tv Washington This Week CSPAN October 25, 2015 1:00am-3:01am EDT
gov. o'malley: thank you. ♪ gov. o'malley: thank you very, very much. wow. good evening, iowa. thank you. [chanting o'malley] gov. o'malley: thank you very, very much. dr. mcguire, i want to say thank you. and let me say what a great honor it is to come before you on the stage and to do so along with secretary clinton and senator sanders, two people for whom i have a tremendous amount of respect. [applause] gov. o'malley: my name is martin o'malley. former mayor of baltimore, former governor of maryland. i'm a lifelong democrat, and i'm running for president of the
united states. i intend to win and i need your help. [applause] gov. o'malley: as i was driving down here, to des moines, i could not help but to think about the first time i came to iowa and it was some 20 -- i was 20 years old, and there is a presidential campaign coming. me and my buddies, about five of us, piled into a car and we wanted to come out here to work for our underdog, upstart candidate, because we knew that this is where it starts, here in iowa, and we wanted to change the world. they dropped me off at 6:00 a.m. at the greyhound bus terminal in davenport, iowa. [applause]
gov. o'malley: i had nothing but my parka, my guitar, and a duffel bag full of winter clothes. but it was over this next several months that i fell in love with iowa and the people of iowa, and i thank you all for what you do for our country every presidential election. [applause] gov. o'malley: what i have found to be the most enjoyable part of running for president is this, that i get to meet young people who also want to change this world of ours, with the same idealism and the same believe ef that all things are possible. i know it is easy, especially in these times, to become discouraged by our gridlocked congress and by polarization international politics. i want to urge you to do what i do, and if you want to know where our country is headed, talk to her young people under 30. [applause]
gov. o'malley: because you will rarely find among been anyone -- among them anyone who denies that climate change is real or thinks their government should not do something about it. you will rarely find young people under 30 who want to bash american immigrants or who want to deny rights to gay couples or to their children. and all of this tells me that we are moving to a much more connected, generous, and compassionate place. on thursday, vice president joe biden spoke so powerfully about the values that we share. didn't he? [applause] gov. o'malley: the belief we share in the dignity of every individual. respect for one another. truth about ourselves. our commitment to advance the common good that we share. he also spoke about something else. he spoke about the growing
income inequality in our country. a growing injustice that threatens to tear our country apart. and he called on us, not just as democrats, but as americans, not to run away from the obama/biden record of progress, but to build upon what we have achieved together. [applause] gov. o'malley: and to be fearless about our progressive values, our ability to solve this problem, and our ability to make our economy work again for all of us. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: all of us here tonight agreed that we cannot allow donald trump or any of the donald trump wannabes and the republican party to take over our white house, can we agree on that? [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: but as candidates, we do have some differences on issues, and we do differ on who we believe is best prepared to lead america
forward, especially in these new times. who gives our party the best chance to win in november? in three months, the people of iowa will make a critical decision. it is not about yesterday, it is not just about today, it is about our country, it is about our future, and it is about our children and the future that they will share. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: and while all of the candidates here tonight share progressive values, not all of us have a record of actually getting things done. [applause] gov. o'malley: i do. with 15 years of executive experience as mayor and as governor, i have learned how to be a very effective leader. i have learned how to get things done. i am clear about my principles, and i know where i stand. we passed the living wage and we raised the minimum wage, we froze college tuition for four years in a row, and these were actions, not words. [cheers and applause]
gov. o'malley: as governor, i made it easier and not harder for workers to bargain collectively for better wages for all americans. actions, not words. and instead of cutting public education funding as governor, i actually increased funding for public education by 37% and memo to governor terry branstad, we made the public schools the best books goals and america for five years in a row. actions, not words. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: and along the way, i brought people together to pass the dream act. to pass marriage equality, and to pass the most comprehensive gun safety legislation and the
united states. with universal background checks and a ban on combat assault weapons sales. actions, not words. [applause] gov. o'malley: my wife and i have four great kids. and like you, there is nothing that we would not do to give them a better life, with a better future, and more opportunity than we have had. true story. my oldest daughter, grace, is a public school teacher. any teachers in the audience here tonight? [applause] gov. o'malley: there we go. grace o'malley teachers public school in the heart of baltimore city. land of the free, home of the brave. and about a little over 100 days ago when her dad announced for president, she returned to her first grade class, and adorable % african-american
class, and there was a buzz in the room. a little girl came up to her, --tapped her on the sleeve, and she said, i'm not so sure about this idea of your father running for president, because quite frankly, i kind of like barack obama. [laughter] [applause] gov. o'malley: well, a lot of us like barack obama, right? [laughter] [applause] gov. o'malley: our country has come a long way since the wall street crash of 2008, when millions of american families lost their jobs and lost their homes and things to president obama's leadership, when we elected new leadership, our country is doing better. we are grading jobs. 67 months in a row of positive job creation. america is doing better. [applause] gov. o'malley: and there is no progress without jobs. but we elected a president, we did not elect a magician.
and there is urgent work that needs to be done. yes, there is in fact, in our country today, a growing economic injustice, a middle-class is shrinking. our poorest families are becoming more. and 70% of us today are earning the same or less than we were 12 years ago. and that is the first time that has happened this side of world war ii. this is not how our country is supposed to work. this is not how our economy is supposed to work. and injustice does not solve itself. we must solve it and we must solve it with new leadership and with action. actions to make wages go up again for all americans. [applause] gov. o'malley: actions to invest, again, and our own country's long-term potential. to make college a gateway to opportunity and not a trap door to a lifetime of crushing debt.
actions that actually square our shoulders to the great challenge of climate change and make this challenge our opportunity. we are americans. we make our own future. and we need to start doing it again today. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: and this begins anew. as we returned to our true selves, and we remember, that our economy is not money. our economy is people. it is all of our people. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: a stronger middle class is not the consequence of economic growth. a stronger middle class is the cause of economic growth. [cheers and applause]
gov. o'malley: and no american family who works hard and plays by the rules, should ever have to raise their children in poverty and therefore we must raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour however we can, wherever we can. [applause] gov. o'malley: we must advance the cause of paid family leave so that all women can participate more fully in the economic life of our country, because when women succeed, america succeeds. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: that is why, and that is why over the course of the summer i have laid out my 15 strategic goals to rebuild the american dream that we share. making the option of debt free college a reality within five years. instead of cutting social security, like the republican candidates want to do, i say we need to expand social security. [applause]
gov. o'malley: and i am the first candidate in this race, and let us hope not the last, to put forward a plan to move america forward to a 100% clean, electric grid by 2050, and create 5 million jobs along the way. [applause] gov. o'malley: here is one for you. do we want wages to actually go up and not down? [applause] gov. o'malley: then how about this -- how about we get 11 million of our neighbors out of the books shadow economy and onto the open books of an american economy by passing comprehensive immigration reform now with a path for citizenship for all. [cheers and applause] [chanting o'malley] gov. o'malley: i want to introduce you to someone who is with us tonight.
there is a person with us tonight, her name is kenya calderon. [applause] gov. o'malley: and she is a dreamer here with us tonight. she was born in el salvador, and is now a student at drake. and along the way, she has become a fearless advocate for citizenship rights for herself and millions of americans like her. and therefore, to that immigrant bashing, carnival barker, donald trump, let us stand together and say that the enduring symbol of our nation is not the barbed wire fence, it is the statue of liberty. [cheers and applause] [chanting o'malley]
gov. o'malley: donald, you want to make america great? how about starting by passing comprehensive immigration reform, like our grandparents and parents did. they know what made america great, and so do we. nothing that we care about, nothing that we care about can be accomplished by words alone. we must take action. as democrats, we have to cast aside the worn-out politics of the past. the choices that no longer serve our nation. and we have to find our backbone again, to stand up for what is best for our country and what is best for all of america. what does that mean? that means we have to stop giving a free pass to the bullies of wall street whenever they try to run roughshod all over our national economy. [cheers and applause]
gov. o'malley: i have never represented wall street, and i will not be taking economic orders from wall street when i am working for you and your white house. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: and as you are 're president, i will have the independence and i will have the backbone to fight for you. and if a bank is too big to fail, too big to jail, and too big to manage, then it is to dampen and he needs to broken up before it breaks our national economy again. that is just common sense. tell me how it is. tell me how it is, but not a single wall street ceo was ever convicted of a single crime related to the 2008 economic meltdown. not a single one. what do we come to? what have we come to as a country that you can get pulled over for having a broken till light, but if
you wreck the nations economy you are totally untouchable? presidential leadership is about the good of the many, not the greed of the few. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: and that is why i also say that we have to stop sending american jobs and american profits overseas with bad trade deals like the transpacific partnership. [applause] gov. o'malley: many of us in this room remember nafta. whatever its intentions, we traded away good manufacturing jobs, like maytags in towns like newton, and in return, we got back into promises and empty pockets. i am fundamentally, adamantly opposed, as an american, to
secret trade deals that our congress has forced to vote on before the rest of us even have a chance to read them. what have we come to as a nation? [applause] gov. o'malley: and it is not what the other countries are doing to us, we can trade and we should trade. it is not what the other countries are doing to us, it is what we are not doing ourselves. we need to build up our own american economy again, don't we? [applause] gov. o'malley: and finally, we must have the courage to put our children's safety, each and every day ahead of the morally bankrupt interests of the national rifle association. [cheers and applause] [chanting o'malley]
gov. o'malley: the nra has one goal. the nra has one goal. it is one goal only. and it is selling as many guns as possible, no matter the cost in american lives. well, that might be their interest, but that is not what is in the best interest of the united states of america, is it? [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: for 40 years, the nra and its muscle has dictated to our congress what laws they can write, what laws they can pass, and what laws they can reject. i think it is time that we find our backbone and stand up and say no to the national rifle association and start saving lives. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: i am passionate about this because i have been to a lot of funerals, and as president obama said, if terrorists had killed 400,000
americans since 9/11, we would be moving heaven and earth to stop them, wouldn't we? but americans have killed 400,000 americans with guns and we cower in the political power of the national rifle association. enough is enough. it does not have to be this way. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: there is a couple with us here tonight, and they are sandy and lonnie phillips. and they lost their daughter, jessie, in the incident in aurora, colorado. they are here with us tonight. your -- they have in have endured is unfathomable. so, too, is there courage and their resolve, because they set out to transform the grief of
their daughters off into real action and they went to court. true story. they wanted to hold accountable those who recklessly armed a mass murderer by selling him 4000 rounds of ammunition. no questions asked. they sued the man that sold that ammunition in the attack, and what happened when they went to court? not only did the case thrown out of court, then they were slapped with $200,000 in court costs. why? because of the special immunity to lawsuits that the nra managed to muscle out of our own congress. it does not have to be this way. congress should work for us, not for the nra. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: to save lives, we know what to do. common sense tells us what to do. to save lives we must require universal background checks. we must ban the sale of combat
assault weapons. we must use the buying power of our own federal government, the biggest customer gun have, to refuse to buy guns from any company that does not use the latest and the best safety technology. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: and to save lives, we have to stop giving immunity to gun manufacturers and gun dealers who sell weapons of mass murder to criminals and psychopaths. it is only common sense. [cheers and applause] and so, senator sanders, join me now, secretary clinton, join me now, and together in this campaign we can forge a new consensus for change. we can save lives, because one american life is worth more than all of the gun sales in america. [cheers and applause] gov. o'malley: and so it is.
and so it is. in 100 days, the people of iowa will decide, new leadership, or the same battles of our past. actions or words? doing want to get things done or do we want to keep shouting past each other? it is not about polls and pundits. it is about you. you decide whether we move forward or whether we move back. thomas jefferson once said, in matters of fashion, swim with the current. but in matters of principle, stand like a rock. [applause] gov. o'malley: in these fast, and rapidly changing times, america needs a president who will stand like a rock. a weathervane shifts positions
every time the wind changes. effective leaders, do not. i know who i am. i know what i believe. and i am willing to fight for it. [applause] gov. o'malley: think about it yourselves. think about it yourselves. we cannot move beyond today's gridlock politics by returning to the divisions of our past. i am not about that. i believe that we are all in this together. i believe that to solve our problems, we must face tomorrow. we need new leadership and new ideas. someone with the courage to stand up for what is right, even when is not yet popular. none of us have all of the answers to all of the problems that we face. none of us can predict the future. but i can promise you this, i can govern. i can lead. and i can do so with heart and with skill. a lot of people tell me in this
race, they say you are up against tough odds. this is a tough fight. and there are also a lot of people who would look you in the eyes, and would tell you that you have a tough fight. you have a tough fight being able to pass on to your children a better quality of life and what you have enjoyed. you know what? i kind of like the tough fights. i have always been drawn to the tough fights. and perhaps, it is the toughness of the fight that is the way the hidden god has of telling us that we are actually fighting for something worth saving. the american dream is worth saving. our children's future is worth saving. our country is worth saving. our planet is worth saving. it is time to stand up, it is time to join the fight, i am in is to win this, i need your help, and together we can, and together we will rebuild the american dream. may god bless iowa. and may god bless the united states of america, on this
[cheers and applause] >> hillary clinton has been listening to people all over iowa. [applause] >> iowa has been the heart and soul of her campaign. she has heard from middle-class families, worried that the deck is stacked in favor of those at the top. so she has created a plan to raise middle-class wages and help working parents get ahead. she has heard from people
suffering from substance abuse. she came up with a plan to tackle it. she has heard from young people struggling with student debt. she created a plan to make college more affordable and student debt easier to pay off. hillary clinton is fighting for others. as a senator, she reached across the aisle. as secretary of state, she has led coalition forces against iran and to bring peace to israel. women's rights and
lbgt rights. [applause] now, she is fighting for all of us. she is fighting for our children and for our future. she is fighting to stop the republicans from making their out of touch agenda a reality. she is tough, she is determined, and she is in our corner. ladies and gentlemen, hillary clinton. [cheers and applause] ♪
[cheers and applause] ♪ sen. clinton: thank you so much. iowa democrats, it is great to be back. i want to thank andy and everyone who is helping to try to rebuild the iowa democratic party from the ground up. i want to acknowledge and thank my friends tom and ruth harkins. tom and christie vilsack.
leonard and dodi boswell. and your congressman from iowa, dave loebsack. [applause] sen. clinton: and i have to give a special shout out to somebody really special. somebody whose birthday is tomorrow. someone who reminds us that sometimes you just have to let roar.ear you katy perry, thank you for being here. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: did any of you see our debate in las vegas? [applause]
sen. clinton: you know, when republicans debate, they compete to insult each other, demean women, and they double down on trickle-down. actually, it is reality tv. with a cast of characters who do not care much about actual reality. but, there is a big difference. when we, democrats debate, you see something. you see us tackling the hard issues. looking for solutions to our biggest challenges, facing our families and our country. how are we going to raise wages and create more good jobs? how will we respond to climate change and lift up our economy by investing in clean energy? how will we make college affordable and get parents to
have the paid leave they need? how will we, working with our teachers and our families, help our kids get ready to succeed in school? [applause] sen. clinton: and how are we in wall street and lift up main street? and, how much longer can we wait to stand up to the gun lobby and keep our kids and our communities safe in america? [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: you see, we democrats are offering real solutions. like president obama has done for the past 6.5 years. and by his side, every step of
the way, has been vice president joe biden. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: he has fought passionately for middle-class families and middle-class values. let's show him how much we appreciate vice president joe biden and all he has done for our country. let's give it up for the vice president. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: you know, i think it is really important in this election to remember what president obama inherited. the republicans would like us all to forget. but he inherited the worst financial crisis since the great depression.
we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. right after that election, he called me and asked me to come see him in chicago. i did not know why, it turned out he want me to be secretary of state. but when we got there -- [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: it was just the two of us. and we were just talking and he was talking about what he was facing. he said, it is so much worse than they told us. we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. 9 million americans ended up losing their jobs. and 5 million lost their homes. and listen to this. $13 trillion of family wealth was wiped away.
i don't think president obama gets the credit that he deserves for rescuing our economy from falling into a great depression. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: he saved the auto industry. he imposed tough, new rules on wall street. and he extended health care to 18 million americans. [applause] sen. clinton: that is what you can expect when you vote for democrats. [applause] sen. clinton: when there is a democrat in the white house, america creates more jobs. the economy grows faster. and deficits are smaller. even though they hate it when i
say this, recessions happen four times more frequently under republican presidents. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: so, we cannot afford to go back to the republican failed policies. now i am not running for my husband's third term, and i'm not running for barack obama's third term, i am running for my first term -- [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: and, i am running as a proud democrat. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: we need to defend the progress that we have made under president obama. and we need to build on it, until the recovery is secure,
and all americans have a chance to raise their income. and to believe, once again, in the basic bargain of america. you know what it is. if you work hard, and you do your part, you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: but, for far too long, republicans and their allies have stacked the deck for those at the top. there is something wrong when the top 25 hedge fund managers earn more in a year than all the kindergarten teachers in america combined. [cheers and applause]
sen. clinton: or, when top ceos make 300 times what a typical worker does, or when corporate profits soar, but employees do not share in those profits. when it is easy for a big corporation to get a tax break, but it is still too hard for a small business to get a loan. when the ceo of a drug company price ofthe life-saving medicine by 5000% overnight -- [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: and, when the governor of this state vetoes a bipartisan compromise to fund schools and to keep mental health facilities open. [cheers and applause]
sen. clinton: and now, now you're governor is threatening to privatize medicaid. [booing] sen. clinton: and the hawkeyes children's health insurance program, something that i helped to start in the 1990's. [applause] sen. clinton: and thousands of iowans are standing up and saying enough, and i am standing with you. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: i have to tell you. [chanting]
sen. clinton: you know that the republican candidates cannot help themselves. [laughter] sen. clinton: they are pushing the same failed policies that crashed our economy before. you know what they are. cutting taxes on the super wealthy. letting big corporations write their own rules. busting unions. ignoring the middle class. we have heard all of this before, and we know what it does. and, of course, none of them is serious about climate change. i love it. when they are asked about it. their answer is? i am not a scientist. well, why don't they start listening to those who are scientists, and understanding what we're up against around the world?
[cheers and applause] sen. clinton: and republicans in congress have now voted more than 50 times to repeal or weaken the affordable care act. they want to force americans -- [booing] sen. clinton: that is worthy of a big bunch of boos. [booing] sen. clinton: because they want to force americans to start a contentious health care debate all over again. i believe that we can improve the affordable care act, but we are not going to let them take us back to insurance companies writing their own rules again. [cheers and applause]
sen. clinton: you know what that was like. they even charged women more for our coverage, then men. [booing] sen. clinton: and we sure can't let them take us back to the wild west on wall street. repeal dodd frank, destroy the consumer financial protection board. we are going to stand firm. that is why i propose tough action to end the abuses by the big banks, and the excessive risk in the so-called shadow banking system. we are going to stop wall street hurting main street. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: and here we are, everyone here is here because you know what is at stake in this election. no matter who you are for, and that is pretty clear standing up here, and seeing who is sitting where, but we all agree on this -- we cannot let republicans
keep rigging our elections with secret unaccountable, dark money. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: we need a supreme court that protects the right of every citizen to vote, not the right of every corporation to buy elections. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: and i said from the very beginning of my campaign, even if it takes a constitutional amendment, we will overturn citizens united once and for all. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: and i sometimes wonder whether you sign up to be a republican candidate for president -- they put you into
some kind of time machine. and they take you back 50 or 70 or 100 years, because they keep saying the same out of date, out of touch things. we will never let the republicans cut or privatize social security or and medicare as some are now promising. [cheers and applause] sen. clinton: i will tell you something else. i am going to back and support what president obama has done to protect dreamers and their families, to use executive action to prevent deportation. and i have said that if we cannot get comprehensive immigration reform as we need
and as we should, with a real path to citizenship that will actually grow our economy -- then i will go as far as i can, even beyond president obama, to make sure law-abiding, decent, hard-working people in this country are not ripped away from their families. [cheers and applause] clinton: and don't you wonder, don't you wonder? you know, for people who claim they hate big government,
republicans love using government to make decisions for women about our bodies and our rights. [cheering] sen. clinton: well, i will tell you, i will tell you, i will do everything that i can to protect a woman's right to choose and to defend planned parenthood. [cheering] sen. clinton: now -- [chanting] sen. clinton: now i know -- [chanting]
sen. clinton: i know when i talk about these things, republicans say that i am playing the gender card. i know. well, if talking about equal pay, paid family leave, affordable childcare, and women's health is playing the gender card, deal me in. [cheering] [chanting] sen. clinton: i know, i know and you know, it is not enough to just rail against the republicans and the billionaires. we actually have to win this election in order to rebuild the middle class and make a positive difference in people's lives.
we have to build an america again where success is measured by how many people work their way into the middle class, not how many ceos get bonuses. by how many children climb out of poverty, how many families can afford health care, many young people can go to college without taking on years of debt. [cheering] sen. clinton: that is how we should measure success in this country. as i said at the debate in las vegas, i am a progressive who likes to get things done. [cheering] sen. clinton: and i still believe, as a smart man once said, there is nothing wrong
with america that cannot be fixed by what is right with america. so i hear donald trump when he says we have to make america great again. well here is what i said. , america is great. we just have to make it fair and just. we have to make america work for everyone, not just those at the top. [cheering] sen. clinton: because i know that when americans come together, come up with smart solutions, and fight to get results, there is no challenge we cannot meet. and at the top of my list of fights we have to wage and win, it is this. americans need a raise. that is why we must raise the minimum wage for it. nobody who works full-time should live in poverty. and i want companies to have
incentives to share more profits with employees who help to make the profits in the first place. and companies that ship jobs and profits overseas should not get tax breaks. you should get tax breaks again. [cheering] sen. clinton: i said i want to be the small business president and i mean it. because small businesses will create most of the good new jobs of the future and should have less red tape, easier access to credit, and tax relief. and to create those jobs, we have to get back to investing in science and medical research. we should establish an infrastructure bank to put americans to work building our roads and bridges and airports and rails and broadband networks. [cheering] sen. clinton: and i believe we can make america the world's
clean energy superpower by setting and reaching goals again. [cheering] sen. clinton: how about this? half a billion solar panels in four years and enough renewable energy to power every home in america in 10 years. [cheering] sen. clinton: i know that we can do this because iowa is leading the way. you are producing half of your power from wind and renewables. i want the rest of the country to follow your lead. [cheering] sen. clinton: and if we want our economy to grow like it should, we have to make sure that women who still earn less than men on the job and women of color who earn the least of all finally get equal pay for equal work. [cheering]
sen. clinton: because when you shortchange women, you shortchange families and you shortchange america. and my new college compact will help students and graduates refinance debts, just like you can with a mortgage or a car loan. and nobody will have to borrow a cent to attend a public college or university. [cheering] sen. clinton: but let me say this. while we fight for a growth and fairness economy that fights for everyone, we cannot forget the quieter problems that often do not make the headlines. i am also fighting for the grandmother who told me she is raising her grandchild because
of her daughter's struggle with drug addiction, for the mom who asked me what she is going to do when her child with autism gets older, for every family trying to cope with untreated mental illness. i am fighting for the man i met whose mother has alzheimer's. he cannot afford a full-time caregiver, so do you know what he does? he is a teacher. he takes his mother to work with him. for lgbt americans who despite all of our progress, and get married on saturday and fired on monday in a lot of states just because of who they are and who they love. for our veterans of all ages who served our country with honor and courage and deserve the benefits that they have earned without delays and abuses. [applause]
sen. clinton: i am fighting to reform criminal justice for every mother and father who worry every day that their child will be stopped by the police just for being african-american, because yes, black lives matter. [cheering] sen. clinton: and i am fighting to protect our kids in communities from the plague of gun violence. you should be safe when you go to school, when you go to the movies, when you go to church. that is why i am proposing common sense gun safety measures like universal background checks, closing loopholes, and repealing the law that shields
gunmakers and sellers from accountability. [cheering] sen. clinton: now, i have been told to stop shouting about ending gun violence. well, i have not been shouting but sometimes when a woman speaks out some people think it is shouting. [cheering] sen. clinton: but -- [cheering] sen. clinton: i will not be silenced and i hope you will not be either. how many more people have to die before we take action? now folks, i have been at this effort to change and reform our country for a long time, and i have not won every battle. but i have learned from each one. i know how to stand my ground and how to find common ground. [cheering] sen. clinton: that is how i worked with a republican congress to help create the children's health insurance
millionwhich covers 8 kids. that is why as a senator i worked with the republicans to expand health benefits for the national guard and reserve and for the firefighters and police officers who rushed towards danger on 9/11 and later grew sick after their time at ground zero. and as your secretary of state, i fought for human rights, women's rights, lgbt rights, internet freedom, american jobs, and security. but i also find common ground, persuading russia to join in the toughest sanctions against iran in history. working with republicans and democrats to get the 67 votes we needed to ratify landmark nuclear treaties. i have spent my life working for children, women, families, and the country, from the kitchen
table to the peace table, trying to even the odds for people who have the odds stacked against them and i am just getting warmed up. [cheering] sen. clinton: so i want you to know, i am listening to you. i am fighting for you. and with your support, iowa, i am going to deliver. and i did not learn about fairness, justice, and the american dream from politics. i learned about it from my own family. who ran a small business printing drapery fabrics taught me that anything worth it is worth fighting for. and my mother, working as a maid at the age of 14, told me that at crucial moments, people showed her kindness, with that first grade teacher who made sure she had enough to eat when her parents did not even care enough to make sure of that.
it is one of the many reasons i am grateful for educators. instead of becoming bitter or broken, she became resilient. she taught me that everybody gets knocked down in life. but that does not mean you stay down. get back up, face your challenges, solve your problems. do not just complain about them. [cheering] sen. clinton: so, let me tell you, i am the granddaughter of a factory worker and the grandmother of the most wonderful little girl in the world. and bill and i will do everything that we can to ensure that she has every opportunity to succeed in life. but i do not think you should have to be the granddaughter of a former president to share in the promise of america. the granddaughters and grandsons of factory workers and truck drivers and nurses and farmers
should have the same chance, too. [cheering] sen. clinton: every one of america's children and grandchildren should have the opportunity to live up to their god-given potential. that is what i am fighting for, for the struggling and striving. and be successful. i am fighting for everyone who has ever been knocked down but refused to be knocked out. and together, we're going to build an america where there are no ceilings for anyone. where no one gets left behind or left out. and yes, where a father can tell his daughter you can be anything you want to be, including president of the united states of america. thank you and god bless you. [cheering]
own ♪e care of our >> on me next washington journal , christian science correspondents linda feldman has the latest developments on the 2016 presidential campaign. and, dr. andrew kolodny talks about prescription drug abuse and the obama administration attempts to deal about it. and laura dawson talks about the election of gary trudeau as canadian prime minister and what it means for the u.s. as always, you can it join the
conversation. live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. night, on q1nday q&a, a reporter experiences traveling with hillary clinton. i feel like i got to know her pretty well, because she andd come back on the plane talk to us. but i did not have access to the same people i have access to now. i do not know if it it they function of the times over the function of being in a higher role now. >> former defensive secretary robert gates testified before
good morning. the senate armed services committee meets today to begin a major oversight initiative on the future of defense reform. this will be the first in a series of dozen hearings that will proceed from a consideration of the strategic context in global challenging -- challenges facing the united states to alternative defense strategies and the future of warfare to the civilian and military organizations of the department of defense, as well as its acquisition, personnel, and management systems, much of which is the legacy of the goldwater nichols reformed enacted in 1986. there is no one, in my view, in america that is better to help us begin this effort than our
distinguished witness, the former secretary of defense robert gates. we welcome him back for his first testimony to congress since leaving the department. dr. gates, we know that you have eagerly awaited this day with all of the anticipation of a root canal. few defense, in my few, none, defense leaders can match dr. gates' record as a reformer. he directed more than $100 billion in internal efficiencies in the department of defense. he eliminated dozens of failing or unnecessary acquisition programs. he held people accountable. he even fired a few. and yet by his own account dr. gates left overwhelmed by the scope and scale of the problems at the defense department. this is the purpose of the oversight effort we are beginning today, to define these problems clearly and rigorously and only then to consider what reforms may be necessary.
there is profound urgency to this effort. the worldwide threats confronting our nation now and in the future have never been more complex, uncertain, and counting. america will not succeed in the 21st century with anything less than the most innovative, agile, and efficient, and effect i defense organization. i have not met a senior civilian or military leader who thinks we have that today. in no way is this a criticism of the many patriotic mission-focused public servants, both in and out of uniform, who sacrifice every day and here at home and around the world to keep us safe. to the contrary, it's because we have such outstanding people that we must strive to remove impediments in our defense organizations that would squander the talents of our troops and civil servants. and now some would argue that the main problems facing the department of defense come from the white house, national security council staff, interagency, and, yes, the congress. you will find no argument here,
especially about the dysfunction of congress. we must be find mul of these big bigger problems but addressing many of them is outside of this committee's jurisdiction. americans hold our military in the highest regard, as we should. at the same time, our witness will explain the problems that he encountered at the defense department are real and serious. just consider chart one here. in constant dollars our nation is spending almost the same amount on defense as we were 30 years ago. but for this money today, we are getting 35% fewer combat brigades, 53% fewer ships, 63% fewer combat air squadrons, and significantly more overhead. how much is difficult to establish because the department of defense does not even have complete and reliable data as gao has repeatedly found. of course our forces are more capable now than 30 years ago
but our adversaries are also more capable. at the same time, many of the weapons in our arsenal today, our care craft, ship, tank shs and fighting vehicle, rifle, and missiles and strategic forces are the products of the military modernization of the 1980s. and no matter how much more capable our troops and weapons are today, they are not capable of being in two places at once. our declining combat capacity cannot be divorced from the problems in our defense acquisition system which one high level study summed up as follows. quote, the defense acquisition system has basic problems that must be corrected. these problems are deeply entrerchled and have developed over several decades from an increasingly bureaucratic and over regulated process. as a result, all too many of our weapons systems cost too much, take too long to develop, and by the time they are fielded, incorporate obsolete technology. sounds right. but that was the packard in
1986. and since then, since 1986, as this chart shows, cost overruns and schedule delays on major defense acquisitions have only gotten worse. defense programs are now nearly 50% over budget and, on average, over two years delayed. it's telling that perhaps the most significant defense procurement success story, the mrat which dr. gates himself led was produced by going around the acquisition system, not through it. the rising cost of our defense personnel system is also part of the problem. as chart three show, over the past 30 years the average fully burden dned cost per service member, all of the pays and lifetime benefits that military service now entails has increased 270%. and yet all too often the department of defense has sought
to control these personnel costs by cutting operating forces while civilian and military headquarter staff has not changed and even grown, indeed. since 1985 the instrength of the joint force has decreased by 38% but the percentage of four-star officers in that force has increased by 65%. these reductions in combat power have occurred while the department's overhead elements, especially its contractor workforce, have exploded. nearly 1.1 million personnel now perform overhead activities in the defense agencies, military departments and service staffs in washington headquarters services. an analysis by mckenzie and company found less than one quarter of active duty troops were in combat roles with majority instead performing overhead activities. recent studies by the defense business board and others confirmed that little as changed in this regard.
the u.s. tooth detail ratio was well below the global ampl including such countries as russia, india, and ba zil. for years, decades in some wayses, gao identified the administrative functions of department of defense at being at high risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication of effort. perhaps none of this should be surprising when you consider the judgment of jim locker, the lead staffer on this committee during the defense reorganization efforts three decades ago, quote, the remedies applied by goldwater nichols to defense management in administration have largely been ineffective. they were never a priority for the drafters and troubling trends remain. the pentagon is choking on bureaucra bureaucracy. he wrote that 14 years ago and the problem has only gotten worse. ultimately we must ask whether the defense department is succeeding in its development and execution of strategy policy and plans. the office of the secretary of defense, the service secretaries
and service staffs, joint staff, and the combatant commands are all bigger than ever. but is the quality of civilian oversight and control of the military better? has the quality of military advice to civilian leaders improved? are the joint duty assignments or military officers must perform producing a more unified fighting force? in short, is the department of defense more successful at planning for war, waging war, and winning war? goldwater nichols was perhaps the most consequential defense reform since the creation of the department of defense. and while the world has changed profoundly since 1986, the basic organization of the department of defense, as well as the roles and missions of its major civilian and military actors, has not changed all that much since goldwater nichols. it must be asked, is a 30-year-old defense organization equal to our present and future national security challenges? i want to be clear.
this is a forward looking effort. our task is to determine whether the department of defense and our armed forces are set up to be maximally successful and our current and future national security challenges. we will be guided in this effort by the same principles that inspired past defense reform efforts including goldwater nichols, enhancing civilian control of the military, improving military advice, operational effectiveness, and joint officer management, and providing for a better use of defense resources among others. this oversight initiative is not a set of solutions in search of problems. we will neither jump to conclusions nor tilt at the symptoms of problems. we will take the time to look deeply for the incentive and root causes that drive behavior. and we will always, always be guided by that all important principle, first do no harm. finally, this must and will be a
bipartisan endeavor. defense reform is not a republican or democric issue. and we will keep it that way. these are vital national security issues and we must seek to build a consensus about how to improve the organization, operation of the department and defense that can and will be advanced by whomever wins next year's elections. that is in keeping with the best traditions of this committee. and it is how dr. gates has always approached this important work across administrations of both parties. we thank dr. gates for his decades of service to our nation, for generousry offering us the benefit of your insights and experiences today. and i'd like to apologize for the long statement, dr. gates. but i take -- i believe that this hearing must set the predicate for a number of future hearings that we will be having in order to carry out, achieve the objectives that i just outlined. senator reid? >> thank you very much, mr.
chairman, and dr. gates, welcome back to the senate armed services committee. let me join the chairman in thanking you for your willingness to testify today. and also underscore how thoughtful and how appropriate the chairman's remarks are with respect to the need for a careful bipartisan review of policy and defense department and change in the defense party. i must also apologize as i've told you before, i have 200 or so rhode island business leaders that i must inform all day long today so i won't be here for the whole hearing. i apologize to the chairman, also. it's no accident that the chairman has asked you, dr. gates, to testify today on -- as the first witness in a major effort to look at the department of defense. you have more than 1500 days as secretary of defense, decades serving the united states government, roles that range of national security council to central intelligence agency and
then, of course, the department of defense. in your vast experience with dod and interagency process, especially in post september 11th context, will be important to the committee's study of these issues as we go forward. and while you are secretary of defense you were an outspoken critic of your own department and its ability to manage critical competing priority, funding military modernization and ensuring forces are supported appropriately. in a speech before the american enterprise institute you said the department is, in your words, a semi futile system, amall gor, allocate resource, track expenditures and manage as a result of department's overall priorities. as a policy making in the legislative branch, this kind of assessment is deeply concerning but also very helpful in terms of giving us a direction if i look forward to hearing your ideas and thinking about the changes that you recommend to us for addressing these issues.
congress has tried to help address some of these problems as you have rightly noted in creating the deputy chief management officer, but one person is not enough to create a compel systemic change in the largest organization on earth. and during your tenure you created two ad hoc entities in the department, the chairman mentioned, to address rapidly dangerous issues to our troops. the mine ambush protected, mrat and intelligence surveillance reconnaissance. both of these endeavors were very successful but they are just an indication of the kind of more holistic and comprehensive change that we need to undertake in the department of defense. also in your american enterprise institute speech you made a critical point. since 2001 we have seen a near doubling of the pentagon's modernization accounts that has resulted in relatively modest gains and actual military capability. this should be of a concern to all of us. and we welcome your recommendations on how to bring
changes necessary to ensure that we're getting what we're paying for. in fact, getting more, we hope, bang for our buck. you've also spoken about the need for defense to be stable and predictable in the importance of the role of congress in ensuring that such stability is provided. former dod comptroller bob heal who served with you in the pentagon wrote recently about the budget turmoil he experienced during his tenure, including sequestration, a government shutdown and continued resolutions. specifically he wrote this budget turmoil imposed a high price on the dod and the nation it serves. the price is not measured on dollars since dod certainly didn't get any extra findings to pay the cost but rather the price at the efficiency and effectiveness of the department's issues and we are still confronting those issues today. finally, during your tenure, dr. galts, you were strong advocate not only for our military but also funding the soft power, tools of state craft, our diplomacy, developmental efforts
and our ability to communicate, goals and values that rest of the world. as we consider steps to making d of,d more effective i would also be interested in your thoughts and porngs of our national security in enhancing civilian elements of national power and also the impact that sequestration has on these elements. again, thank you, dr. gates, for your service. i look forward to your testimony. >> dr. gates? >> chairman mccain, senator reed, probably the least sincere sentence in the english language is, mr. chairman, it's a pleasure to be here with you today. frankly short of a subpoena i never thought i would be in a congressional hearing gab and some of the things i wrote in a book, i'm rather surprised to be invited back. thank you for your kind introductory remarks and for the invitation to address the important topic of defense reform. i also commend you, mr. chairman, for attempting to transcend the deadly headlines
and crises of the moment to focus this committee and hopefully the rest of the congress on institutional challenges. while i've stayed in touch with my successors periodically and have followed developments from afar, very afar, my testimony today is based predominantly on my experience as defense secretary between december 2006 and july 2011. and being engaged in two wars, every single day during that period. so my comments this morning may not necessarily account for all of the changes that have taken place over the last four years. i joined cia to do my bit in the defense of our country 50 years ago next year. i've served eight presidents. with the advantage of that half century perspective i'd like to open with two broad points. first, while it is tempting and conventional wisdom to assert that the challenges facing the united states internationally have never been more numerous or
compl complex, reality is that turbulent, unstable, and unpredictable times have recurred to challenge u.s. leaders regularly since world war ii. soviets tighten their grip on western europe and surprise western leaders and intelligence agencies by detonating their first atomic device. frequent crises during the '50s, korean war, china over taiwan, pressures from the joint chiefs of staff to help france by using nuclear weapons in indochina. war in the middle east, uprisings in eastern europe, and revolution in cuba. during the '60s, war in vietnam, another era of israeli war and confrontations with the soviets from berlin to cuba. in the '70s, soviet assertively in africa and invasion of afghanistan and yet another arab/israeli war and oil i'm barba goes. p '80s brought surrogate crises
in lebanon and sfwer vengs in panama. and in the '90s we had the first gulf war, military action in the bull can, somalia, haiti, missile at tacts in iraq, and first al qaeda attacks on the united states. the point of recounting these historical examples is that americans, including all too often our leaders, regard international crises and military conflict as aberrations when, in fact, and sad to say, they are the norm. convinced time and again that a new era of tranquility is at hand, especially after major conflicts, presidents and congresses tend to believe they have a choice when it comes to the priority given national security. and correspondingly significantly reduce the resources provided to defense, the state department, and cia. in the short term at least, until the next crisis arrives, they do have a choice. and the budget cutters and deficit hocks have their way. but in the longer term, there
really is no choice. while we may not be interested in aggressor, terrorists revounch and expansionists half a world away, they ultimately are always interested in us or in our interest or our allies and friends. and we always discover then that we went too far in cutting and need to rearm. that the cost in treasure and in the blood of our young men and women are always far higher than if we had remained strong and prepared all along. the primary question right now before the congress and the president is the priority you give to defense which at roughly 15% of federal expenditures is the lowest percentage of the federal budget since before world war ii. without proper and predictable funding no amount of reform or clever reorganization will provide america with a military capable of accomplishing the missions assigned to it. m the second and related point i think highly germane to your
deliberations is that our record since vietnam in predicting where we will use military force next, even a few months out, is perfect. we have never once gotten it right. just think about it. grenada, lebanon, libya twice, iraq now three times, afghanistan, the balkans, panama, somalia, haiti, and most recently west africa to combat ebola. because we cannot predict the place and future engagement we must provide premium on requiring equipmentnd training to give our forces the most versatile possible capabilities across the broadest possible spectrum of conflict. these two lessons on funding and flexibility must underpin any defense reform effort whether the focus is on bureaucratic organization, command structures, acquisition, or budgets. all that said, it is completely legitimate to ask whether our defense structures and processes
are giving us the best possible return on taxpayer dollars spent on our military. and the answer in too many cases is no. in this context the questions the committee are considering are in my view the correct ones. namely, whether any countries institutions and national defense are organized, manned, equipped, and manged in ways that can deal with the security challenges of the 21st century and that efficiency and effectively spend defense dollars. as chairman over the next 15 minutes or so make observations object goldwater anything kols, acquisition policy, the interagency process and budget. we can then delve into these and other matters as the committee sees fit. first, goldwater nichols at 30 years and question whether the ambition of the original legislation has been fulfilled or is additional legislation of similar magnitude needed in light of all the changes that have taken place over the last three decades. my perspectives on the current structure of the defense
department is shaped primarily by my experience as secretary overseeing a military fighting two wars. i discovered early on that i led a department designed to plan for war but not to wage war, at least for the long term. the swift victory of the 1991 persian gulf conflict seemed to validate all post-vietnam changes to our military including the landmark 1986 legislation. but the pentagon clearly was not organized to deal with protracted conflicts like iraq and afghanistan, which contrary to the wishes of most americans, most assuredly will not be the last sustained ground campaigns waged by our military. in this respect, goldwater nichols succeeded all too well by turning services fors for and equipment providering walled off from operational responsibilities. now the exclusive domain of combatant commanders.
this became especially problematic in unconventional conflicts, requiring capabilities usually immediately that was significantly different than what was in prewar procurement pipeline. just one illustrative example. while there was and is a joint process to deal with the on going needs of battlefield commanders it was left up to the designated military service to reprioritize the budget to find the funding for those needs. it will come as no surprise to you that with some regularity the designated service decided that ur jant battlefield need did not have as high a priority for funding as its long-term programs of record. these were mostly advanced weapons systems designed for future conflicts and had near sacrosanct status making it difficult to generate much enthusiasm for other nearer term initiatives that might compete for funds. i soon learned that the only way i could get significant new or additional equipment to
commanders in the field in weeks or months, not years, was to take control of the problem myself through special task forces and odd hope processes. this would be the case with the mrap vehicles, additional intelligence, surveil answer, shortened medevac times, counter ied equipment, and even the care of wounded warriors. i learned that if the secretary made it a personal priority, set tight deadlines, and held people accountable, it was actually possible to get a lot done even quickly, even in a massive bureaucracy like the pentagon. but satisfying critical operational and battlefield needs cannot depend solely on the intense personal involvement of the secretary. that is not sustainable. the challenge is how to institutionalize a culture and an incentive structure that encourages wartime urgency simultaneous with long-term planning and acquisition as a
matter of course. a final thought relative to defense organizations and authorities. through my tenure i was privileged to work with two superb chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, pete pace and mike mullen, who were true partners while providing independent, occasionally disse dissenting, professional military advice. the chairman along with the vice chairman is the one senior military officer with a stake in both current needs and future requirements. one of the great achievements of goldwater nichols was strengthening the position of the operational commanders and the chairman relative to the service chiefs. i believe that as a general principle this must be sustained. service chiefs have a tenure of four years, combatant commanders nom ali three years. yet the chairman and vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff have a two-year renewable terms. i believe their service vis-a-vis would be strengthened
by also giving them four-year terms. this would not diminish their accountability to the president, defense secretary, and congress. second, a subject for years have been a focus of this committee, the acquisition process. not onlys a goldwater nichols hit the 30-year mark so, too, as the office of the secretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics. at and l was established because service-driven acquisition system was yielding too many over designed, over budget, and over scheduled programs. the theory was that by giving acquisition responsibility for major programs to a senior osd official removed from parochial service interest, wiser and more disciplined decisions would ens ensue. so what can we say 30 years on? we've succeeded in building a new layer of burk crass eaucrac thousands more employees and thousands to feed it.
but when it comes to output the results have been quite mixed. as secretary i found that despite all of the osd and joint oversight mechanisms, far too many major weapons and equipment programs were ridiculously overdue, overcost, or no longer relevant to the highest priority definance needs. to the chagrin to many inside the pentagon and probably here on the hill i canceled or capped more than 30 major programs in 2009 that have built out fully would have cost the taxpayers $330 billion. so where does that leaf us today as congress considers reforms for the future? problems with the service is running acquisitions led to greater centralization and oversight through at and l but that led to another set of problems in the form of sizable central bureaucracy that adds delays and related costs without discernible benefit. so now there's pressure and legislation to return significantly more acquisition authority back to the services.
my sense is the right answer lies with finding a better balance between centralization and dea centralization than we now have. but a strong word of caution. you must not weaken the authority of the secretary of defense and his ultimate decision making power on acquisition. i cannot imagine a service chief or service secretary able to overcome intense internal pressures and voluntarily do away with, for example, programs like the army future combat system, the airborne laser, the zoom wall destroyer, or dozens of other troubled and needlessly exquisite systems that built up a loyal service constituency. the simple fact is that such decisions are not just programatic but political. and only the secretary of defense with the strong support of the president, has the clout, the power, inside the pentagon, with industry, and here on the hill to make such decisions and
make them stick. a couple of other observations seem obvious, as you and the secretary of defense addressed this issue, nothing will work without rigorously applied accountability. within the services, by at and l, and by the secretary. and then there is the importance of basic blocking and tackling on the acquisitions process. to high level rigorous control of requirements and limiting changes beyond a certain point, competitive prototyping wherever probable before program initiation, more realistic cost estimates, and revising contract incentives to better reward success and penalize failure. also promising a year legislative efforts of mr. chairman to streamline acquisition processes, encourage more use of commercial products and pricing, and attract more non-traditional vendors to defense markets.
that said, at the end of the day, redrawing the organization chart or enacting new acquisition laws and rules will matter less than leaders skilled enough to execute programs effectively, willing to take tough usually unpopular choices, and establish strong measures of accountability. and willing to get rid of those not performing well, whether people or programs. in terms of being better stewards of taxpayer dollars more broadly, the effort i began in 2010 to reduce overhead costs and continued by my successors must be renewed and sus stabed. it was telling that in just four months in 2010 we found some $180 billion over a multi-year period we could cut in overhead. there is as deputy secretary gordon liked to say, a river of money flowing under the pentagon, primarily funded through catch-all operations and
maintenance accounts. now, there's no line item in the defense budget called waste, so getting ats unnecessary overhead spending without harming important functions is extremely hard work. it's kind of like a huge easter egg hunt but it can and must be done. a brief word here on resisting the usual approach of reducing budgets with across the board cuts. i have seen countless washington reform efforts over the years result in mindless salami slicing of programs and organizations. that is not reform. it is managerial and political cowardness. true reform requires making trades and choices and tough decisions, recognize that some activities are more important than others. it's hard to do but it's essential if you are to reshape any organization into a more effective and efficient enterprise. further the congress must contain its own bad behavior. such as insisting on continuing unneeded programs because of
parochial interest, preventing the closure of roughly one quarter of all facilities deemed access, burdening the department with excessive and frequently expensive rules and reporting requirements and more. my third broad point with regard to the interagency process, from time to time the idea arises to reorganize the u.s. national security apparatus put together in 1947 to better integrate defense, diplomacy, and development. a goldwater nichols for the interagency, if you will. goldwater nichols has mostly worked at the defense department because when push comes to shove as it often does there, everyone in and out of uniform ultimately works for one person, the secretary of defense. and he or she has the last word and can tell everyone to get in line. when multiple cabinet departments are involved however there is only one person with that kind of authority, the president. the national security council
and its staff were created to provide the president with organizational mechanism to coordinate and integrate their efforts. how well that works depends entirely on the personal relationships among the principles and the talents and skills of the national security adviser. even this structure headquartered just down the hall from the oval office works poorly if the secretary of state and the secretary of defense can't stand one another, as was a case for a good part of my time in the government or if the national security adviser isn't an honest broker. how well the planning activities and efforts of state, defense, and others are coordinated and integrated is a responsibility of one person, the president. and there is nothing anybody else, including the congress, can do about it. i'll conclude with three other reasons the nation is paying more for defense in real dollars today than 30 years ago and getting less, and getting less. one is that men and women in
uniform today drive, fly, or sail platform which are vastly more capable and technologically advanced than a generation ago. that edtechnology and capabilit comes with a hefty price tag. a second reason for the higher cost is the exploding personnel costs of the department. a very real problem on which i know this committee and others are at least beginning to make some inroads after years futility. the third factor contributing to increased costs and one of immense importance is the role of congress itself. here i am talking about the years long budgetary impasse on the hill and between the congress and the president. the department of defense a had an enacted appropriations bill to start the fiscal year only twice in the last ten years. the last seven years, all began under a continuing resolution. during the first six full fiscal years of the obama administration the defense department has operated under continuing resolutions for a
third of the time. a cumulative total of two years. department leaders also have had to deal with a threat and in one year the imposition of sequestration, a completely mindless and cowardly mechanism for budget cutting. because of the inability of the congress and the president to find a budget compromise in 2013 defense spending was reduced mid year by $37 billion. all of these cuts applied equally and percentage terms to 2500 line items of the defense budget and requiring precise management of each cut to comply with the antideficiency act with its criminal penalties for violations. sequestration effectively cut about 30% of day-to-day operating funds in the second half of fy '13. but then add to this mess the fact that the department probably the largest organization on the planet in recent years has had to plan for
five different potential government shut downs. in the fall of 2013 with sequestration still ongoing the pentagon actually had to implement one of the those shutdowns for 16 days affecting 640,000 employees or 85% of the civilian workforce. it is hard to quantify the cost of the budgetary turmoil of the past five years. the cuts, the continuing resolutions, sequestration, gimmicks, furloughs, shutdowns, unpredictability and more. during continuing resolutions in particular, the inability to execute programs on schedule, limits on being able to ramp up production or start new programs or to take full advantage of savings offered by multi-year purchases, the time consuming and unpredictable process of reprogramming even small amounts of money to higher all of these tre mund douse cost on the taxpayer. these don't even begin to
account for the cost involved in the hundreds of thousands of man-hours required with the managerial nightmare. moreover, reimposition of full scale sequestration looms in january absent of a bipartisan budget agreement. given the harm all of the politically driven madness inflicts on the u.s. military, rhetoric from members of congress about looking out for our men and women in uniform rings very hollow to me. further, the legislatidggislati dysfunction is embarrassing in the eyes of the world at a time when allies and friends are looking to us for leadership and reassurance. all the reforms you can come up with will be of little use if the military is unable to plan, to set priorities and to manage its resources in a sensible and strategic way. the failure of the congress in recent years because of the partisan divide to pass timely and predictable defense budgets and its continuing parochialism
when it comes to failing programs and unneeded facilities has not only greatly increased the cost of defense, it has contributed to weakening our military capabilities and it has broken faith with our men and women in uniform. this committee with its counterpart in the house has long supported on a bipartisan basis a strong defense and protecting those in uniform. as you consider needed me forms in the pentagon, i fervently hope you will also urge your colleagues in congress to break with the recent past and place the national interest and our national security ahead of ideological purity or achaefing partisan advantage. because as you know as well as i, our system of government has designed by the founders who wrote and negotiated the provisions of the constitution is depended on compromise to function. to do so is not selling out, it is called governing. thank you. >> well, thank you, mr.
secretary. dr. gates, thank you. those are very strong words and i wish that all 535 members of congress could hear the -- your closing remarks. i will quote them quite often and quite liberally. it is, frankly, a damning but accurate indictment about our failure to the men and women in the military, the 300 million americans, and the security of our nation. we are also looking at a debt limit showdown, mr. secretary. we all know that debt limits have to be raised because of spending practices, yet we now have a substantial number of members of congress that, by god, we're not going to vote to
increase the debt limit and anybody that does is, of course, a traitor and doesn't care about fiscal responsibility. the rhetoric has been very interesting. so we're now looking at sequestration and we're also looking at the debt limit and we're also looking at a president and secretary of defense -- with the secretary of defense's support, of ve vet towing a bill that is not a money bill, it's a policy bill. so the president is threatening to veto because of the issue of not increasing nondefense spending when there is nothing that this committee nor the authorizing process can do to change that. i'm sorry to say that members of this committee will be voting to sustain a presidential veto on an issue that we have nothing
that we can change. well, could i just ask, again, on sequestration, i also would ask a specific question, in your remarks it was interesting to me that you didn't make a single comment about the service secretaries and their role. do you think we ought to do away with the service secretary, dr. gates? >> i thought about that -- i've thought about that. thanks to your staff providing me with some of the issues that you all might want to discuss today. and i think that -- i think i would say no to that question. and i would say it primarily because i think that having a civilian service secretary does strengthen the civilian
leadership and civilian dominance of our military. if there is -- and they are able to do so on a day -to-day basis in decision making that a single person like a secretary of defense could not do. i mean, i couldn't -- the secretary can sort of reiterate that and make it clear in his actions that civilian control is important but i think that the symbolism to members of the services that there is a civilian at the head of their own service, who is responsible for them and accountable for them, i think is important. >> let me go back over this relationship between at and l, the uniform service chiefs, secretary of defense, and you cited a couple of cases whereby
going around the entire process as an mrap you mentioned and other cases, where -- go over for the benefit of the committee again, where is the balance? we're trying to, in this legislation, give some more authority and responsibility to the service chiefs who right now, as i understand it, have none and yet, at the same time, as you said, not return too much to the service chiefs because of their advocacy and their view of sacrisanct programs they believe is important to their services. i don't quite get that balance there. >> i wish i would give you a precise and very specific answer. it seems to me that -- i mean, the irony is that, for example, when it came to the mraps, i
made the we the situation but it was the leadership of at and l that executed the programs and signed the contracts and actually implemented then by the marine corps actually had the responsibility because they had originated -- the mraps were originally their idea and it was their success in anbar that led me to expand it. but the problem that i ran into in the defense department is that any problem, whether it's an acquisition or anything else, affects multiple parts of the department, none of which can tell the other what to do. so -- so if the comptroller has a problem, he can't tell at and l what to do. if cost assessment and program evaluation has a problem, they can't tell at and l or anybody
else what to do. they only report to me or to the secretary. and so the reason i found myself chairing these meetings was because there were enough. different parts of the department who were involved in almost any decision that no one below the secretary could actually get everybody in the room and say this is what you have to do. so how you fix that institutionally, and i will tell you when ash carter was at and l, the undersecretary, and particularly by last six or eight months, ash and i talked all the time. ash, how do we institutionalize this, how do we institutionalize meeting these urgent needs along with the long-range kind of planning and acquisition that we have? and, frankly, when i left, we hadn't solved that problem. but it has to -- the services do
have authority. they do have procurement or acquisition authority and they do have senior people in those positions. and frankly, my sense is that there are a couple that i dealt with seemed to me to be quite capable. but how you -- how you realign the roles of at and l and the service procurement or ak acquisition officers i don't have an easy solution for you. all i can suggest is that there be a dialogue between this committee and secretary carter and the services in at and l. in terms of how you adjust the balance, it is clear to me that the balance has shifted too far to at and l. and therefore there needs to be some strengthening of the role of the services. but central to that will be
forcing the service leaders, the chief of staff and the secretary, to hold people accountable and to hold those two people accountable for the service. i know mark millie was up here testifying and said, give me the authority. if i don't do it right, fire me. that's kind of extreme. but at a certain point, accountability is a big piece of this and i just -- i don't have for you a line drawing or even a paragraph where i could tell you here's where you redraw the balance because i'm not sure right where that line goes. >> thank you, senator reed? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, dr. gates, for insightful syst fuful testimony. not only giving us advice but pointing to the questions which
you are still thinking through. helps me. we plan very well for the initial phase i, phase two, phase three operations with our equipment, with our personnel. it's the -- usually the phase four of how we sort of conduct, pro tract, or that you predicted will be the likely face of conflict in the future. so of much of that depends on capacity building in the local nations. and so much of that depends upon non-dod elements, state department, police trainers, public health systems. i think we've seen that so many times in iraq and afghanistan. and this comes back to the point i think you've also made about, you know, if these agencies are not properly funded, are not properly integrated, then we could succeed in initial phase of the battle but fail ultimately. is that a fair assessment? >> i can only remind this committee how many times you
heard from our commanding generals in both iraq and afghanistan about the desperate need for more civilians, both in iraq and afghanistan. and the value that they brought. secretary rice used to chide me occasionally reminding me we had more people in military bands than she had in the entire foreign service. i'll give you another example though. and it's an action that frankly where both the executive branch and the congress are responsible. when i left government in 1993 the agency for international development had 16,000 employees. they were dedicated, professionals. they were acustomed to working in dangerous and difficult circumstances in developing countries, and they brought extraordinary not only skill but passion. when i returned to government 13
years later, in 2006, aid was down to 3,000 employees and they were mostly contractors. and that is a measure of what's happened in the development part of our broader strategy. and i would say that, you know, for those of us of a certain age who can remember usia in its hay day, what we have in the way of strategic communications in our government today is a very pale reflection of that. so those -- that whole civilian side has -- has been neglected for a very long time. >> and that neglect will be exacerbated by sequestration and they will not -- these agencies don't have a way to provide at least short-term funding as dod does through the overseas contingency accounts. they're just stuck. and because they don't function well, i think that's the
conclusion you draw, our overall national security, overall responsiveness is impaired dramatically. is that fair? >> i believe so, yes, sir. >> it raises the issue, too, because this is the ub subjesuba lot of our discussions is we have tried to find the money for the department of defense and the account that's bearing the bulk of the differences both budgetary and political is the overseas contingency account. as a means of funding defense on a long-term basis, in your view is that an adequate approach or should we raise the regular budget caps and do it as we thought we used to do it? >> well, first of all, my approach when i was secretary was to take every dollar i could get wherever i could get it. >> i know. >> it's a terrible way to budget. i mean, it's -- it's a -- it is a gimmick.
it is a -- it does provide the resources, but it's hard to disagree with -- i mean, the way that things ought to operate is that -- is that if there is a sense on the hill, a majority view that the budget needs to be cut to reduce the deficit, you go through regular order of business and you, like i did when i was secretary of defense, you make tough decisions. what are you going to fund, what are you not going to fund? but you make choices. that's what leadership and political life is all about, it seems to me. and then you vote a budget and money flows, whether there's more or less of it. you know, in the current paralyzed state, maybe there's no alternative right now to
getting the money this way. but it is, as the saying used to go, it's a hell of a way to run a railroad. >> well, thank you very much, dr. gates, for your extraordinary service to the nation. thank you. >> general sessions. >> thank you, dr. gates. thank you for your service. i would add my compliments to those of predecessor -- prior speakers that i believe you represent one of the best defense secretaries the nation's ever had. i know you served with dedication, put the nation's interest first, you put the defense department first. some of your former cabinet colleagues put secretary of health first and education first and roads first, so we got pleased from every department agency and we don't have as much money as we like. so the crisis we've entered on the