tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 11, 2015 10:30pm-12:31am EDT
iate it. you don't have to commit yourself on behalf of the administration. >> let me think you personally because i'm delighted he stayed on the committee. you gave up a couple of seats of seniority. i want to express my appreciation. i know you will be a strong voice for some of the things that always get paid attention to, particularly in africa. i don't think there's any doubt. i believe that the three years if they are accompanied by the vote that is necessary here and by the accompanying commitments
by each senator who goes to speak and define why we are doing this and what we're doing i think is would be a healthy debate. i'm confident coming out of that would be an absolute understanding of why everyone in the region and world that we are deeply committed to this and committed for more than the three years. the three years will be respected as secretary carter says as a reflection of the process and not as a management of the fundamental commitment to achieve our goals. every country in the region has committed to defeat isil. every country. that is partly what has prompted some of the questions because of iran's commitment to do that. i really think the three years is more of a statement of respect by president obama, for him to say to the next president, to the congress review this, take a look at this, see how it is going. tweak it if necessary.
i think he has no doubt about the readiness and willingness of congress to continue that forward but perhaps with some state-of-the-art refinements. i do not think it is a problem. i think we can deal with that. in order to achieve the vote they strains of iraq and afghanistan -- the experience of iraq and afghanistan created a sufficient cloud over the potential of this note that i think -- i think that is the commitment we need. that gets us the stronger but to do that. >> i appreciate your response. i think the enduring presence gives you a chance to revisit and expand. thank you for your time and service. >> i want to start by taking general dempsey and secretary carter and carry for your
service and engagement with us today. we recently heard credit news of 11 service numbers missing and lost. i think it is worth a moment of reflection on the enormous sacrifice that they have made and that there families are facing. i think all of us were best authorize -- i think his will involve a great deal of -- the question i want to raise is who bears the cost.
we did put on the table and in our discussion the financial cost. general dempsey was right to raise the concerns about the budget. the need to pay for this war is essential concern. president eisenhower said america could choke itself to death. we have used a combination of either spending cuts or increased revenue to pay for every conflict before the 2003 iraq war and the to post 9/11 engagements. i think we cannot write -- it is not only fiscally responsible but morally responsible. i am aware that this is not
within the purview of his committee but i think it is the responsibility of all of congress. i'm intending to renew this conversation. in the last congress, i introduced an amendment that was debated and considered. i wondered if any of you care to comment on behalf of the administration on an amendment that would call for a temporary war tax? secretary carter? defense secretary carter: you are raising a very important question. my own view is that question is not best associated with the authorization for the use of military force, although it is a
very important question. with respect to the expenditures, we are in a situation, and chairman dempsey refer to this, and i believe the state department is also in terms of its own budget, one in which we have had your after year of turmoil, it is destructive and wasteful and causes all of us, and i think this is probably true in the state department budget, to have a very difficult time managing appropriately and efficiently. that is a very important problem. i appreciate your attention to it and agree with what you said. office top of the head here, i
think that this is best dealt with and needs to be dealt with, the best dealt with another way than by incorporating the funding situation in the aumf. >> thank you. the point i'm trying to raise is that at the same time that the chairman of the joint chief raises appropriate, and during the concerns, i feel uncomfortable that we continue to use contingency funding for more and more reach and functions. i would like to see us take on the responsibility of paying for this and not just asking for sacrifice from those in uniform. there has been back and forth about what associated forces mean, we have been engaged in issues relating to africa and whether in libya or nigeria,
there have been organizations pledging their allegiance to isil. just this past saturday, boko haram's leader pledged allegiance. the conflict with boko haram in nigeria is another example of a situation where american boots on the ground is not what is called for and american support is the best strategy going forward. in your view, if that began to take off and conflicts begin to engage some of our coalition partners, with -- would this aumf qualify us to go after them? what actions would they have to take in order to be covered by this aumf and its current
language? >> thank you for the question. an important one. as of now, this moment, by pledging what they have pledged or flying the flag or saying they are affiliated, there is no decision made or contemplated that they would be covered under this at this moment. that is not adequate. but if, as secretary carter said, they start to attack the united hates or join with isil in a specific strategy to attack coalition partners, that would raise a legitimate question and this authorization could in fact, under those circumstances, cover them. it would have to be -- there'd be a lot of internal scrubbing
about what those activities were and what the implications were. it would not be automatic but open to judgment. >> let me ask one more question, on the topic of negotiations with iran. i will make a statement and if you care to comment, that would be great. it is my hope that if a long-term agreement is reached the inspection obligation would be enduring as not end at the end of that term. knowing that there would be a continuing inspection obligation would give some comfort to those of us who do not trust iran and are not confident that at into the window they would not immediately return to their illicit nuclear weapon activities. >> a very quick comment. it addresses a lot of the comments we have been hearing from the hill. i keep hearing people say, we don't trust iran. nothing in this agreement contemplated, if it gets reached, is based on trust. nothing. in fact, it is based on distrust, and to therefore
would have to be accompanied by an adequate level of verification, whatever that might be. i'm not going to discuss what might be contempalted. i'm saying that whatever might be reached is not on the basis of some words and documents. it has to be verified and has to be accountable. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general dancing, question is for you. i appreciate what you are doing here. i think all of us agreed that we need a strong vote on this a umf and i appreciate your efforts center -- secretary kerry to put this together and this is a very
difficult needle to bread because of the wide various views in congress. i appreciate your efforts to do that and i hope that they of the day that we do have this strong vote in support of this. i urge you to continue those efforts. general dempsey, this question is for you. if this passes, how will things be different after this passes than they are now? what is going to change? >> i do not think there will be any difference in our activities. i think there will not be a potentially a difference among our coalition partners in the way they view our commitment to the fight. that in terms of the way that we applied military force, and either directly their partners ornately others, they may change. thank you, very much -- >> thank you very much. what i'm saying now is a statement for the record and it is not a question.
and i want to respond to some of the comments that were made here today. i'm one of the 47 senators that signed the letter that there is all this talk about in recent days. this indignation and beating over this letter is absolute nonsense. each of us that signed it is an elected member of the united states senate and is the first branch of this government. to say that we should not be communicating is nonsense. members of congress, every single day, communicate with members of other countries with presidents and heads of other countries, with secretary the states and foreign ministers of other countries. it is done regularly. every time congress has recessed -- [no audio]
secretary kerry said in he conceeded they were nervous. we are the same people. i would classify their feeling of this as queasy. the how his country feels is very representative of how other countries in the region feel. mr. chairman, that is a statement for the record and i yield my time. >> thank you to the panel for coming today. madison wrote that history demonstrates what the constitution supposes. that the executive branch is most prone to war and therefore the constitution was studied care vested that power in the
legislature. madison also went on to further right that the separation of powers would be protected by pitting the ambitions of one branch against the ambitions of another. there will be points of dispute. these points of dispute are imported and none will monolithically be able to declare a victory. i cannot particularly be happy about being lectured by the administration about the constitution. this is an administration that i believe has trampled the constitution in many terms. this is an administration that seeks to legislature when it is not in their purview, whether it be legislation, whether it be
health care, or whether it now be a war that has been going on for eight months without congressional authorization. this administration is in direct the performance -- the fines of what senator obama ran on and was elected on. he said that no country could go to war without the authority of congress unless under imminent attack. this is a great debate. i signed the letter to iran. the message that i was sending was to you. the message was to present obama that we want you to obey the law and we want you to understand the separation of powers. if this agreement in any way modifies legislative sanctions it will have to be passed. by congress. that is why that i supported the legislation that says exactly this. however, i've told senator corker privately that i think that is the law anyway. this will have to be passed. you cannot undo legislation. why do i sign this letter question mark i sign this letter because i signed into an administration that doesn't listen. to an administration that every time tries to go around congress because you think you that you
cannot get your way. the president says, oh, the congress won't do what i want so i have a 10 and the phone and i'm going to do what i want. the letter was to you. the letter was to iran, but it should of been cced to the white house because the white house needs to understand that any agreement that removes or changes legislation will have to be passed by us. people can have different interpretations of things. when i will go through a couple of things that bother me about the aumf. the a umf in 2001 says that nations organizations that planned, authorized, committed or aided in the attacks on 9/11 are the target. that is what the authorization is about. i do not read both boko haram into that. to read both boko haram and so that, that is such a stretch that it is meaningless. senator markey talked about vagueness. it is pretty specific in 2001 when we were supposed to do. i was on favor of that state we had to do what we had to do in afghanistan with those who attacked us. if we have to go to other places, we should have other authorizations. i'm not saying that i won't vote for authorizations, we just need
to have them. we have a new authorization that says we do not authorize into a ring and offensive operation. the problem is that it is so vague that i trust the military when the military says that this is not what we are conflict desk contemplating. i trust you. there may be a president who i may not trust. i have a certain degree of a lack of trust in this president who says it is not contemplated. the next president can say that is. is it 100,000? that would be my question is secretary carter. were saying that it is not 6000 thousand -- we are not saying it is 60,000. is it 100,000? >> there should be a number that reflects the basic approach that this draft or proposed a umf takes. this is to not attempt to you numerate or number but to set a skilled and limit -- >> could it mean 100,000? >> referring to, and the president specifically refer to the camp and desk campaign output. again asked of the whole logic of the campaign which is to
enable those in the region who can make a victory stick. i can understand not wanting to put a number on it. when authorization was passed in december, it did not put a number on it. it defined a mission force more precisely. the problem is that without a geographic limit, we now have boko haram. people are saying it is disdainful to say that we want to do pass something, but it doesn't really matter because
we'll use 2001. this is absurd and it means that congress is inconsequential and so are the people in the country . we will basically do what we want if boko haram can be included on the 2000 one. if boko haram is a threat to the country, bring it to me and we will vote. the thing is that i understand how things change over time and how people transmute words to mean things that they really were not intended to mean. if 2001 can be applied to boko haram, i am very concerned about voting for this as it is worded because, if we are going to go to war with libya, i want to vote for war in libya. if we are going to board -- vote for war in nigeria, let's vote for war in nigeria. you may be able to interpret that under the imminent attack clause of the constitution.
but i am concerned and that is why we get to numbers. under this resolution, i believe you can have unlimited numbers of troops in iraq. i understand that you say it is not contemplated. i also believe that you can have unlimited numbers of troops in libya and in nigeria. now there are 30 nations that have pledged allegiance to isis. numbers are important and people worry about the dangers of being too confining. we are not anywhere close to that because even when we thought we were confining and 2001, people have interpret that to mean everything. senator carter, do you understand that if it were to pass as it is now that there are those of us who would worry that this would be authorizing unlimited troops in 30 different nations of the administration saw fit to send it? >> center, i think -- s enator i think that any aumf tries to strike a balance between being
an anticipating a wide enough range of contingencies that we can react in a way that we need to protect ourselves and that we need to anticipate the nature of this enemy while being restrictive enough to suggest to, not just the law, but to you and are forced, the force for which i'm responsible and general dempsey is responsible what we are contemplating here. we are try to strike that balance. it is always hard to strike a balance and language. as i said before i was a lawyer. in common sense terms, that is the balance that we are trying to strike and i respect that different people might use differently which the that effect and i've learned enough in studying for this hearing about authorities for the use of military force and that there
are several avenues to do that. i think what is being done here is a recognition of a new chapter, namely the ice all threat which opened last summer. the recognition that there's a new chapter in our effort to protect ourselves, and out of respect for that, a request for a specific authorization. i think i understand that. i do not think that the lawyers have said that there is a legal necessity for it. it does not come from a legal necessity. it comes from the recognition of a practical fact which is something that happened last summer which created a new danger and the defeat of which we need to participate. we are not doing it by ourselves. we are enabling others to do it. that is the principle insurance to turn it away from another iraq or afghanistan. speaking as secretary of defense and not a lawyer, it seems to be the logic that brought us here and i understand it.
>> thank you. i do not question your sincerity when you say it is an contemplated. i truly believe that it is an contemplated. i have to deal with words 15 years and now i have to explain my kids and their friends and their kids kids that something i voted for him to thousand 15 still has is that war in 2030 in 30 different countries. ok? it is an ongoing threat and we need to keep the separation of powers and the reason that we have to keep it precise is that i cannot vote for something that will enable war in libya nigeria, yemen, and all these places of 100,000 troops. there has to be some limitation. it is the politician and the next politician after you. but thank you very much. >> thank you. i have one follow-up question for chairman dempsey and secretary -- senator carter. i feel like if you wanted to miss my last question, i would not can sit or renewed. if you want to stay, that would be fine.
>> one minute for one thing. i just wanted you to know that today, the treasury department has authorized and initiated additional sanctions on eight ukrainian separatists and russian pro-separatist organizations. the of its leaders, the crimea bank, and additionally folks and supporters. in addition to that, today, we are providing immediately some $75 million of additional nonlethal assistance immediately to ukraine in order to help them in nonlethal assistance. as you know, other things are currently under consideration. but i just wanted you to be
aware that, mr. chairman. >> it is very timely for that. we had a ukraine-russia hearing yesterday and i know there's still a push to provide the legal support. i noticed there were a lot of questions and some statements made today, but the fact is that all of us deeply appreciate the tremendous amount of effort that you put forth in your job and we thank you for taking the time to be with us today with many other demands that you have. thank you. if i could, gentlemen, chairman dempsey, if i could just follow up a little bit on the aumf and
the issue of being able to protect those who we train and equip against assaults and the fact that is your belief that the aumf does not protect that and i believe that is the assumption of secretary carter. is that correct? >> yes. i'm told separately -- just to get your question, is the force that we train and equip come under attack from a side, would we have the legal authority to help them defend themselves? my understanding of that question is that we do not foresee that happening anytime soon. a legal determination, i'm told by the lawyers, has not been made. whether we have the authority to do that are not, again, i'm not
aware. >> someone said to senator graham last week. first of all, we thank you both for being here and i know that coming before senate panels is not on your first priority list in your current day jobs, but we appreciate the time here. this is really to tease it out a little bit. it is a pretty big issue. when you think about the fact that we have authorized the training and equipping and that the administration apparently did talk some with y'all. if i understand correctly for a clear legal determination, that would mean an additional authorization would need to be approved by congress for y'all to be able to protect and train and equip folks against assad. that seems problematic good you can see the consternation that takes place over the one that is now offered. to come back later with another one does not seem to me to be a vertically appropriate way about going about things. chairman dempsey, what should be our thinking in that regard and
what is yours? >> i chuckled when you set how much we enjoy coming over here but the truth is, over the course of my four years as chairman, i've come to a deep appreciation of the fact that we do have an article one responsibility to have these kinds of conversations with you about our national security interests and the strategy delivers. i actually want to thank you for running a really cordial hearing today on the topics. as far as what we are going to do about protecting the new syrian forces as they are fielded, that question, i mention the term that we are an active discussion. from the very beginning though we knew that we would come to the point where we had to make a decision about whether or not to protect them and it was always my advice that we had to come to some conclusion to assure them that they would be protected. now the scope and scale that protection is the part of this that is being actively debated. but the program won't succeed unless they believe themselves to be and have a reasonable chance of survival. >> let me just follow up. again, i appreciate the fact that you are not just looking at
these issues and your role. but other issues in the pacific and all around the world and you have got to balance the resources that we have available to us. but back to that issue. can you understand why many of us here, knowing that getting turkey involved in some way on the grounds, probably matters to our success if we are going to continue on the policy path that we are on and the strategy. it is important. knowing that the president did not see the authority to go against him, again, not necessarily to them on directly, but to be able to protect, to train and equip personnel that will be reentering. and to be able to do with some humanitarian issues, and let's face it, the northwest triangle. that would give many of us, who
suddenly want to support this, some concern that there really isn't a commitment level there to create, if you will ineffective ground effort. i just wonder if you can respond to that a little bit. >> i cannot ease your concerns but i can tell you that when i provide my military advice, it is key to the success of the new syrian forces that they will have a degree of protection. that, as secretary carter has said, is under active discussion. >> i assume then, seeing that is skewed to success, those that are actually carrying out these activities would not be offended if congress give that authorization today. >> i leave that to you, our elected officials. >> i wonder if secretary carter wants to respond to that. >> again, the practical answer to her you're very practical question -- to your very practical question is that there can -- there could be circumstances in
which the forces we train and equip come under attack from a sots -- assad's forces. and it will be important to know what manner they will be supported. that is something under active discussion. i don't agree that the legal aspect of that has been determined. i cannot tell you. you have to ask the white house counsel or the dod council whether anything was additional -- additionally required. i said we can't answer that question for you, but i do think it is a very meaningful practical question. >> and i know that you all are in active discussion, and have your own concerns, and those are not necessarily always addressed quickly, if you will, by those
that make decisions in other places. i understand that. i will say that from my perspective, it does show a degree of -- a lack of commitment from the white house. that they would not go ahead on the front, knowing there's no way you can continue to recruit the folks that are involved in this train and equip program if they know they are going to come into the country and immediately be barreled bombed. it would be very difficult to recruit additional folks, as you mentioned. and it does cause me to be concerned about the administration's overall commitment. if that is not think that within this authorization, we have authorized the train and equip program several months ago. if i could, to you secretary carter, now, the reason the question i think was asked about the persian gulf war and the 600, almost 700,000 troops that were involved, to me the
enduring combat language that was in theaumf -- the aumf would have allowed for that. it was a seventh -- seven month operation. and, so, you are saying that a seventh month operation from your standpoint -- seven month operation from her standpoint would not, if you will qualified for the president's language. that would be too long. >> the reference you are using is to a campaign intended to destroy the military forces of another state. that is a fundamentally different kind of conflict from this one. the ability to compare them alludes me.
>> i understand you are making a difference are, and i understand the difference when going against the country and an entity like isis. i guess what troubles me just a hair, and again, we all respect deeply the way uf come in -- you have come in and taken charge, but talking about a seven month operation being too long, that goes beyond, if you will, and enduring offense. i was should clarify that for the record. if it takes two or three years i guess you would assume that not to be enduring. >> i repeat what i said earlier about the timescale. we do not know how long it will take to defeat isil. i explained earlier that i would not tell you it would be three years. that was the only duration included in this authorization and it does not derive from any expectation on how long the campaign will last.
it derives from the political calendar of our country. so that is the timescale named and specified in the proposed aumf. and that is the only. of -- and that is the only period of time named. >> i don't know if senator menendez has any questions. >> i don't have any questions, i just have a comment. i want to share our thoughts and prayers for the servicemembers who are lost. this underlines that there is risk once you done the uniform -- don the uniform. our thoughts and prayers are with their families. it also reminds me of someone who did not own for the process of sequester. you cannot ask you to do everything we ask you to do if we don't find relief from
sequester. we seem to somehow ignore that. but i don't think both of you have that luxury. we have to do that. finally, i do hope that we can get to a point to find the right balance. and that is not easy in this proposition. to give you an aumf to defeat isil, but by the same token, doesn't provide an open ended check. but i think the real concern here is, for some of us who lived under shock and off -- a we, and saw a lot of lives and national treasure spent, that even well-intentioned efforts can move in a totally different direction. and this is the most critical vote that any member of congress will take, which is basically a vote on war and peace, and life and death. so, for those of us who have been pursuing this, to try and find the right spot, the one thing i want to do takeaway is
that i don't think there is a democrat or republican who believes we shouldn't defeat isil. as we struggle to get to the right wording, i hope we can go back to the men and women who serve this country with great sacrifice. in that spirit, we are united. it is our only cause you to find out what is the best way to ensure that, and in the end, not in short and endless war. which is a concern of many. >> thank you for saying that. it means a lot. >> thank you both. >> i was just handed a note, as i think you all were a minute to go. i just want to end my last statement before thanking you that it is my understanding that the dod senior lawyers are sitting behind you. it is my understanding as we
leave here that the authorization that has been put before us, and the 2001 authorization, neither one gives clear-cut authority for you all to be able to defend, the train and equip program, against. i don't think anybody is great -- disagreement that, is that correct? >> that is my understanding. i would be happy to have our legal team speak to you about that. >> since i don't see them waving their hands back there, i assume they are speaking now. i would just like to close also by telling you how much we respect you both. how much we do appreciate your service to our country. how much we appreciate you taking the time to come up to. i think this has been very helpful to all of us. we wish you well. and the record will be open until it -- the close of business friday. i hope if questions come, you will answer them as promptly as possible. thank you for your service and your being here today.
the meeting is adjourned. here on c-span officials from the treasury and justice department will testify about tax scams being used this tax filing season. live coverage from the senate finance committee thursday at 10:00 eastern. ashton carter and his british counterpart discuss u.s. and u.k. military relations next on c-span. then senator john mccain talks about the murder of boorstin involved. this week, c-span is in new
hampshire with road to the white house coverage. on thursday, we will be in manchester with rick perry live at 8:30 a.m. eastern. friday night, live on c-span, we take you to a house party in dover, new hampshire with jeb bush. saturday, live on c-span, governor scott walker and republican party grassroots workshop in concord. sunday night senator ted cruz at the annual lincoln reagan dinner. road to the white house 2016 on c-span. >> defense secretary ashton carter held a joint news conference with michael file and
-- michael fallon. this is 25 minutes. secretary carter: good afternoon. before i begin, as you know, a uh 60 black hawk helicopter was involved in an accident last night near eglin air force base in florida. we know that on board, there were four soldiers from a national guard unit and seven marines at camp -- assigned to camp lejeune in north carolina. our thoughts and prayers are
with them and their families as search efforts continue. it is an honor to welcome my counterpart from the united kingdom, defense secretary michael fallon, here to the pentagon. this is a first for both of us. his first official visit to washington and my first visit to the briefing room as secretary of defense. it is fitting that secretary fallon is the first counterpart with whom i'm holding a joint press conference here in the pentagon, and that's because 200 years ago this month -- last month, i'm sorry -- after a little upset in new orleans, we buried the hatchet and ratified the treaty of ghent, which were stored, as it said, peace, friendship, and good anderson asked which were stored -- which restored, as it said, "peace friendship, and goodwill." we fly each other's aircraft serve on each other's ships, and our soldiers have long served side-by-side.
our military collaboration, in so many different areas, from iraq to afghanistan, reinforces the fact that our special relationship is a cornerstone of both of our nations' security. and for me, this special relationship, as i told michael earlier today, is also a personal one. i received my doctorate from oxford university, where i studied theoretical physics, and i have many fond memories of my time there. i not only earned a doctoral degree there, but also studied other subjects at one of oscars -- oxford's most renowned schools of higher learning, a pub adjacent to where i was. we had a positive and wide-ranging meeting where we discussed fullscope of issues on which the united states and the united kingdom are leading --
discussed the full scope of issues on which the united states and the united kingdom are leading. we are leading in the middle east, where the u.k. has been a stalwart ally against isis. they continue to train and equip on the ground. i told secretary fallon that we appreciate the u.k.'s partnership in this critical campaign. as we continue to support local forces of the united states is fortunate to have our british allies by our side. we are also leading together in afghanistan, where, since 2001 the united kingdom has stood steadfast not only with the united states, but also other afghan partners. i think secretary fallon -- i thank secretary fallon for the u.k.'s continued contributions. hundreds of british troops have helped train, advise, and assist the afghan national security forces.
their efforts will be critical to making sure that our progress there sticks. we are also leading together to reassure our transatlantic allies and to deter further russian aggression. the united states has been clear from the outset of the crisis in ukraine that we support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine. we have been very clear that, if russia continues to flout the commitments it made in september and february in the minsk agreements, the cost to russia will continue to rise, including and especially through sanctions in coordination with our european allies and partners. we will also continue to support ukraine's right to defend itself. and, as you know, earlier today, the white house announced the united states will be providing ukraine with an additional $75 million in nonlethal security assistance, as well as over 200
humvees. this brings u.s. security assistance to ukraine to a total of nearly $200 million, with the new funds going towards unmanned aerial vehicles, improved surveillance, a variety of radios and other secure communications equipment counter mortar radars, military ambulances, first aid kits, and other medical supplies. this new security assistance is in addition to our ongoing training exercises in eastern europe, to reinforce and reassure our nato allies. beginning this weekend next, equipped and personnel from the army's first grade -- or gate third infantry division -- the army's first brigade third infantry division will be there to train with resolve.
since russia's aggression began last year, the united kingdom has also stepped up militarily contributed to nato's baltic air policing mission and serving as a framework nation for nato's very high readiness to task force -- high readiness joint task force. today, i thank secretary fallon for honoring the community that all nato nations made in wales last year to invest 2% of gdp in defense. it is an investment we all pledged to make, and it is an investment worth making, not just for ourselves, but for our entire alliance. 70 years after we declared victory in europe, our nato allies, and indeed the world still looked to both our nations -- still look to both our nations as leaders. and it is clear that the threats and challenges we face, whether they manifest through cyberattacks, isil's foreign fighters, or russian aircraft
flying aggressively close to nato's airspace, all of those will continue to demand our leadership. as secretary fallon and i discussed today, leadership takes investment. investment in innovation and modernized capabilities, in prudent reforms, and in the forces necessary to meet our obligations. these are investments that both our nations and both our defense institutions must not only make, but embrace in the months and years to come. i will now ask secretary fallon for his comments before we take questions. secretary fallon: thank you. as i've told secretary carter our thoughts are with the families of those involved in the helicopter crash, a stark reminder of the risks that our armed forces face, both in training as well as in combat. i'm delighted to be here today
with secretary carter to review the range of security risks that we face together, risks that pose a challenge to the international rules-based order on which we depend. i am reassured that the strength of our shared resolve to address those challenges. ours is a defense relationship like no other, reflecting a shared determination to tackle those risks and those threats through a close and enduring partnership, whether it is russia's violation of international norms in europe, whether it is the barbarous sectarianism of isil in the middle east, whether it is the brutality of the assad regime in syria, or the danger of a nuclear-armed iran, or whether it's the continuing obligation on all of us to make the defense dollar and indeed the defense pound go further. our choices to work -- our
choice is to work together. we are working together, too asked secretary carter has said, in europe, demonstrating are resolve through nato to protect all members of the alliance, and with the european union, in delivering sanctions that show rush of the cost of flouting international -- show russia the cost of flouting international norms. we are working together in the middle east, which we both recently visited, building the capacity of iraqis, syrians, and other partners throughout the region to tackle the scourge of iso -- isil. we are working together, as we have for decades now, to bring new technologies into our armed forces, to find innovative solutions to the national security challenges that we face now and will face in the future. britain remains america's strongest partner. i'm delighted to be here and to take your questions. >> we will take a few questions. reporter: mr. secretary, this morning, chairman dempsey made it clear that he saw -- thought
that the syrian rebels need to have some assurances that they will get some type of protection as they go into the fight. i'm wondering, do you agree with that, that there needs to be some sort of assurance given to the rebels? is it dependent on whether or not they are attacks by isil -- attacked by isil or assad? what are the parameters that have to be discussed and are being debated now, that you think have to be considered as you look at this? secretary carter: i do agree with general dempsey. the forces that we train in syria, we will have some obligation to support them after their -- they are trained. we all understand that. we are working through what kinds of support and under what conditions we would do so to include the possibility that even though they are trained and
equipped to combat isil, they could come into contact with forces of the assad regime. that is definitely something we are aware of and something that we are discussing, as the chairman said this morning. i complete the agree with him. reporter: mr. secretary, the british forces in iraq appear to be operating initially under slightly less restrictive rules than some of the u.s. forces helping to call in airstrikes. i'm wondering if you think that is a broader unmet need in iraq. do you think other countries need to step up and do more of that? are you also considering any additional military support for the operations in syria? secretary fallon: so far as the
rules of engagement are concerned, each country sets its own rules of engagement. they vary slightly differently according to our legal framework. we are playing i think the second part in the campaign, over 170 strikes so far in support of ground operations in iraq, and we are now beginning i think next week, to help train iraqi and kurdish forces in counter-ied work, and supplying counter-ied equipment to them. ied's are one of the issues and challenges they have in advancing north of the tigris, west into anbar. that will be the main thrust of our contribution to the building capacity operations underway. so far as syria is concerned yes, we stand ready to help train moderate syrian elements to do so outside syria itself, and we have dispatched trainers
to the region to prepare for that task. reporter: on the calling of the airstrikes, will you continue to do that? secretary fallon: yes. we are flying missions every day, every night, six days a week, with our tornadoes and other aircraft. and that is an effort we are going to sustain as long as the ground operation demands it. reporter: a question to you both, if i may. senior u.s. military officials for some time have been expressing growing disquiet about the budgetary pressures on the u.k.'s armed forces, one general going so far as to say he believes soon it may be that british soldiers will have to fight inside u.s. units rather than alongside them. when it be rather more candid -- would it be rather more candid
to accept that budgetary reality than to deny it? obviously, the arabians -- iranians are playing a pivotal role in the climax of the battle for to create -- for tikrit. as we progressed to the even more significant battle for the liberation of mosul, it seems that to run and -- that tehran and washington might be fighting the same battle at the same time. how do you plan to choreograph that? secretary fallon: all of us face budget constraints. these are unique to any particular country. let me just make it clear, we are still able to put a division in the field with notice, the way that we used to. and i think our global reach is well demonstrated. we were able to, at 10 days notice, to send a ship and
helicopters and 700 men to syria to deal with ebola, at the same time as we have people in support of iso--- the afghan forces in kabul and the surrounding area. we still have that global reach and are able to support our allies where they are needed. secretary carter: first of all we have our budget challenges as well in the united states. just to repeat what i said over the last few weeks, if we don't straighten out in our own country our own budget circumstances here, there is going to be an impact on this department and this institution and our military, and it's going to be very substantial. so we need to end sequester. that's our issue. on the u.k. side, we are very
grateful for the commitment to the whales -- wales' target of 2% gdp. i will say one other thing that aligns with what michael said, which is the power is not only measured in one number. one of the things that we have valued for a long time in the u.k. military is the ability to act independently, to be a force of its own in the world. we need that, because we need as many country -- kindred countries in the world as we can, who are capable of with -- wielding their own independence. usually, we are aligned, but that is important. that is in the 2% goal the u.k. has, and this is a feature of the u.k. military that we very highly value. you asked about the battle for tikrit and the presence of
ukrainian -- iranian advisers on the ground. that is something we are watching very closely. it is something that is concerning to us in particular because the sectarian danger in that's why it is so important that none of these battles, and you named one, which is tikrit -- there are several important battles going on. some of which the irani and -- the iranians play no role at all. wherever they are, it is important that sectarianism not rear its ugly head as isil is pushed back outside of iraq.
so, we are watching that very closely, very carefully, and it is a return to sectarianism that would concern is very much in iraq. reporter: mr. secretary and secretary fallon, i want to follow up on both syria and iraq. let me start with syria. it seems, since the president has ruled out ground combat forces, especially in syria, your language opens the door if the rebels come under attack by assad forces -- you have opened the door to u.s. and coalition airstrikes in assad-held territory, which puts you in touch with his air defenses. let me ask you first if you are commenting -- committing to protect the rebels against the central assad attacks.
you have opened the door to u.s. and coalition airstrikes in syria in his territory. and second, on iraq -- secretary carter: can i just take that one before another subject? on that subject, that eventuality is one that we are looking at that is foreseeable because we are looking at how we would react to that eventuality. i'm not describing the conclusion. i'm acknowledging that is an eventuality that obviously follows from our objective to train and equip syrian forces and have them on the ground in syria. we have not decided yet in what manner and in what circumstances we would respond. reporter: if you protect them from the ground or from the air, it seems to be the only two options given the physics of the
situation. secretary carter: again, it is a situation we have first in and it is -- have foreseen and it is not a situation where decisions have been made how we would react. it would depend very much upon the situation and the circumstance. reporter: on iraq, everybody talks about iran and the potential for sectarian violence. two questions. your specific concerns about iraq essentially becomes an iranian client state, given the fact that iran's involvement seems to be quite welcome -- it is not really hypothetical. you have raised the issue of sectarian violence. the question is, what would you do about it if they were to engage in this? you have said it is not acceptable, but what can you do to stop it? secretary carter: we have been working with prime minister on the political approach -- with
the prime minister on the political approach and manner of governing that tries to reverse some of the sectarian trends of recent years. we work with the iraqi security forces to restore them to a multi-sectarian force. so, we are working -- at the end of the day, this is going to depend on the iraqis. there are ways that we are working with them and can work with them to promote that objective, and it is a key objective because it is one of the reasons why isil was able to gain the territory that it did last summer. reporter: mr. fallon, do you think that iran could be restrained in its influence in iraq? does the u.k. have specific concerns about iran's growing influence inside of iraq? secretary fallon: i want to follow exactly what secretary carter said, because i think he summed it up very well. we have been working to ensure that the iraqi government is
genuinely inclusive, and where they are able to retake ground from isil, that they can hold those towns and villages with the consent of the local people. that means in the training and support we are giving to the a body government -- to the government, that means they have to carry through the reforms that they are planning to the army, to the national guard, and they have to make sure that their approach is properly comprehensive and that sunnis, shias, and kurds have the right stake in the future of their country. >> [indiscernible] reporter: we have a general election in the u.k. in a couple of months. back to the question of spending, did you get specific assurance from mr. fallon that
the u.k. would spend 2% of its gdp on defense spending after 2016, which is when their current promise runs out? and given what the defense secretary here has said about the war gaming over what might happen with syrian rebels on the ground, will you ask for authorization to be involved in such operations in syria? secretary carter: i will take the first part. we discussed the issues that each of us has in military spending. the claimant i references one that was not made -- the commitment i reference was one that was not made by this minister to this minister today, it was one that was made publicly some time ago by the u.k. government. i welcomed it, because i think it is important. and we want an ally that, as i said, is strong, capable of independent action around the world, and capable of being another member of the community
of nations that shares our values and shares our objectives. i will let the minister speak for the u.k. government's commitments. secretary fallon: let me make it very clear that we are meeting the 2% target. we are going to be needing it next year. -- to be meeting it next year. you know there is a spending review process we go through every three years. within the 2% commitment, the 2% spending we are doing at the moment, let me just remind you that we have also committed, the prime minister committed again just yesterday, to keeping the regular army at the size that we have planned. secondly, we have an equivalent program committed 10 years ahead now, 164 billion pounds' worth of spend, including two aircraft carriers, seven submarines, six armored vehicles, and the
announcement recently of nearly one billion pounds of expenditure on our future forget -- future frigate program. i announced earlier today and investment of some 285 million pounds in further design work for the for -- for the next generation of nuclear deterrent submarines, replacing the vanguard class. we are also committed to modernizing our independent continuous at sea nuclear deterrent. it is in simple he the 2% target -- it isn't simply the 2% target. we have the additional could -- commitment to expenditure that shows we will be playing our proper part in the alliance and as a partner to the united states. as far as syria is concerned, we don't have parliamentary authority to conduct military operations in syria.
we are making a very large contribution to operations in iraq, second only to the united states. again, the prime minister has been clear that isil has to be defeated in both iraq and syria. isil does not respect the border between those two countries. in the end, isil has to be defeated in both. >> thank you very much. secretary carter: thank you all very much. michael, thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> on the next "washington journal," david mcintosh discusses limited government
legislation. marshall of the progressive policy institute will talk about the new democrat coalition. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets re. >> the political landscape has changed. there are 43 new republicans in the house, there are 108 women in congress, and the first woman veteran in the senate. the congressional chronicle page has useful information including voting results. best access on c-span.
>> next, senator john mccain talks about the murder of boris nemtsov. his remarks on the senate floor are just over 10 minutes. >> the senator from arizona. senator mccain: i want to thank him for his long-standing efforts in eliminating government mismanagement. if we are going to convince the american people that we have to make significant sacrifices, we have to start with an efficient government that does not waste taxpayer dollars. so i think my friend from indiana. i ask for consent to address
morning business. lastly, i introduced a resolution condemning the murder of my friend boris nemtsov. the resolution calls upon the russian federation to support an investigation into his murder. and take immediate steps and its oppression of free speech and justice. it urges obama to continue to sanction human rights violations and increase support to like-minded activists in russia. i was devastated to learn of boris nemtsov's murder last month. my thoughts are made with his family in russia. in his death, the struggle for spree -- free speech in russia has suffered another blow.
boris nemtsov was one of russia's earliest political reformers, a champion of liberalization and democracy. his leadership of russia's laboratory of reform brought him to moscow, where he served as deputy prime minister and was lost a favorite to the russian presidency. when vladimir putin entered in the kremlin, boris nemtsov was one of the first to warn of the vladimir putin dictatorship. the grip on power titan, nemtsov spoke for a vibrant russia. after multiple arrests, boris never stopped fighting corruption and lawlessness of the putin regime. he never stopped -- in december
2011, boris nemtsov helped mobilize the largest anti-kremlin demonstrations since the early 1990's, leading thousands of russians to march in protest of widespread fraud and corruption in the parliamentary elections. he stood up to harsh laws that expanded the definition of trees -- treason. laws that vladimir putin and his cronies have exploited to intimidate the russian people into obedience. before his death, boris nemtsov was reportedly planning to release a report on russia's military involvement in ukraine. the protest march was scheduled
to days after his murder. he was set to command -- the investigation soccer the fabricated rationalization of puritans war. -- putin's war. putin did not invade ukraine because he is crazy or to reassert russia's -- he wrote that the goal of putin's war is the preservation of personal power and money at any cost. a cold strategy for lifelong despotism. putin was willing to do russia to isolation. as boris caps off -- as boris nemtsov knew, this is vladimir
putin's more. that is why boris nemtsov's murder was not just a tragedy for the people of russia, but the people of ukraine. he was one of the few brave russians that saw through the narrative that russia is not at war with ukraine. many believe that boris is another casualty of that war. at the memorial march in moscow, one woman held a sign that read, the war killed nemtsov. i had long been concerned about his safety and said so publicly. i will never forget the last meeting we had in my office. i begged him to be careful. boris told me he would never give up the fight for freedom, human rights, and offer his fellow russians. even if it cost him his life. i am heartbroken that it has come to that.
that boris nemtsov murder occurred in the kremlin raises questions about the circumstances of his killing and who was responsible. in kgb fashion putin will round up the usual suspects, but i fear we will never know who pulled the trigger then i. oversight of the investigation ensures it will be a sham. we do not need to know -- we did not need the investigation to know who is responsible for his murder. vladimir putin may not have murdered his assassination, but perhaps what is most frightening about puritans russia is that he did not need to. boris is dead because of the culture of -- that vitamin putin has created. russia, where individuals are routinely persecuted and
attacked for their police, including by the russian government. no one is ever held responsible. set the, boris nemtsov is not the first and will not be the last of putin's oppression. this is deepened by the increase of surveillance. the ongoing detention of political prisoners, and a violent attacks on brave journalists who dare to publish the truth about corruption and other state crimes in russia. according to one news report, at least 23 journalists have been murdered in russia for reporting on government criminality and abuse. since vladimir putin came into power in 2000. along with several anti-political activists, in only two of these cases have there been convictions.
a reporter writing about governor corruption was beaten in moscow and died two months later. sergei, in peter of an opposition party, was shot and killed at the entrance to his apartment building. he was serving on the commission investigating the potential role in the 1989 apartment bombings in russia. another member of that commission was poisoned to death. american journalist paulette mcauliffe -- an american journalist was shot to death in moscow. a journalist and human rights activist was a fierce critic of vladimir's brutal war in chechnya. she was murdered in her apartment building on vladimir putin's birthday in 2006. a lawyer who represented her family later survived a
poisoning attempt. a former officer exposed the putin regime's massive corruption, ties to organized crime, and involvement in assassination in murder. he was poisoned in 2006 with a radioactive isotope in a brazen act of nuclear terrorism. an investigator was pushed to his death from the window of his moscow apartment. it was a lower was thrown into one of russia's harshest prisons, denied medical care, and died in excruciating pain. even after his death, the russian courts convicted him of tax evasion in a show trial.
as orwell once wrote, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. russia has fewer and fewer revolutionaries, but boris nemtsov was certainly one of them. boris told the truth, was willing to lay down his life for it. he told the truth about putin's reign of terror and hatred, he told the truth about putin's creek talker see, -- cryp tocracy. he told the truth about putin's illegal invasion of ukraine and russia's continued support for violence, instability, and terror. boris told the truth and we must honor his memory by speaking the same truths fearlessly. our nation and free people everywhere must draw strength
from boris's example and continue to resist puritans dangerous view of the world. last sunday, over 50,000 russian marched in tribute to boris nemtsov. at his funeral thousands waited in line for more than one hour in the cold to pay boris their respects. as the hearse carrying boris nemtsov holdaway, mortars tossed flowers and chanted, russia will be free. that is my most sincere hope. mr. president, -- >> john kerry will talk about climate change and global energy thursday. we'll have live coverage for his
remarks tomorrow. officials from the treasury and justice department will testify about tax scams being used this of filing season. we will have live coverage from the senate finance committee thursday at 10:00 eastern. this sunday, the director of the georgetown university watched our project, pharmaceutical companies lobby congress for what drugs to prescribe. >> the promotion of a drug starts 7-10 years before a drug comes on the market. while it is illegal for a company to market a drug before it has been approved by the fda, it is not illegal to market a disease. so drug companies have sometimes invented or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions, or
exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug for example, and then blanketed medical journals and medical meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds to accept a particular drug. it is also to prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night, on c-span's q and a. >> former maryland governor martin o'malley spoke about his approach in using data in his decision-making process. before serving as governor, he was mayor of baltimore for eight years. this event was hosted by the brookings institution. >> good morning. it is my pleasure to welcome
martin j. o'malley. here in the brookings government studies program. one of the problems we analyze is how to make government work better for average americans. martin j. o'malley has been a trailblazer in doing that as governor of maryland from 2007-2015. under his leadership, maryland recovered 100% of the jobs lost during the recession. it was one of just seven states to maintain an aaa bond rating.
the state also had the best public schools in america for five years in a row. governor o'malley compiled a distinguished record as the mayor of baltimore, where "time" named him one of the top five big-city mayors. he will talk about the tools he pioneered as governor. in particular, ways that he and his team use data to make government work better for everyone. he will focus on the city-stat programs. after he speaks, we will open the floor to your questions. it is my pleasure to introduce governor martin j. o'malley.
martin j. o'malley: thank you. thank you for setting the wheels in motion for this event. this is fun. thank you all for being here. the people who work at brookings have done outstanding work on analysis, and government performance. it is a pleasure to be here to talk about data-driven governing. it is an issue near and dear to my heart. our country and world faces big challenges, whether it is making our economy work again or confronting security threats or climate change. all of those challenges will require a government that actually works. you and i see a world where our
creativity -- it has helped make progress possible. creativity and imagination are not the first words that come to mind to most citizens today when we think about government. the question i want to explore is, what if they were? what if we tackled our biggest problems by using data-driven strategies? what if we could make our communities safer by knowing where crime was actually happening? what if we could put an end to lead poisoning of children
instead of ignoring it? what if we improve public safety by using big data, and the experience to actually identify that small percentage of probationers and parolees who are truly the greatest threats to public safety? what if, by sharing medical records, he could actually cut avoidable hospital readmissions by 10% each year, every year? imagine if the overall performance of every school could be measured so that citizens and parents could see where we were headed. imagine of one platform measured the job skills and demand in a
given metro area, but also allowed employers to find skilled workers they need. as you might have guessed, in baltimore and in maryland, we did all of these things and more. this is the new way of governing. it is not about excuses and deflecting blame or ignoring problems. it is about transparency openness, and accountability. it is not about left or right to it is about doing the things that work. it also is about setting clear goals, measuring progress, and getting things done again. the old ways of governing, bureaucracy, hierarchy -- these things are fading away. a new way of governing is emerging. it calls for a new way of
leadership at every level. leadership that embraces a culture of accountability, and braces entrepreneurial approaches to problem solving, and braces collaboration. leadership that understands the power of technology like smart maps and the internet to make the work of progress open and visible for every citizen. this new way of governing has taken root in cities and towns across our country. it is happening in blue states as well as red states. it holds the promise of a more effective way of governing at every level of our public life -- local, state, and federal. our approach to this was born in the subway system of new york city.
in the early 1990's, there was a man named jack maple. lieutenant jack maple believed there was a better way to deploy his police officers than the way they had always done it. with nothing more sophisticated the maps and markers, jack started plotting where and when robberies took place on his section of the subway. he called these maps of the future. he sent officers to stop criminals where they were most likely to strike at the times they were most likely to strike. he put the cops on the dots. jack and his officers drove robberies down to record lows. the media came calling. the new police commissioner came calling.
soon, jack was not plotting a strategy for part of the subway, he was made deputy police commissioner of the entire new york city police department, and developed the system called comstat. the nypd under his command went on to reduce violent crime to levels that very few people ever would've thought possible in new york city 20 years ago. new york's ongoing success in reducing crime quite literally led to a revolution of performance-measured policing in cities and towns across the united states. one of the first of those major cities was baltimore. when i was elected mayor in
1999, our city had allowed herself to become the most violent and abandoned city in america. with more population loss over the prior 30 years than any major city in our country. at the beginning of our administration, we were able to put an additional 20 police officers onto the streets, which presented us with an important question. where do we send them? we could have deployed them equally to each of the six council districts. or, if we wanted to be political, we could deploy them to the council districts with the highest numbers of primary voters. if he wanted to be real, real political, we could deploy them to the districts with the
greatest number of people voted for me. or, or, we could deploy them to concentrated hotspots where the greatest number of citizens were being shot, mugged, or robbed. this is the option we closed. we repeated this every day and we, constantly looking for better strategies. over the next 10 years baltimore achieved some of the biggest crime reductions -- in fact, the biggest crime reduction of any major city in america in those 10 years. there is an equivalent of this comstat strategy, some call it moneyball. you put your hitters were passed performances say they are most likely to hit the ball. with your police, you put them where crime is most likely to
happen. that is the deployment of resources to maximum effect. that is data-driven. it helps make the city safer and makes ballgames. we became the first major city to do this. we created a new culture of higher expectations in city hall. one of accountability, transparency, centered around results. and the constant search for better ways to get things done. the leaders started to emerge, and be recognized them and their colleagues were able to see who their leaders were. we set high goals to see whether or not the things we were doing were working.
our city stat approved, like comstat. accurate information shared by all, rapid deployment of resources, effectives strategies, and relentless follow-up. every two weeks, on a constant rotating basis, my team and i would hold city stat meetings with agency or department heads, and there leadership teams in city hall, and they groom with the big boards and the screen protectors that would project what the people had submitted. everything was mapped out and indexed to the previous reporting periods. so that everybody could see and know. ideas were shared and questions were fired.
if we failed to hit a goal, we wanted to know why. if we hit a goal, we wanted to know how so we could do it again. it worked. we brought crime down by 42%. we reduced the number of children poisoned by led by 71%. the former mayor, my mentor and tormentor, accused our administration of having no vision. we responded with a 48 hour pothole guarantee. our cruise actually hit that guarantee. each of the members of those crews got a thank you note from the mayor. the kennedy school give us an award in 2001.
our innovation is that we started measuring output as well as input. we did not do city stat to win awards, we did it to survive. that -- by the way -- if the international mission statement of every mayor the world over. for many years, it seemed like the drug dealers were more effective than our own government. thanks to city stat, that reality was starting to change. when i was elected governor of maryland, we took this approach statewide and we called it states that. the premise was essentially the
same. it was data driven system making with follow-up and results. we shared this online so that every citizen could access it and see where we stood and where we were going. with this approach, we achieved like a public safety triple crown. we drove crime down, incarceration to a 20 year low at the same time reducing recidivism. they are not many states that did that. those in our school systems made them the best public schools in the nation for an unprecedented five years in a row. that had never happened before
and we did it in the middle of a recession. we have the number of children placed in foster care to the lowest numbers on record. we reduced infant mortality by 10%, and when we hit that goal we kept going to 17%. we took on the big challenge of health care costs. with a commitment and goal of driving down preventable hospital readmissions by creating a platform for health care providers to share patient information by mapping the incidence and locations of chronic conditions and people who suffer from them, and by aligning profit incentives, we drove down hospital readmissions by more than 10% in just the first year of trying.
it used to be, in maryland, the governors of maryland with said a goal of cleaning up the chesapeake bay. we started to measure actions and results. we identified the sources of pollution and the actions we can take together on land to halt the flow of pollutants into the rivers and streams of the chesapeake. we set two-year milestones. we reduced storm water runoff and expanded the number of acres, clean technology and our sewage treatment plants. we made it possible for citizens to click on every to be jerry basin where they live, to see whether we were making progress.
for all of that effort, we reduced sediment levels by 18%. we restored hundreds of acres of natural wetlands. we doubled the number of native oysters. did we meet every goal we set? no, we did not meet every goal we set. with true performance-measured government, failure has to be an option -- albeit a temporary option. if we met every goal, we probably did not set our sites very high. after six years of steady progress, saving lives and increasing drug treatment,
maryland experienced and deadly spike in heroin overdoses. we set a new goal, we set the goal of reducing drug overdose deaths by 20%. we made some progress reducing prescription drug abuse. we got more people into treatment than we ever had, but it was not enough to prevent or reverse this spike. when what you are doing is no longer working, you have to come up with new approaches. so we did, and so we must. what i have learned in 15 years of executive service, taking comstat to citystat, taking citystat to statestat, the larger the human organization,
the more important management becomes. we should never accept excuses that because it is so big, i cannot be managed. that is a copout. we did not set out a nation that gets by with less. we get together to form a more perfect union. that is driven through performance management. making government work is essential to pursuing a more perfect union in these modern times. some of you may know, the problem at the federal level is n't a lack of goals. we had agencies with dozens of goals and performance metrics. what are the big goals for our
nation? but of the actions that allow us to achieve those goals? too many federal goals are about process, not outcomes. having meetings is not a goal. all of this process means very little to the public's lives. at the federal level, we have to have a better view of what our government is setting out to accomplish. this requires clear goals that reflect what we the people actually value. the difference between a goal and a dream is a deadline. without a doubt, there is no progress without jobs. job creation should be our highest goal. let me give you three examples
that speak to our values. the infant mortality rate in the united states is the highest of all the developed countries in the world. if we value reducing infant mortality, our goal at the federal level should be to do that by a measurable amount by a certain time. if we were to reduce infant mortality at the same rate we did in maryland, we would save more than 4000 american babies each year. that is 4000 families that would be spared that unfathomable loss. it is so easy to become lost. we must measure what we value, and value what we measure. second example, if we increase kindergarten readiness, we would have 825,000 more children ready to start school that would not start out behind.
825,000 taking their first vital steps toward their education and life. if we reduced preventable hospitalizations across the country at the same rate that we did in maryland, we would keep 600,000 more americans out of the hospital each year. that is 600,000 of us on our feet and said of our backs and expensive hospital beds. americans should know what our top objectives are. job creation, improving the security, improving education, improving sustainability improving health and wellness of all americans.
federal employees should know how their work contributes to the achievements of those objectives. everybody should know whether we are making progress and where work remains to be done. coming to the table at the federal level cannot be a box checking exercise -- doing this because somebody says we are doing this. what good are policy goals without follow-up on the ground in the small places close to home where it matters? what we need is nothing short of a new method of executive management. a method that becomes central every day to the work of our federal government. our federal government's objective should be a reflection of what we value most. early in my administration in
baltimore as mayor, we would hold regular town halls, community meetings. we came together as a community to talk about our fears, our frustrations, our hopes. i invited neighbors to ask me anything. at one of these meetings -- i will never forget -- in east baltimore, a 12-year-old girl came up to the microphone and said -- mr. mayor, my name is amber. there are so many drug dealers and addicted people in my neighborhood that the newspaper refers to my neighborhood as zombie land. i want to know if you know they
call my neighborhood zombie land and i want to know if you are doing something about it? the question she asked of me was really a question that she was asking all of us. do we know? and are we doing something about it? behind all of our data, there are real people living lives shouldering their struggles, working hard every day to give their children a better future. they deserve a government that works. thanks very much. [applause] thank you.
let me also add that if you could find a way of bringing your pothole guarantee to washington dc, i would follow you to the end of the earth and so would 500,000 other people. [laughter] that caught my attention. martin j. o'malley: hard to do in the middle of the snow. bill galston: we have close to half an hour for the question and answer period. i will ask you one question, first taking press questions then moving on to this audience that has gathered to hear you talk. if there is time, i will wrap it
with the question, if not, i won't. let me begin with my question. as you know, there is a pretty long history of trying to bring effective goal-based performance measures to the federal government. to bring it more in line with the sorts of government you talk about in baltimore and in maryland. it is fair to say that those have been met with incomplete success in the current trust of government reflects that. what is your analysis of why these prior efforts have not gotten the job done, and have you think that your approach would have a higher chance of actually being able to bring goals to federal government?
martin j. o'malley: it is important to realize that the ability to collect data in real time is a relatively recent phenomenon. 15 years ago, 90% of the request for service came on paper in the city of baltimore. the internet and excel spreadsheets and those sorts of things are relatively recent technology, in terms of making government work. one of the great variables in all of this -- there are many mayors who visited our citystat room and saw how effective -- they love the picture but they
lacked the commitment when they got home to do it every day. it requires the leader not to shout with a megaphone from the top of the organizational triangle, it requires you to be in the center of the search for truth and to be there constantly in the middle of a collaborative circle. there is more literature command on this. john bernard just published a book called "government that works" that discusses this. the work that mayors do is visible. everybody knows whether the city is becoming cleaner or safer. there are a lot of governors
that are heading in this direction. they were slower. it has popped up in moments in the federal government. the great variable is executive commitment. you need the executive head committed to this, not sort of a one-off press conference. he or she has to be committed to this. bill galston: thank you very much. i will turn to the press questions. if you raise your hands and identify yourselves -- yes. let's wait for the microphone.
do we have another one? this one does not seem to work. >> do you think congress should fast-track the transpacific partnership? martin j. o'malley: i think they have to read it first. we have to be careful of lowering our standards, whether it is environmental or how we treat workers. i think when we enter into trade deals, it should be with the goals of breaking down barriers and bringing up standards.
>> would you have any objections from having your e-mails from your tenure of government as maryland -- martin j. o'malley: i have many times answered that we abide by our state rules concerning e-mails. we have many times turned over e-mails in response, even if for language may have caused my mother embarrassment. we had a retention policy, unless there was open litigation, we would hold onto those for a number of weeks and then delete or purge them from our system. we always abided by whatever the
state laws were. there is also no archiving requirement in maryland. we archived a ton of statestat operational memos for all of you to peruse. >> i have a question related to the former question, do you agree that an official should use a personal e-mail account for officially duties? martin j. o'malley: i am not an