tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 12, 2015 4:30am-7:01am EDT
opinion about how it can really sanctions on the iranians. that hasn't been shared with the congress yet. that is the can of thing that really irks most members. i think this was nothing of it there -- nothing other than truth in advertising. host: the committee hearing room, where secretary of state john kerry will be here in about 20 minutes, starting to fill up. he is going to be sitting before the foreign relations committee. he is the lead negotiator for this iran agreement. and more than likely going to be asked a question or two about this letter and what is going on with these negotiations. what are you go-ahead and talk as we show our viewers the room. guest: two points. the first 20 draw together the isis with the eye ron diplomacy. -- with the eye ron -- iran diplomacy.
there are some who say we need an executive branch of the presidency that has no restrictions at all. we don't really want to have a vote and all of this. sort of like commander-in-chief, you do that. but when it comes to diplomacy that is still unfinished, and still a work in progress, they want maximum constraints and lack of maneuverability. i think that is the fair, sort of analytical, statement. what i think is unfortunate, and have seen this over the past years, is the perceived costs of making national security issues. i do think that the real costs in the world, how we argued around the world because of these letters, because of almost shutting down parts of the department of homeland security to protect us from terrorists, the perceived costs have gone down. and i hope we can rebuild that center of internationalism. host: we are going to dig our
viewers in about 15 minutes to capitol hill. the senate foreign relations committee will be gaveling in, a hearing to fight isis. secretary of state john kerry general martin dobson, and defense secretary carter all testifying up there. sue is in illinois. a democratic caller. caller: yes, i wanted to know did we declare a war? and what debate does the need to be about war powers according to the constitution? people talk about everyone else. we do dealings with saudi arabia. the worst slavery state of the world. clinton peoples head off doing everything else everybody is doing. americans just in the 60's -- 1960's were burning people alive. what are we stand together as a country and stop talking about
each other? the rest of the world agree are prophetic. host: ok, sue. can you take the first part of it? are we at war? doing it to declare war? guest: the fight over war powers is one that is never going to be resolved. it is the sort of age-old tussle about what the constitution means and what it says here people who wrote it are to live. we go back and forth. after vietnam, there was a big shift in the direction of congressional oversight. that was when the willpower's act was actually passed. i am not a lawyer, i'm just a former hill staffer, so that can range my perspective to it. i think we are the middle -- where the middle ground is here is that everyone wants government to be on board. the white house wants the backup from congress so that if something goes wrong he can turn around and say you are in with it too.
and it is better for our country when that happens. are we at war? people don't even say war anymore. it is really true. we have developed euphemisms for absolutely everything. are we at war with isis? yes, i would say we are at work isis. i think they perceive we are at war with them. host: in cannot a, mississippi. an independent. hi jeanne. caller: hi, a quick question for both of your guests and you, as far as that is concerned. on this issue of publishing on international television etc. all of the politicians and the talk shows. and any free -- and everybody is
expressing their opinions, which in turn goes to anybody who wants to use it against us. and i would appreciate your opinions on what might be a beneficial or detrimental about all the publications of all these opinions. host: i think what he is getting at is a lack of unity when it comes to fighting terrorists. a criticism of the president. the country not rallying behind the commander in chief. guest: look, we are democracy and that is what makes us great, but it does have some downsides we have leaders, or opinions leaders who don't actually take that responsibility as seriously as they think they should. i think -- i am of the mind that we should try to build that vital center between the left-center and right, but i am also of the mind that we should have vigorous debate when we disagree. unfortunately, when you had, i think am with this president and with president bush, as well
, allegations that he is a week commander in chief. especially strong under president obama. that lack of trust does send a signal not only to the world but also to the american public. there is something that has been lost i think that existed before. and when you worked on the hill in the clinton administration, there were fights. but there was a certain degree ever spect that people comported each other with. and with tough questions like isis and i ron -- iran. host: chuck in new mexico. caller: hello, i would like to make a comment. i would like to make to -- two, but maybe we'll cut me off. and all of these issues, like the letters. the confusion about what to do on the ground. and all these other issues is because there is no communication between the president and the rest of the
community. without leadership, you have chaos. and with chaos, all of these bad things are happening. i think the young lady mentioned that there is communication there. but the confusion and the mistrust is because there is no communication. host: and i think danielle pletka, you touched on that a little bit. guest: we need -- he referred to i hope me, and not to you, as a young lady. because i have not heard that in a while. [laughter] but more seriously, i don't think there's any question that relationship have -- relationships have deteriorated between the various parties in washington. and i think that action happened under the bush administration, as well. i think particularly secretary of defense rumsfeld and others had terrible terrible relations with capitol hill that were very corrosive.
i think that has only continued and deepened under president obama. not just between the republicans on the hill and the democrats and the white house, but between democrats on the hill and democrats in the white house. and i also think the caller does make a fair point about leadership. one thing, i have lots and lots of negative things to say about church bush and his leadership and his management, but the one thing i'll say is that he spent a lot of time getting up and talking to the public about what we were doing overseas. he gave a speech a week. whether it was at a military installation. you may not have liked what he was doing, but he was out there and he was using the pulpit. it disappoints me and him wesley, not because i don't like what the president is doing, but because i'm someone who believes in america leadership -- american leadership. the president failing to stand up as much as he needs to. to talk about these issues as strongly and as frequently as he
ought to. host: elliott in d.c., an independent color. -- caller. caller: i am a 56-year-old african-american. as long as i have been in this country, the government has lied and did everything they can to keep us that war or bring us to war. i want to know with these warmongers and america has to relies, too, because they cannot be heard without being told the truth. if we look at the history of the europeans, everywhere they went they destroyed. this right here is getting out of hand. the truth needs to be told. wherever you are in -- wherever europeans go to is garbage. host: the sentiment about not trusting the garbage -- government. to not turn around and ask the american people to get behind the government to fight this new threat of isis. guest: there is obvious distrust
out there, and that is why it's important to strike the right balance. the last two questions were what are others doing as a of this coalition, and what should we do? both of those questions into be answered because i do think we made some mistakes and overreach in the previous decade. after 9/11 and especially after the iraq war. then we spent trillions literally, and lost thousands of lives. to make them have meaning, we should next we learn from what mistakes were made it mistakes are made also by the obama administration in afghanistan and other places. and i think what has been missing all along, and i see it several worries, that our military tools, our intelligent tools actually get way out in front of what our political and diplomatic strategies are. our strategies. they need to be synchronized together. in part, resource disparities between the defense department
and state department, but also a lack of strategy that defines what our and goals -- end goals should be. letting others set the agenda, as opposed to using our unrivaled power to set the agenda with our partners in the middle east. host: and today's hearing is titled the president request to use force against isis. military and diplomatic efforts. that starts in about 10 minutes. marvin, colorado. a democratic caller. caller: yes, i am a a fox news sake. i listen to fox news seven to eight hours a day. i want to comment c-span on being neutral. neither the left nor the right. other people have called in and said they were republican. you get both people complaining you know you are independent.
they were very concerned about the obama administration, and i know a lot of able don't like fox news, so anyway i just others on c-span just last week. this was by a navy seal. the navy seals were the ones that action went in and -- i think you the best that we have. his name was scott taylor. he was betrayed. the subtitle, barack obama and silly -- hillary clinton. the selling out of america to the other countries. and this was on c-span. i don't know whether you saw it or not. it was on twice. i don't know if you can get it. that was one thing. and i believe this was pretty much political. and another thing. i was actually brought up as a democrat in the 1950's and 1960's. at that time, -- i believe that
if kennedy was the president now, most of the stuff wouldn't be going on. the prime -- israeli prime minister wouldn't have to come to the net is dates. host: ok, marvin. as you take a breath, i'm going to take that chance to move on to another color -- color -- caller. hi, everett. caller: good morning. i would like to comment on this islamist problem we've got. if you remember 4, 5 years ago we had a big problem in the sudan where they killed christians. but not hardly a word was said. whether it was on fox news or any news network. that in the philippines they have been fighting since the 1980's. how -- i am a retired marine. i was over there in that time.
and it bosnia, they have been taking western europe for the muslims. everywhere they go, they want their own country. until people realize this is all about a religion and they learn to fight this, they are never going to win. thank you very much. host: you have any thoughts on that? guest: well, i just -- i disrespectfully disagree because -- i do think there is a challenge in terms of the debate within islam. it is actually happening, and really people do misuse their religion. i am not muslim. i was raised in the christian face -- faith. it is important, i think, to approach this properly. at a framework that tries to use a war of religion exley doesn't get you to pragmatic solutions because that are -- the vast majority of muslims in this country and around the world -- who don't want with these crazy
people are doing. and as the king abdullah of jordan has had, they are not even muslim. if we turn to the vast majority we are going to go down a path that is very, very dangerous. host: ok. yes? guest: i am not fond of people who like to tout islam with the brush of terrorism. i believe it is wrong. and it dishonors a lot of people. but it's also wrong to suggest that somehow the islamic state and of five -- and al qaeda are not muslims. it is not up to barack obama to decide whether -- where is the conversion of faith. it is not up to king abdullah, either. they have taken on themselves dismantle. it would be as if to suggest to you that the crusades were not somehow carried out by christians. they were christian. they did a bad thing.
these people are muslims. they are doing a bad thing. it is our fight because they are threatening us, but it is the muslims's fight as well. i am most disappointed to see people suggest that somehow they are not muslims. because there is a problem. we all recognize it, just as the saudi's and king abdullah do, as well. host: john in new mexico. a democratic caller. caller: hello. i find it interesting in a couple ways, but i will give you just one point because c-span is about to go off the air. i think because of the elections coming, we have a distortion of a problem. and we have a ramping up of our rhetoric, and people are talking about isis as if they are coming to america to get us. well, they are not coming to america to get us. there is always somebody being the head. look at saudi arabia. host: ok.
i want to have our guests weigh in on whether or not isis is a threat to the united states. guest: i think most intelligent analysts, and we had a global threat assessment, the ss right now that isis's capability to attack the homeland is, by and large, constrained. but nobody should be complacent about that, given what we saw to be al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. yes, we need to strike the right balance here. we need to use the right tools. but i don't think we should stick our head in the sand about a potential threat. host: the hearing is about to gavel in, so -- guest: i will say it quick. what gives the terrorist groups to -- the potential to attack a country is the world to discuss this and planted with impunity. that is what isis has. sooner, later, we can't dismiss it. host: sorry to rush you both,
but thank you very much for the conversation. danielle pletka, the vice >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new mins and 15 new drabts in the house and 12 new republicans and 1 new democrat in the senate there's also 108 women in congress including the first
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 the forces that we train in syria, we will have some obligation to support them after they are trained. we 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 i so, they came into contact with forces of the assad regime. that is something we are discussing. i completely agree with the chairman.
>> your forces appear to be operating under slightly less restrictive rules than some of the u.s. forces, helping to call in airstrikes. is that a broader, unmet need and do other countries need to step up and do more of that and are you considering any additional military support for the operations in syria? >> each country sets its own rules of engagement. we are playing the second part in the campaign in support of the 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. would it be rather more candid to accept that budgetary reality than to deny it? obviously, iranian advisors are playing a pivotal role in the climax of the battle for to tikrit. as we progressed to the even more significant battle for the liberation of mosul, it seems
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 sierra leone to deal with ebola, at the same time as we have people in support of 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 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 kindred countries in the world as we can, who are capable of 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 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 iraq is the principal thing that can unravel the campaign against isis. 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 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 promising to protect the rebels against the central assad attacks. how should we read that other than 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 and we are working through how we would react to that
eventuality. i'm not describing the conclusion of those to liberations. 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: you either 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 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 -- 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 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 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 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 hundred armored vehicles, and the announcement recently of nearly one billion pounds of expenditure on our future frigate program. i announced earlier today and investment of some 285 million in further design work 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 isn't simply the 2% target. you have the additional commitments 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. announcer: john kerry will talk about climate change this morning. we will have coverage of his remarks on c-span 3. on c-span, officials will testify about various tax scams being used. we will have live coverage from the senate finance committee this morning at 10:00 eastern. announcer: this week, c-span is in new hampshire. today, we will be in manchester for a politics event with rick perry.
that is live at 8:30 a.m. tonight, at 8:00, lindsey graham, who spent two days in the granite state this week. friday night at 7:45, we will take you to a house party in dover, with jeb bush. afternoon on saturday, live on c-span, scott walker at a republican party grassroots workshop in concord. sunday, at 9:35, ted cruz at the lincoln-reagan dinner. announcer: josh earnest was asked about hillary clinton's e-mails and nuclear negotiations. this portion is 20 minutes.
secretary ernest: over the course of the day today, this has taken place over the week. the president and his team has worked to amplify the economic screen throughout the state of the union address. from republican senators getting together and writing letters, or trying to play politics, evening gazing in an effort to convince governors across the country to not -- or even engaging an effort to convince governors across the country. it is focused on an effort to
expand opportunity for the middle class. that strategy has yielded some benefits. we have seen that in the latest jobs report. our economy has created more than 200,000 jobs. that is the first time we have had a streak like that in 37 years. that is indication the strategy of focusing on the middle class is paying off. we are doing a lot of that today. the vice president will be giving remarks at the brookings institution on expanding employment opportunities. this afternoon, the director of the office of management will be delivering a speech. he will be discussing the 2016 budget muzzles and talk about how we can strengthen the middle class.
i would also commend to your attention, from the chairman of the council, the headline ingredients for getting me middle-class back on track. what you see is a concerted effort to prioritize our policies that will expand economic opportunities for middle-class, in contrast to priorities being displayed by our republican friends on capitol hill. why don't you get started with questions. reporter: first the helicopter crash off the coast of florida, any indication of what might have caused that? sec. earnest: the thoughts and
prayers of everybody here at the white house are with the family of those who were killed in this accident that occurred overnight. the president placed telephone calls to major-general joe osterman and glen kirn us. -- and glen curtis. in those conversations, the president expressed his condolences to the families and communities of the seven marines and four national guardsmen that were involved in this accident. the president expressed confidence that there would be a detailed and thorough investigation into this incident and what caused it. reporter: how does the president
view the iranian -- that seems to be taken back. general dempsey was expressing concern about whether iran's involvement could -- does the president sure that concern? sec. earnest: this is an iraqi operation. it was undertaken at the direction of iraqi military leaders, including the prime minister of iraq. as this military operation was being organized, the iraqi leadership took care to ensure this would be a multi-secretary and -- multi-sectarian effort. some sunni forces located inside this province of the country that is an indication that there is clear follow through on the
prime minister's commitment to unifying the country. to face down this threat posed by isil. a commitment to that unified effort is something we want to see in the execution of this military operation. iran's involvement should not change that in any way. we have been clear and the prime minister has been clear that this operation should not and will not be used as an excuse for exacting sectarian revenge. the prime minister has been clear, said publicly, the operation should prevent the abuse of civilians at all costs. it needs to abide by international norms, avoid fueling fears and promoting the divides that weakened
iraq. we are pleased to see iraqi forces have been advancing and we are aware of reports that isil fighters are withdrawing. we have seen the pressure being applied to iso-forces -- isil forces has caused some isil forces to desert their posts. commanders are resorting to executing their own troops to prevent them from deserting. this is an indication of the pressure being applied. the other thing i would note, we have seen the positive input of grand ayatollah, who has urged the militia involved in this
operation to act with restraint as they advance. he is mindful that this operation should not be used as an excuse to exact sectarian revenge. the point i am trying to make, we are pleased this operation seems to be advancing. that is a positive development. we want to continue to make clear the priority of the united states and our partners, that it needs to continue to be a priority of the prime minister and other leaders of iraq to ensure this is an operation that advances their efforts to unify the country to take on isil. reporter: senator corker opens by noting not a single democrat has signed on to the president's proposal. is he trying to line up support? sec. earnest: before the
administration sent language to capitol hill, there were a substantial number of conversations with democrats and republicans about what language they would like to see included in an authorization to use military force against isil. we welcome the engagement we have seen from congress. this is a legislative process that should be driven by members of congress to weigh in on this matter. the president believes having congress participate in this by signaling their support for the president's strategy to degrade and destroy isil would be a positive development and send a clear message to the people that the country is united. that the united states is united behind the strategy. it would send a clear message to isil and people contemplating
joining isil. the united states is determined and united to destroy that organization. reporter: we have heard from senator clinton on her e-mails. can you update us on whether she has given an explanation to the president? sec. earnest: i am not aware of any conversations between president obama and secretary clinton in the last several weeks. reporter: is the president or white house concerned secretary clinton deleted tens of thousands of e-mails? sec. earnest: it is my understanding that she was describing personal e-mails that she went through her personal e-mail system to ensure that all of the personal e-mails related to her official role as secretary of state were properly transferred to the custody of the state department so they could be maintained and archived
and used in response to legitimate request from the public and congress. the state department has taken steps to use that material to respond to congressional inquiries. the secretary's handling of her e-mail and the maintenance of her personal e-mail inbox is something i am not going to comment on and am not interested in. reporter: human error can occur when the leading e-mail. is there a possibility she may have not deliberately deleted some e-mail that was related to the administration, to her government job? sec. earnest: i refer to her team for the details on the process that they undertook to review a substantial number of e-mails, to send 55,000 of them to the state department to ensure they could be catalogued and maintained and archived used in responses to the requests from the public. reporter: you are not concerned
about the deletion of other e-mails? sec. earnest: you are talking about e-mails relating to her personal business, as she describes them. deleted e-mails that she said were personal in nature and not related to her official work. it was her responsibility and the responsibility of her team to make that determination in conduct that review. no one has marshaled in evidence that says they have fallen short of what they said they did. if you have questions about that process, you should directed to them. reporter: can you clarify the e-mail address that the president uses? sec. earnest: i am not in a position to talk about the president's e-mail address. what i will make clear, you are raising, this goes to an
important point. the president take seriously the requirements he is under based on the presidential records act. that is different than the federal records archiving of records of employees. there is a presidential record in place that has different requirements for the handling of records. all the e-mails of the president sends are governed by that act, and are properly maintained in accordance with the presidential records act. reporter: on ukraine, what is the announcement about nonlethal aid to ukraine? sec. earnest: let's do the first part, first. there was an announcement from the administration today that an additional $75 million in military assistance would be provided to the ukrainian military by the united states. this is a continuation of
military assistance that has already been provided by the united states, someone hundred $20 million in assistance has already been a prided -- been provided to the ukrainian military. assistance includes a wide variety of things, including radios and secured communications agreement. include some unmanned aerial vehicles that can assist in the defense of protection of ukrainian forces and will significantly enhance their communication and command-and-control capabilities. the assistance also includes counter mortar radars that provide warning and protection against mortar and artillery fire. it also includes significant medical equipment, including first aid kits, medical supplies, and military and balances. i think this is reflective of the partnership that exist between the united states and ukraine.
it is consistent with our commitment to supporting ukraine as they face this destabilizing threat on their eastern border. as a relates to the ongoing questions about providing lethal support to the ukrainian military, we've talked quite a bit -- more importantly, the president has talked quite a bit about the consequences of doing that. the president is continuing to watch the efforts by both sides to implement the agreements that were reached in minsk in september and last month. we do continue to have concerns about the commitment of the russians and russian backed separatists to live up to the commitments that they made in minsk. there is still evidence that russian military personnel are fighting alongside russian backed separatists. there continues to be evidence that russia is continuing to
transfer weapons and materials across the border and ukraine. in support of separatists in eastern ukraine. there are continued reports that russian backed separatists are preventing osce monitors from getting access to those areas of the country that are necessary to verify compliance with the minsk implementation plan. we do continue to have concerns about the commitment of russia and the russian backed separatists living up to that agreement. that failure on their part only puts russia at greater risk of facing additional costs. it does leave open the question about providing additional military assistance to the ukrainian military. reporter: a follow-up on that. i understand that you believe that no matter what kind of assistance you give to the ukrainians, russia, they wanted to take over in two weeks.
do you think that giving lethal aid to the ukrainian government would cause russia to do something they are not doing now? sec. earnest: there are a couple of consequences we have talked about of providing additional lethal military assistance in ukrainian military. the first is that it's likely almost by definition to lead to greater bloodshed. the fact is our engagement here come at our support for these ongoing diplomatic negotiations is that we are trying to avoid greater bloodshed. that is one thing that the president is mindful of. the second is that the president is mindful of the fact that there is not a military solution to this problem. it is unreasonable to suggest that the united states would be able to provide enough military support to the ukrainian military that they could overwhelm the military operations that are currently being backed by russia. the third thing is that it could result in some escalation.
that if the capability of ukrainian military substantially escalates, that could prompt and escalated response by the russians, and the separatists they back. that bloodshed is something we are trying to avoid an deescalate. the president is very mindful of the potential risk that is associated with providing additional lethal military assistance to the ukrainians. reporter: you talk about raising the consequences for russia if it doesn't abide by the agreements, which you just said they are not. why not raise the consequences or cost for them by making it -- making them take more casualties in their fight with ukraine? that's what lethal military aid would do, he would raise the price for russia could -- to continue to use aggression. sec. earnest: that is one potential outcome.
the goal here is to get the russians to abide by generally accepted international norms when it comes to respecting the territorial integrity of another sovereign country. we are attempting to engage in a diplomatic process that would bolster support for that generally accepted international norm, and deescalate situation in ukraine. more intense fighting between the two sides would lead to the opposite. would lead to greater escalation and more violence and bloodshed. an attempt nation on the part of the russians to more forcefully resupply russian backed separatists. those of the risks associated with providing additional lethal military support to the ukrainians. these are risks that the
president has to weigh against a whole series of other factors. the other point i want to make is there other costs that can be imposed on russia aside from just the military toll that could be taken on their forces. many of the costs we have imposed thus far have been economic in nature. that by putting in place sectoral sanctions in close coordination with european partners has had a strong and negative impact on the russian economy. there are all sorts of metrics you can evaluate the devaluation of the russian currency, the evidence of substantial private capital flight away from russian markets, substantial downward revisions of russian economic growth projections, there are a lot of ways that costs can be imposed. in the cost that we've imposed thus far has been substantial.
they had not yet resulted in the kind of change in strategy that we would like to see the russian government make. reporter: is it fair to say that the diplomatic process and sanctions are not succeeded yet? sec. earnest: they have not, we continue to see the russians act in a destabilizing manner in ukraine, and continuing to call -- fall short of the commitments they made in the context of their conversations with the ukrainians the germans, and france. we have continued concerns about russian behavior in eastern ukraine. it is why the potential of increased cost only goes up. major? reporter: based on what secretary clinton said yesterday, the satisfaction of the white house is this matter is closed? sec. earnest: ultimately i think it will be up to all of you to make your own determinations
about how secretary clinton has resolved this matter. as a relates to compliance with federal records act, secretary clinton and her team say that they have taken all of the personal e-mails that were related to her official business as secretary of state and provided them to the state department so they could be properly archived and maintained. there is ongoing work there to process those records and make sure they are properly stored. to make sure that they can be properly provided to congress in response to requests. i know some of that work in already been done because some of those records have already been provided to congress. there also is work underway the state department to comply with victory clinton's request that those e-mails be made public. there is ongoing work on this matter. i guess the fact that people are still working on it might be an indication that this is still going on. this is working we believe is important. reporter: the answers that
secretary of state clinton gave yesterday, when you consider that approached e-mails a model for other cabinet secretaries? sec. earnest: i think we have been clear about the guidance we have offered for all employees from cabinet secretary on down. that guidance has been clarified in recent years, particularly with the president's signature on peace legislation the end of last year the provided more specific guidelines for how personal e-mail the relates to official business can be properly archived and maintained. those guidelines have been made clear, and they have been further clarified over the last couple of years as the president has taken steps to do exactly that. sec. earnest: so she -- reporter: so she would not be a model. sec. earnest: i think we have been clear about the guidances. that was to last week, andrew this week too. -- that was true last week and true this week too. reporter: can we conclude that after repeated requests from the
ukrainians themselves, the publication of a report by people he administration take seriously on defense policy advocating lethal aid to the ukrainians, that that issue is essentially resolved in the negative. this is administration is never going to send lethal arms to the ukrainians because it seems after several months of them lobbying directly, other participants in this and administration take seriously in the thinking community here are lobbying for that. the administration and announcing today will not do that. it seems very difficult to come up with a set of circumstances in which the administration would come to a different conclusion that it has repeatedly on this question. and has again landed on today. this is administration is not going to send lethal arms to ukraine. sec. earnest: that's not necessarily accurate. the administration on the entire
government continues to watch the situation in eastern ukraine and continues to monitor russia's willingness to live up to the commands they made in the context of the minsk implementation plan. reporter: what condition would change to change what you just described? russia will always be more military leave powerful. the risk of escalation will always be there. the threat that would pose with the poetic resolution will never go away. all the things you describe in your answer appeared to be baked into the situation. none of them are going to go away. i would be curious if you believe they're going to go away under certain circumstances other than what we have now. if all those things stay the same, if they are all risks and argue against providing lethal aid, can't you just say this issue is settled? sec. earnest: i can't because the continue is -- the president is continuing to analyze the risk with associated with providing additional lethal assistance to the ukrainian military.
this is the situation we continue to monitor. we've also been clear about the fact that as the russians continue to fail to live up to commitments they have made, but the risk associated with additional costs being imposed on them also goes up. there are a number of risk assessments that have to be evaluated. reporter: when you describe the risk on their side of the ledger, what other conclusion that they come to that we are not going to do this? reporter:sec. earnest: the cost continues to go up as the sanctions remain in place. they have further bite along -- the longer they are in place. that is part of the risk assessment that the russians themselves are doing. they themselves have to evaluate can our economy continue to hate -- to take his hit as we continue to interfere in eastern ukraine. there is a risk assessment being me on the other side. i'm not going to prejudge the outcome on we are a situation
where there are a whole set of risks associated with a possible u.s. action, there are also a large number of risks associated with russia continuing to move down the path they are on right now. reporter: is the administration offended by the timing of the tom cotton letter words actual contents? republicans say all we are saying is what legislation that other democrats find onto incorporates, which is an idea that at some point, this should be brought to the congress for its review. lots of democrats have signed on to that, i understand that. this is a question of timing or do you have a genuine sense of offense about the entire concept of congress are viewing a deal. sec. earnest: based on the reaction we've seen across the country in capitol hill for both democrats and republicans -- let me finish. based on the reaction we've seen from editorial boards across the country, and the reaction we've seen for members of congress in both parties in reaction to this
letter, there are long list of reasons why this letter was the wrong thing to do. it does come in an appropriate time. attempting to sandbag president of united states in the midst of negotiations that he's engaged in nauseous with iran, but with our international partners is not just unprecedented, but inappropriate. it does undermine the president's ability not just to conduct foreign policy, but advanced national security interests around the globe. that's the first thing. the other thing i would say, leave a concern that we have is that this is the wrong strategy. the strategy that's being advocated by senate republicans is to essentially throw out the window the prospect of trying to resolve the situation around the negotiating table. which means they are leaving only a military option on the table. what i described earlier this week is a russian military option is not consistent with the best interests of american foreign-policy. it certainly is not the way to
inspire the confidence of our allies both in the region and around the world. and it is consistent with the kind of decision-making that was made in the previous a administration was so roundly condemned and criticized by people across the country. sec. earnest:reporter: you said the option is more sanctions. sec. earnest: a deal has not even been produced. critics of this approach who are criticizing a deal that doesn't exist. the president himself was on television on your network over the weekend indicating that the likelihood of even achieving a deal was less than 50%. that's the other part of the timing of this that is suspect. the other thing i will point out, and again, this is something that has attracted a lot of criticism -- the signatories to the letter were 47 republicans. this is in the bipartisan letter. i think that on its face is an indication that this is an
effort to inject partisan politics into a very serious foreign-policy matter. something the president has identified as one of the most significant foreign-policy challenges facing the country right now. i will say that's also why was surprised to see that well there may be some republicans to suggest the letter was something that was sent on principle there are at least two anonymous republican aides on capitol hill describe the letter as cheeky. another individual described it as a top senior -- a topper publicans and aid indicated -- top republican senators aid says the governor has no sense of humor about this. i don't because a particular amusing matter. we are talking about a nuclear weapons program of an adversary of the united states. that on a daily basis by way
friends our closest ally in the region. it's not a laughing matter. it's not wanted this of menstruation takes lightly despite the comments that some of these republican aides -- this administration takes lightly. >> the political escape his changed with the new congress. -- landscape has changed with the new congress. their 108 women in congress including the first african american republican in the house, and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of numbers of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. new congress, best access. on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. next, arizona senator john mccain talks about the murder of russian opposition leader morrison himself.
-- boris mnemtsov. >> the senator from arizona. senator mccain: i want to thank the previous speaker 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 thank my friend from indiana. i ask for consent to address the senators after morning business. i introduced a resolution condemning the murder of my
friend and a true russian patriot boris nemtsov. the resolution calls upon the russian federation to support an investigation into his murder. and take immediate steps to end oppression of free speech and justice. it urges president obama to continue to sanction human rights violators and increase support to like-minded activists in russia. i was devastated to learn of boris' murder last month. my thoughts are with his family in russia. in his death, the struggle for free speech and human rights in russia has suffered another blow. when the soviet union collapsed 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 once a favorite to the russian presidency. then russia took a dark turn when vladimir putin entered the kremlin, boris nemtsov was one -- were sealed in -- brioris yeltsin was one of the first to warn of the vladimir putin dictatorship. the grip on power tightened, and nemtsov spoke for russia. after multiple arrests, boris never stopped fighting corruption and lawlessness of the putin regime. never stop seeking to advance tomography, human rights, free speech, free market reforms, and the rule of law. in december 2011, boris nemtsov helped mobilize the largest anti-kremlin demonstrations
since the early 1990's, leading tens of thousands of russians to march in protest of widespread fraud and corruption in the parliamentary elections. he stood up to harsh laws that vastly expanded the definition of treason. and increased government control over the media. laws that vladimir putin and his cronies have exploited to intimidate the russian people into obedience. shortly before his death, boris nemtsov was reportedly planning to release a report on russia's military involvement in ukraine. the protest march was scheduled two days after his murder. he was sent to demand the immediate and to the war and any aggression efforts towards ukraine.
he saw through the fabricated rationalization of putin's war. putin did not invade ukraine because he is crazy or to merely reassert russia's influence abroad, 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 doom russia to isolation. and to sink his country into lies violence, and if you're real hysteria for his own personal power and enrichment -- imperial hysteria for his own personal power and enrichment. this is not russia's war, this is my ukraine's war, this is vladimir putin's war. 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, on sunday, 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 his fellow russians. even if it cost him his life. i am heartbroken that it has come to that. that boris nemtsov's murder occurred on a bridge in the shadow of the kremlin in one of the most secure parts of the
russian capital raises questions about the circumstances of his killing and who was responsible. in kgb fashion, vladimir putin will round up the usual suspects, but i fear we will never know who pulled the trigger that night. putin's partial oversight of the investigation ensures it will be a sham. we did not need the investigation to know who is responsible for his murder. vladimir putin may not have ordered boris'assassination but , perhaps what is most frightening about putin's russia is that he did not need to. boris is dead because of the culture of impunity that putin has created. in russia, where individuals are routinely persecuted and attacked for their beliefs including by the russian government. no one is ever held responsible. boris nemtsov is not the first
and certainly will not be the last victim of putin's oppression. this is deepened by the increase of surveillance. and harassment of members of opposition in civil society groups. the ongoing detention of political prisoners, and the continued violent attacks on brave journalists who dare to publish the truth about official 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-kremlin political activists, in only two of these cases have there been convictions. igor domnikov, a reporter writing about government corruption was beaten in moscow and died two months later. sergei yushenkov, a leader of an
opposition party was shot and killed at the entrance to his apartment building. at the time, he was serving on the commission investigating the kremlin's potential role in the 1999 apartment bombings in russia. another member of that commission was poisoned to death. american journalist paul klebnikov, was investigating russion government connections to organized crime, was shot to death in moscow. anna politkovskaya, 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. the lawyer who represented her family later survived a poisoning attempt. former fsb officer alexander litvinenko exposed the putin regime's massive corruption
ties to organized crime, and involvement in assassination and murder. he was poisoned in 2006 with a radioactive isotope in a brazen act of nuclear terrorism. ivan safronov was investingating a secret sale of russian missles and fighter jets to syria and iran. he was pushed to his death from the window of his moscow apartment. sergei magnitsky blew the whistle on tax fraud and large scale theft by russian government officials. he was thrown into one of russia's harshest prisons without trial, beaten and tortured, 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 cryptocracy. rampant corruption, and systematic theft perpetrated against the russian people. 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. -- vladimir putin's dark and dangerous view of the world. last sunday, over 50,000 russian marched in tribute to boris
nemtsov. still seeking, despite the odds, what russian poet called the footprints of the forgotten troops. at his funeral, thousands waited in line for more than one hour in the cold to pay boris their respects. finally, as the hearse carrying boris nemtsov rolled away, mourners tossed flowers and chanted, "russia will be free." as i remember, my friend boris nemtsov nemtsov , that is my most sincere hope. >> will marshal will talk about the recent policy agenda released by the house new democrat coalition.
plus, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. washington journal's live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> the sunday on "q&a," director of the georgetown university medical center watch sean -- watchdog project on how pharmaceutical companies influence doctors and what medications to subscribe -- prescribe it. >> the promotion of a drug store at seven to 10 years before drug comes on the market. while it's illegal for a company to market a drug before it's been approved by the fda, it's not illegal to market the disease. drug companies have sometimes invented diseases and exaggerated the importance of certain conditions and 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 of clinicians to accept a particular drug. and also to prepare the mind of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> former maryland governor who has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2016 spoke about his approach in using data in his decision-making process. before serving as governor, mr. o'malley was mayor of baltimore for years. this event was hosted by the brookings institution. >> good morning, everyone. it is my pleasure to welcome governor martin j. o'malley. here in the brookings government studies program.
one of the critical problems we analyze is how to make government work better for the middle class for average americans, and for everyone. martin j. o'malley has been a trailblazer in doing that as governor of maryland from 2007-2015. and before that in serving twp terms as mayor of baltimore. under his leadership as governor, maryland recovered 100% of the jobs lost during the great recession. it was one of just seven states to maintain a aaa bond rating. the college board organization named maryland one of the top states in the nation in holding down the cost of college tuition. the state also had the best public schools in america for five years in a row. governor o'malley compiled a
similarly distinguished record as the mayor of baltimore, where "time" named him one of the top five big-city mayors. he is going to talk about some of the public management tools she helped pioneer as governor and as mayor the produce those results. in particular, ways that he and his team used data to work better for everyone. he will focus on the city-stat programs. after his remarks, my colleague will ask him a couple of questions and then we will open the floor to your questions. ladies and gentlemen, 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. it's a great honor to be here are brookings today. -- at brookings today. the people who work at brookings have done outstanding work on analysis and research on government performance. it is a pleasure to be here to talk about data-driven governing. an issue near and dear to my heart. our country and world faces big challenges, whether it is making our economy work again or for all of us 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 and imagination have now expanded -- [no audio]
-- it has helped make progress possible. creativity and imagination are not the first words that come to mind to most with 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? instead of conventional wisdom with the way we've always done it. what if we could make our communities safer by knowing in real time where crime was actually happening every day and then deploying police officers to those precise locations of the right times. what if we could put an end to lead poisoning of children instead of ignoring it? as if it were a problem that just could not be solved. what if we improve public safety by using big data, and the
experience we have with years of recidivism 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 and targeting personal interventions, we could actually cut avoidable hospital readmissions by 10% each year, every year? imagine if the overall performance of any school could be measured so that citizens and parents could see where we were headed. imagine if one common platform not only measured the job skills and greatest demand in a given county or metro area but also , allowed employers to find skilled workers they need. an unskilled workers to obtain the training they need to fill the jobs being created in this new economy.
as you might have guessed, in baltimore and in maryland, we did all of these things and more. this, my fellow citizens, 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's about performance management. 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 also calls for a new way of leadership at every level. leadership that embraces a culture of accountability, and embraces entrepreneurial approaches to problem solving,
and embraces collaboration. leadership that understands the power of technology like smart maps and gis 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 violence, the most addictive and the most 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 chose. we repeated this every day and every week constantly looking , for better strategies. over the next 10 years baltimore went on to achieve -- thanks to courageous police officers and neighbors some of -- the biggest crime reductions -- in fact, the biggest crime reduction of any major city in america in those 10 years. there is a baseball equivalent of this comstat strategy, some call it moneyball. some call it the shift. you could your fielders where the past performance of the upcoming hitters say they are most likely to hit the ball. put your police where crimes are most likely to happen. the shift. that is the deployment of resources to maximum effect. that is goal driven, data driven
thinking. it helps win ball games, and it helps make the city safer. we brought this to not only our police department, but to the whole enterprise of city government. we became the first major city in america to do so. we started to create 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. every day, and every week. our city stat approved, like comstat.
timing we accurate information shared by all, rapid deployment of resources, effectives strategies, and relentless follow-up. always the hard part. 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 the data that the department heads and the agency had submitted prior to them meeting. everything was mapped out and indexed to the previous reporting periods. so that everybody could see and everybody would know. ideas were shared and questions were fired back and forth. 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%. -- lead in our city by 71%. early on, when the former impatient and irascible mayor of baltimore, my mentor and tormentor, accused our administration of having no vision. we responded with a 48 hour pothole guarantee. our cruise -- crews 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 state stat. the premise was essentially the same. it was data driven system making -- decision-making collaboration, follow-up, and results.
we shared those results, good or bad, with an online court so that every citizen could access it and see where we stood and where we were going. with this approach, we achieved something in public safety -- like a public safety triple crown. we drove crime down, to a 30 year low in maryland. incarceration to a 20 year low at the same time reducing recidivism. by nearly 20%. there are not many states that did that. with this approach, our teachers, principals, parents, and kids -- with the financial backing they needed and commitment from us, made our schools 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 cut in half 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. -- set a 40 year hope for
cleaning up the chesapeake bay. we started to measure actions and results. we created they -- baystat to 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 bay. we set not a 40 year hope, but two-year milestones. we reduced storm water runoff and expanded the number of acres planted with winter cover crops helped create clean technology and our sewage treatment plants. we made it possible for citizens to click on every to be jerry -- any of the tributary basin where they live, to see whether we were making progress. and hitting our goals to restore the health of our water. for all of that effort, we reduced nitrogen, phosphorus sediment levels by 14%, 15%, and
18% respectively. we restored hundreds of acres of stream buffers and natural wetlands. we doubled the number of native oysters that are now filtering the waters of the chesapeake bay. did we meet every goal we set? no, we did not meet every goal we set. with true performance-measured governing, and with openness, failure has to be an option -- albeit a temporary option. if we met every goal, we we probably weren't setting our sights very high or picking worthy goals. one tragic example was this. 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. by mapping out facilities and doing a better job of monitoring the pill mills and shutting them down we identified them. we got more people into treatment than we ever had, but it was not enough to prevent or reverse this tragic spike. as with any of these efforts 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
t cannot be managed. that is a copout. we did not set out a nation that gets by with less. we came together to form a more perfect union. and data driven decision making and performance management is essential to pursuing a more perfect union in these modern times. some of you may know, the problem at the federal level is not a lack of goals or lack of data. we had agencies with dozens of goals and performance metrics. and strategic objectives. but what are the truly big goals for our nation? and what are the actions that allow us to achieve those big goals together? 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. and why. 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 other examples that speak to our values as a people. the infant mortality rate in the united states of america is the highest of all the developed countries in the world. if we value reducing infant mortality as a nation, 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. in measuring everything from soup to nuts. we must measure what we value, and value what we measure. second example, if we increase kindergarten readiness across the nation at the same rate we did in maryland, we would have 825,000 more children ready to learn on their very first day of school. that's 825,000 more children that would not start out behind. 825,000 taking their first vital steps toward their education and
life. final example. 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 instead of flatter our backs -- flat on our backs in expensive hospital beds. americans should know what our top objectives are. job creation, improving the security of our people, improving the education and skills of our people, improving the sustainability of our way of life, improving the health and wellness of all americans. federal employees should know how their work contributes to the achievements of those objectives.
leaders, staff, and the public should all 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 lofty 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. and those critically important things that we can only accomplish together. early in my administration in the city of baltimore as mayor we would hold regular town halls, community meetings.
we came together as a community and a people to talk about our fears, to talk about our frustrations, to talk about our hopes. i invited neighbors to ask me , their mayor, 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.
your pothole guarantee to 48 hour washington, d.c., 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. let me tell you what the plan is. i will ask you one question, then i will turn to the audience first taking 45 press questions, -- four or five 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 the big boards and saw how nice a looked, and 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. i think mayors of taken to this a lot easier than governors. there is more literature command on this. john bernard just published a book called "government that works" that discusses this. mayors embraced it the work that first. mayors do is visible. they never enjoyed some sort of information situational advantage of what -- knowing what's going on six months before the public. 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. there are been some point in the federal government where it has popped up.
the recovery reinvestment act is one great example. 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. being a new way and a new method of executive management. 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. sorry, i should have said that. do we have another one?
[laughter] >> do you think congress should fast-track the transpacific partnership? martin j. o'malley: i think they should 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
-- governor of maryland released? 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. i relied on my legal counsel to do that. >> 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 expert on federal or state requirements, frankly i am a little sick of the e-mail drama.
in our state, whether you use personal or public e-mail or carrier pigeon, it was a public record subject. you're not going to ask about e-mails, are you? [laughter] >> the message you brought -- is this something you want to share with the national audience as a presidential candidate? martin j. o'malley: i am seriously considering running. if we want to continue healing our economy and congress, we will have to make our government work and do a better job of making our government perform for the dollars people pay.
i think those three things link together. there is not a doubt in my mind that this is the new way of governing and getting things done. you see it emanating out over the last 15 years. this is how our federal government should operate. some departments already operate this way. it is coming with the rising tide of expectations of americans under the age of 40. they see it from retailers. they want their government to actually work and perform and function. yes, i intend to talk about this whenever i can. >> this sounds a terrific stuff, but perhaps may not fire up the democratic primary electorate.
how do you propose to do that? martin j. o'malley: and will give a number of talks over the next few months, including a discussion of how to make the economy work again. or at least the majority of us. with wages declining, it is hard for us to say that our job is done. we need to get wages going up. there are many challenges. i appreciate brookings having an interest in effective government performance management. which is why i came here to give this particular talk. in order to meet the big challenges we face, whether it is security or climate change, whether it is still what is not working in our economy, it will still require government. people are more interested in a functioning government and people with executive
experience. bill galston: one last press question and we will move to the audience. >> forgive me, an e-mail question. were you satisfied with hillary clinton's response yesterday that she or her attorneys personally went through her cash of e-mails and determined which ones were personal and which ones are government and turned that question over to the state department? do you think there is a public interest in having an independent person figure out whether proper e-mails were scooped out? martin j. o'malley: i respect your interest in this issue, and i did not watch the press conference yesterday.
i will leave that to you to figure out, i do not know. i did not watch it, because i was working. [laughter] bill galston: that seems like an excellent note. oh good, this does allow me to stand up. it's been my experience that the people in the back get short shrift at the brookings institute. so i will start back there. >> i am a fellow with the department of housing. you spoke about having real-time statistics in fighting crime. did your administration also measure community policing police training, and building trust with citizens and communities?
martin j. o'malley: thank you. in 1999, our whole campaign was about community policing comstat, we had a robust conversation about all of that. our strategy was that we needed to improve the effectiveness of our police, we needed to do a better job of policing our police, which includes some the things you mentioned -- training, integrity, internal affairs -- we staffed independent detectives, and we put the money in to get their own detectives said they could investigate cases. we openly tracked and reported
the number of this courtesies -- discourtesy complaints, excessive force, those sorts of things. the third part of that strategy was to intervene earlier in the lives of young people. more effective policing, a better job of policing the police, and intervening in the lives of young people. we put the numbers out there all of the time. we took the plan all around the city. we did town hall after town hall in every district. when bad incidents happened, as they do and will, we address them in a forthright way. we continue to put those numbers out there with transparency. some of the strongest proof that we were able to maintain that
level of trust and consensus was in the fact that in that first campaign, we won every council district, including the two of my two opponents, which were the areas hardest hit by crime. even then, the rolling back of open-air drug markets, i was reelected with 80% of the vote four years later. there is no issue around which there is greater fear and pain in america over our racial division. there is no substitute for leaders waiting into the center of those fears and leading the
conversation and the dialogue and making these institutions of policing and policing the police, more open and transparent. thank you. bill galston: there is a hand right there. i cannot tell who's hand it is but i will recognize the bearer. >> what is your definition of a high-value data set? does it include politically sensitive data. this is endemic all over the country as governors and mayors open their data sets, there tends to be omissions with politically sensitive data. just to motivate that question and provide examples three press
, questioners asked about e-mail, and you responded that state e-mail is public record. responsive to the public information act. that is not quite true in the way it sounds. in my district, they rotate the archives every 30 days. the public information act as 30 days. bill galston: i will have to to cut you off there. >> my point is, this type of loophole is widespread in maryland with a variety of databases. martin j. o'malley: maryland was named a leader in the open data movement. we received some award from somebody that watches this.
i always looked at open data in the operations of our government as genies that needed to be released from the bottle. it was my hope that as much data as we can get out there, it would be hard when people started using it to see -- like with the river keepers organization or pta or advocates for whatever -- it would be hard to put those genies back in the bottle. we were a leader in that open data movement. i hope my successor has kept that going. we also got better at putting it out there in ways that was not so dizzying. making it easier for people to manipulate and use it to make charts and graphs and things.
on the e-mail stuff, yeah, we had a retention policy. we do not have an archiving requirement, and it is an open question of public policy all over our country -- how long should governments retain? an interesting question in the age of electronic information sharing your it i think the most important information is about the operations. i thought that's where you were going with your question. when mayors saw the citystat room, i could see the looks in people's eyes saying, we have to get out of here.
[laughter] newly elected mayors have fresh opportunities. these men and women, when they first come in, i think are taking the bar to a constantly higher and higher level. it is also why -- you see people moving back to cities. nobody wants to live in a place that is becoming more dirty and dangerous and violent. conversely, when cities become more livable, you see younger people moving back to them and cities are starting to function. people vote with their feet. it is causal and not coincidental that people -- particularly younger people -- are returning to cities. because they see them operating in transparent ways. bill galston: the woman in the red dress right there. >> i am with the data quality campaign.
we've talked a lot about crime and stuff like that. i'm focusing on education. what kind of measures did you take to address graduation rates? post secondary success, and just seeing which high schools had the best outcomes? did you have success in raising graduation rates? martin j. o'malley: yes we did. we also had tremendous success in getting more students to take s.t.e.m. related ap exams. a and to pass them. a greater percentage of students in maryland take and pass those kinds of ap exams than any other state in the country. another rendition of this can be found on "letters to the people of maryland," which you can find on tumblr.
there's a whole section in their that has the strategies that we pursued on education. and the metrics we used to drive up graduation rates, ap success. on the post-secondary side, we increased by 37% the number of associate degrees that were awarded, compared to the benchmark year of 2006. all of this is on there, as well. we didn't buy a number of different strategies. each of these goals, we developed a delivery plan for achieving those goals. that delivery plan laid out the actions we needed to take in order to drive towards goals. we greatly increase funding for these schools, but we also went for years in a row without an
increase to -- four years in a row without an increase in college tuition. we provided better training for a lot of our high school teachers, particularly in the stem field. we greatly increased the readiness of kids entering kindergarten to learn. all of this is laid out in "letters to the people of maryland." i wrote about four entries a day, and it's 380 exciting pages. for those of you -- [laughter] >> governor, as i promised, i would reserve the question. i will wait until after governor o'malley have finished answering my question, to remain seated until he has exited the room. let me preface.
by repeating something that i told you before the meeting -- namely i did work in bill clinton's white house. a statement you made a couple weeks ago touches on your vision of leadership. i would like to give you a chance to comment on your comment. you said triangulation is not a strategy that will move america forward. history celebrates profiles in courage, not profiles in convenience.
let me ask directly. is it your view the country did not move forward during bill clinton's terms? >> our country can only move forward on the power of our principles as a people. whether you're talking about foreign policy leadership, we should always be leading with principles rather than expediency. when it comes to leadership here at home, when it comes to immigration, when it comes to the need for continued reform on wall street instead of offering dodd frank lite, i think we need to continue this job, and we need to continue on the principles that unite us as a people. when refugee kids risk starvation and all sorts of
suffering to arrive at our doorstep, we should stick to our principles and treat them as the generous and compassionate people we are. that's what i mean when i say the triangulation will not allow us to solve our problems splitting the difference between the way things have always been done and an extremist view of the way things might be is not going to move things forward. we have to speak the truth about the challenges faced and what leads to be done to overcome them, and that's what i mean. -- what needs to be done to overcome them. >> thank you very much for your
answer and for your appearance at brookings today. [applause] >> thank you all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this week, c-span is in new hampshire for road to the white house coverage of several potential republican presidential candidates. today, we will be in manchester for an event with former texas governor rick perry live at a: 30 a.m. eastern on c-span two. tonight at 8:00 on c-span, lindsey graham, who spent two days in the granite state this week.
friday night at 7:45, we will take you to a house party in dover, new hampshire with jeb bush. on saturday, just afternoon live on c-span, wisconsin governor scott walker at a republican party grassroots workshop. and sunday night at 9:35 on c-span, senator ted cruz on the annual lincoln reagan dinner. road to the white house 2016 on c-span. >> "washington journal," is next. we will look at today's headlines and take your calls. officials from the treasury and justice department testify about various tax scams being used this tax filing season. we have live coverage from the senate finance committee this morning at 10:00 eastern. coming up this hour, david mcintosh discusses his group's recent look at congress and how members vote on economic and limited government legislation.
after that, will marshal of the progressive policy institute will talk about the recent policy agenda released by the house new democrat coalition. we will also take your facebook comments and tweets. ♪ host: good morning, everyone, and welcome to the "washington journal" this thursday march 12, 2015. continue debate on capitol hill this week with tension between the white house and gop on full display on capitol hill. we will begin with your thoughts. the numbers are on the screen. you can also join the conversation on twitter or go to facebook.