editor Bret Stephens argues competitors are taking advantage of the situation abroad as it focuses on domestic concerns. Sunday at 10 00 steve israel on his recent novel about a salesman and a topsecret government surveillance program. Saturday at 8 00, on lectures in history, George Mason University investor john turner on the early mormons and their attempt to create a new zion during the 1830s. Sunday nine from little rock. The 1964 Academy Awardwinning film about the force do a segregation forced desegregation of a little rock school. Let us know about the programs you are watching. Email us at comments at cspan. Org. Send us a tweet. Join the cspan conversation. Like us on facebook. Follow us on twitter. Coming up tonight mitt romney speaking at the Republican National committees winter meeting in san diego. His first public speech since it was reported he is considering a third president ial bid. We have his remarks live on cspan. Until then, a discussion from the washington journal with members of congress discussing the partisanship in todays politics. Washington journal of school continues. Host this morning, two longtime members of congress tom davis, martin frost coauthors along with longtime political reporter rich cohen 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 singleparty 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 theyre 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. Singleparty 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 onesided. Finally, you have the campaignfinance 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 cantors defeat in virginia. This is in the chapter called all politics is no longer local. Host congressman frost, lets go to the gerrymandering issue. There is a chart where you show the president ial 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 lets get a fake district, give you a 75 lets get a faith district, give you 75 africanamericans, and what it did was remove africanamericans 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 lets 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 others 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 president ial 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 president ial 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 cspan, and happy new year to brian lamb and cspan. 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 drivers 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 lets let felons vote. Guest people that have served their time. Guest you can have good policy arguments on both, but im 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, youre 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, snapon 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 sixyear 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, fulltime 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. Ive 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 oneparty districts safe, oneparty 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 c4s 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 lowturnout primary, and they could lose. Guest even in the senate, you had four states where the president ial election was within five percentage points. That is a huge seachange from 25 years ago. Singleparty 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 cantors 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 cant vote for this. I just hope it passes. I could never explain us back home. Guest toms 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 youre from a marginal seat, you are given a pass. They dont consider them safe. But they are not safe and theyre worried about the primaries. We call it the hope but no cost. And it is a preconsistent 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 wont do it, cant 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 dont 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. Lets 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 dont trust either party. The irony is that about for a percent of americans are selfdescribed independents. The problem is they dont 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. Lets 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 africanamerican 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 allwhite 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 hasnt 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 wouldve 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 dont 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. Youre 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 Nations 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 dont 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. Youre 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 dont 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 dont 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 didnt 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 dont 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 rankandfile, 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 what great friends. Thank you. This is a friendly crowd. Thank you. Please, thank you. Why dont you say hi . Again, it is just the gratitude that we express such deep appreciation for all that you have done, to try and promote democracy and goodwill. Winning elections, we were thrilled to have been watching the Television Sets of 2014 the night of the big win. We knew that you had a big car in that. We appreciate the work that you do in your state, and all the work that you did for us. Im here to express deep gratitude for that. To just express our love and appreciation. Thank you. [applause] that is quite a woman. Gosh, it is great to be back with so many friends. It is like coming back to a High School Reunion to see my friends here. You have lost weight. You have grown more hair. [laughter] my eyes get weaker as i grow older. It is wonderful to see you. What a generous welcome. We have been able to say hi to so many of you. We have had some selfies taken. It touches my heart. Congratulations in a historic election of reince previous reince. He came in a difficult time. We had a financial deficit at the rnc. We had a technology deficit. He has helped a race that. He is leading the effort to make sure we have a financial and technological advantage. This is an extraordinary man. He and the team that have been elected today deserve the extraordinary support have given them. Just a wonderful look forward as we think about his continued leadership. I want to congratulate you on the successes in 2014. That was i know you hear that time and time again. I had a chance to visit with the number of people who were running for office. You know this. It is a very Impressive Group of men and women. That you have elected offices across the country. I cant possibly think of all the names. Some of these folks, you meet them and it is like well, this is an amazing person. Tom cotton. [laughter] background in the military. Thom tillis, dan sullivan. Doug do see. Me aia love. My governor of massachusetts charlie baker. [applause] how about joni ernst . Isnt she an amazing person . Just Something Else. There is some people that not only impressed me but also inspire me. Martha arizona, you know her story. A fighter pilot, air force fired fighter pilot. She comes and runs for congress and believe she wins. They center to washington to meet the other members in 2012. Only to find out by recount she did not win. She has to go home having thought she had been elected. She decides to go at it again. She has been an extraordinary person. Some people who have served in the military, who have gone out and fought for our nation, despite having extraordinaire academic credentials and career opportunities, they went to the military and have come back to serve in the senate. It is quite a story. I want to congratulate you on the work you have done to improve the primary process, to change the date of the convention, to limit the debates and rain the men. These are rain the m in. And thank you for 2012. You were hardworking. Dedicated. You went all over the country for me. You should know that from our perspective, the Romney Family everything works seamlessly between the rnc and the campaign. That is how it should be. You really want to have those work and to glove as we did. Your leadership in this group deserves great credit. We pulled for different people that we came together once i became the nominee and it was an extraordinary blessing. No greater honor has been bestowed upon me meant to become the nominee of the Republican Party for the president of the United States. Iou a debt of gratitude. I goowe you a debt of gratitude. There is speculation on if im going to embark on a political endeavor of which i have been previously unsuccessful. On equivalentlyi have no intention of running for senate of massachusetts. Seriously. For our party and for the nation, 2016 is not going to be about the obama years. It is about the it is going to be about the post obama era. Conservative principles are needed as perhaps never before. This isnt the right venue to lay out the policies that may be appropriate for our party and people who represent our party. I want to mention three principles that i think should form part of the foundation of what we take to the American People. First we have to make the world safer. Second, we have to make sure and provide opportunity for all americans regardless of the neighborhood they live in. We have to lift people out of poverty. If we communicate those three things effectively the American People are going to be with us and with our nominee and with our candidates across the country. Let me elaborate. Making the world safer. The world is not safer. Six years after barack obama. There is no question. I used to joke during the campaign that president obama didnt have a Foreign Policy. Of course that was a joke because he did. It was crafted by he and his secretary of state hillary clinton. There Foreign Policy was based on the premise that if we are friendly enough to other people, and if we smiled broadly enough and press the reset button peaceful breakout around the world. This is a Foreign Policy that said we should walk back from red lines. This is a Foreign Policy that said we should leave from behind. This is a Foreign Policy characterized by speaking loudly and carrying a small civic carrying a small stick. That friends and israel are the problem rather than the solution. The results of the hillary clinton, barack obama policy have been devastating. You know that. Terrorism is not on the run. As a matter of fact, the radical violent jihadists and their forms are terrorizing and brutalizing people all over the world just in the last several days. Tragic events in paris and nigeria, in yemen. Hundreds of lives, possibly thousands of lives taken needlessly. It is extraordinary. We also see in the middle east and north africa, turmoil. The syrian tragedy races on. Liberia is in disarray. Libya i mean is in disarray. Iraq is under siege. Iran is rushing to become a nuclear nation. This is a difficult time for the world. You have russia having invaded the ukraine, taking crimea. You have china saying they on the south china sea. You have the boulevard in allies in south america expand. This is not a good time for mac and Foreign Policy. To make the world safer for americans and to make the world safe for freedom, our party must stand for making the world safer and are principles will do that. We have to make that point loud and clear. [applause] in the post obama era, we have to use our strength to anticipate events, to shape events rather than react. I mean our economic strength, our diplomatic strength. Those will be the things we rely on. Safety for the American People and freedom, and freedom loving people all over the world. Number two, i believe we have to communicate to the American People that our principles are principles that will bring opportunity to every american. This is the land of opportunity. Regardless of where you live you ought to know that your future can be brighter and your kids future will be brighter. We have the principles and the vision to do that for the American People. It is a tragedy, a human tragedy that the middle class by and large does not believe the future will be better in the past. We have not seen rising incomes over decades. American people are struggling to make ends meet. Our policies in this regard are designed to help create Economic Growth and put people back to work, and get rising wages. People want to see rising wages and they deserve them. They are working hard and using technology. They faced competition around the world. The policies we are going to be talking about all over the country will be education dealing with legal reform. Job training. Tax and regulatory reform. Energy policies. It also means if they want to see growth we are point at the size of government and balance the budget. Finally repeal and replace obamacare so we can get real growth again. [applause] number one, safety. Number two, opportunity for all americans. Number three, we have to lift people out of poverty. We are in abundant nation. We have the resources and the capacity intellectually, financially, to lift people out of poverty. It was how many years ago . 50 years ago Lyndon Baines johnson declared the war on poverty. His heart was in the right place. Inincome inequality has gotten worse. His policies have not worked. Their liberal policies are good every four years for a campaign but they dont get the job done. The only policies that will reach into the hearts of American People and pull people out of poverty and break the cycle of poverty are republican principles conservative principles. Good jobs, and we are one bring them to the mac and people and in the scourge of poverty in this great land. Bring them to the American People and end the scourge of poverty in this great land. In the post obama era we need to stand for safety, an opportunity for all people regardless of the neighborhood they come from. We have to stand for helping lift people out of poverty. I should tell you the last few days the most frequently asked question i get is, what does and think of this . [laughter] she believes that people get better with experience. [laughter] and, [applause] heaven knows i have experience running for president. By the way, she knows my heart. In a way that few people do. She has seen me not just as a business and political god. Over 10 years, i served as a pastor for a congregation in groups of congregations. She has semiwork with people who are very poor to get them help and subsistence. Gsm he worked with people who are looking for better work and jobs. She knows where my heart is. I love her and appreciate her support. She is my strongest advocate in almost every single thing i can imagine. I am giving some serious consideration to the future. This i know. We can win as a party in the house, senate, and white house if we communicate a clear vision of where we are taking the country, what we believe then, those principles i have described are among those that we are going to fight for. We are going to win. Regardless of what happens in the primaries or the political process that goes on, ann romney and i are going to fight for our nominee and win back the white house because the American People deserve it. We are one to make it happen. Thank you. Good to be with the. Thank you so much. [applause] thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. [applause] we will have more on mitt romney and the rest of the potential 2016 republican field with Michael Warren of the Weekly Standard tomorrow on washington journal. Also, the National Education Association President on standardized testing and education secretary arne duncan support for continuing annual student assessments. We will take your calls and look for your comments. Tuesday night obama delivers his state of the Union Address. Including the president s speech. The gop response delivered by joni ernst. On cspan 2 watch the president s speech and congressional reaction from statuary hall. The state of the Union Address live on cspan cspan 2 cspan radio and spfmentspan. Org. Next, a discussion about federal spending caps and their impacts on defense and domestic programs. And former white house budget director alice rivlin. This is hosted by the brookings institution. Its an hour and a half. Good morning, im director of the Hutchins Center on fiscal and Monetary Policy here at brookings and im pleased to be here today to discuss something which is in the category of really important and hard to understand which is the caps that congress and the president agree to on domestic and defense spending. Now, im going to give a little bit of introduction, introduce the panel and take it from there. You should know cspan is in the room so if you fall asleep, your mother will see it. So dont. And if your cell phone goes off they will like put one of those hearts around you like they do during the ball game. Especially too if your on the panel. So the history and plumbing of all of 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 doesnt 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 theres a system of acrosstheboard spending cuts that will ratchet spending down. Now its really important to remember were talking on passing about caps on annual appropriate spending. Thats roughly a trillion dollars a year. Roughly a third of the federal budget. Its 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. Theyre 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 dont apply to the money we spend in afghanistan noun that were back in iraq, in iraq. Our focus today is the ceilings that apply for the years going forward, fiscal year that starts october 1 fy2015 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. Thats 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 thats 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 its a little hard to say whether were spending too much or too little without asking what is the money going for . And thats 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 its important to remember the caps have had an effect. People often think oh, congress does this and then they evade it. In this case, its 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 thats 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, thats roughly enough to compensate for inflation, not not enough to compensation for possible lation 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. Scombrokets 85 of the increase nanl 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 gp to levels we have not seen in 40 years and the level of Public Investment will shrink accordingly. With all thats 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 theyre 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 im fortunate to have really a very experienced and excellent set of panelists here. At the far end, michael ohanlan, senior felling here and codirector on the 21st century security and research. Hes 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. Hes 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 codirector 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. Bushs white house. His most recent book is very interesting one called show me the evidence, about president obamas 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 wont. Shes now director here at brookings and founding director of c. B. O. , celebrating its 40th an sprersry. 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 dont judge you by the results we get and quality of the work. Oh, you should judge by the results right now. Yes, sib lickly adjusted. What were going to do here is were going to start, im 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, were going to alternate a little bit. But im going to start with bob hail. Bob, i wonder if you could those of white house dont live and breathe the dgs budget, not the people in the American Society comp trollers but the other 99 of us, whats 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 dont 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 when we fight a war, we have to load on money to fight the war. Thats part of the increase, right . S0 the increase is partly to fight the war but theres a fear increase in the base budget as well. Many argued we werent 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 dont know. Im 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 thats the only thing that constitutes sequestration, ought matting cuts if they appropriate above the caps. I think thats 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 twoft 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 thats 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. Wouldnt 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. Theres 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. Theres only so much you can do i think and still live within that agray area. So yes pokio as its called is a possible way out if were going to stay with the current caps for defense t wont do anything for nondense and thats 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 chinas rise in a way that i think is most stabilizing to the region. Im not against chinas 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 were going to need to be tible do substantial things in those zones whether we like it or not. Most of us dont like it for good reason but it doesnt change the fact what we just saw in france could happen here and were implicated in whats 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 astonia latvia and lithuania to make sure Vladimir Putin takes seriously our nato commitments to those countries and a few other sundry things. Anyway, were just under 600 billion. For reference the cold war average for the United States was about 500 billion. So im adjusting for inflation. This is 2015 dollars sofment were a little bit above the cold war average. On the other hand, were much below the cold war average in the size of the military so weve gotten a lot more expensive per person. And meanwhile, while we still represent 40 of Global Military spending, theres 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 1990s. In the 1990s a lot of our big allies were in that number two and number three role as russia was essentially collapsing and chineyazz was still beginning its rise. Now were at a point where our budget of just under 600 billion than includes the war costs is still three to four times chinas 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 thats ok, whether thats avoidable. At what pace we should allow that to happen. I am just trying to give reference points. And one last thing in the 1990s, 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 weve got today. So one of the arguments people will make is todays world looks certainly at least as interesting as the world of the 1990s yet youre trying to cope with a smaller military finance you sequester or go to sequester level cuts in any way were 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 90s. 500 billion cold war average. A little under 600 billion where we are now but as you know were heading downwards towards the 500 billion mark. We have a smaller military because we pay each one of the troops more or because were more capital intensive . I will say quick word and let bob, who manages this in detail, add something. Were certainly paying more more throop. Military compensation is pretty good. Theres a Big Commission now working on this with a lot of retired military as well as others and i think theyre 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. Thats 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 thats 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 thats its not really just the pay. Its the operating of the force. Its 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 wont raise the caps on domestic spending . Yes i think so. Youre asking speculation but remember the thing is we speculate. This is a Republicandominated Congress and if they raise the capital on defense t. Wouldnt surprise me that they kept the caps on domestic. You think the president would sign that kind of bill . Well, i dont know. It depends what else it would be part of a big negotiation and trading off this and that. But were not in that world at the moment. Wouldnt 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 wouldnt might provoking the president but if they raise defense and leave domestic discretionary where it is, that is thats a war cry. Well, maybe a war crime . Cry. Cry. You know more about republican thinking than i do but i think theres 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 lets 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 its 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 its been historically less than 4 of g. D. P. It went above that in the 70s and came down rapidly. Went above it briefly with the stimulus but has come down. And its 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 isnt 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 whats your view on these domestic caps. I pretty much agree with alice. I would emphasize i think were spending too little now, especially on infrastructure. There are several good examples. Thats 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 im glad we did it. Im glad we have caps because it shows at least im 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 thats growing like mad. We used to spend think of this we used to spend almost 70 recently as early 60s on discretionar scombrinding but because mand for scombrippeding basely Social Security and medicare has exploited so much, its a declining part of the budget and yet thats where they focus anywhere attention. So it goods goode we are reducing deficit. We have to reduce deficit. But i dont see how those caps are sustainable. My only disagree with alice, very bad idea to do that but i do it anyway dont think caps can be sustained. And that doesnt mean everything is going to fall apart. It means theyre going to play games. Thats 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, 30 billion worth of bill expanding under the budget act they can do that. And i think they will. Theres 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 will do it even more now. You just wrote a book that says a lot of what the government does may not do any good and we shi spend i omitted the word may. Isnt there some point of having a Budget Constraint here which says to the congress ok, look, live within these things and lets spend more on the stuff that works and doesnt. Thats kind of the idea. Right. A, sent that a good idea . And b, why doesnt that ever happen . Why doesnt it ever happen . Why dont they set priorities and spend more on what they should and less on what they shouldnt . I think its just too hard. The government is gar gant une. Theres a book of government programs, if you dropped it on your toe, would you have to immediately go to the hospital. Thousands of pages. The government is just huge. How can you we cant even control the department of defense. We were in a meeting a couple months aago that had an important senior official and department of defense said they dont even know what the budget is. Is that correct . No, thats not right. Im talking about Major General in the marine corps who said this. Bob will speak to them afterwards. I think its very, very difficult. We can do a lot more of it. I told you before and we said in this very room a couple of weeks ago that we know less than a 1 of federal spending we really have any idea of what its impact is. And you poohpoohed that number but i think it gives the idea of the scale of this thing. We have so many programs, heam programs, Education Programs caps are not a useful way of forcing priorities . I think they could be. But theyre not. But theyre not. Heres why quickly were talking about culture here. In the culture of congress, its to cheat. Figure out ways to round all kinds of all kinds of provisions that they impose upon themselves and they dont work because Congress Figures out ways around it. Alice . I think thats rather unfair. But the point is that even if wanted to cut Government Spending because you thought it was too high and in the aggregate, i dont on this set of domestic programs that were talking about, even if you thought that, putting caps on is just squeezing down everything. Now, im not opposed to the caps but the way congress handles the caps is to say, well weve only got this amount of money. We dont have time and we dont have the energy or we dont have the mandate to make decisions to what we should fund and what we shouldnt. So what we will do is just allocate these spending amounts among the subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee in what seems like a fair way, rather roughly what they were doing last year, and let them figure it out and they have the same problem. They have a lot of constituencies leaning on them. They have a whole bunch of programs as ron has said and everybody is screaming dont cut us. So what do they do . What would you do . You cut everybody a little bit. And thats what we have been doing now for a very long time. Now, could we do better . I think so. But it would take a really dramatic change in the way both the administration and the congress operate. You would have to have a president who said lets change these priorities dramatically and lets have a serious debate about how to do it and or you would have to have a congress that said, we really want to take a chunk of the budget, go over it and see whether we could do these things more effectively, whether we could do emphasize some priorities better. I dont think we can do the whole budget. And you sort of could do it every other year but they could set up a mechanism for reviewing a major piece of the budget say every three years and five years to see if the money could be spent better and priorities were what Congress Really wanted them to be. Question . So is what alice describes on the domestic side, is the military really any different . Isnt there a certain amount of the air force, the navy, the marines, everybody has to get their share of the cuts . Broadly, the budget shares havent changed a lot. Thats a fair statement. Within those shares theyve changed a lot. Let me try to respond. First off i think its way too harsh that suggest that ovq all only 1 of Government Spending has any effect. I will offer just a couple examples. One obvious one, we havent been attacked since 9 11, folks. Some other countries have, quite recently, unfortunately. Thats a tribute i think to both our intelligence and to our military capability. We got in and more or less almost out of two wars you may not like the results of them accordance with the will of the