tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 7, 2016 1:00pm-6:31pm EST
rebuild the respect of our allies and instill fear in our enemies. and i think that for all of those reasons i think jeb is absolutely the best candidate to be the next president of the united states and he can beat hillary clinton but he can't do it without your votes so i hope you will siern up and elect jeb to be the next president of the united states. [applause]
children are occasionally do, which is to say, the dog ate my homework. i'm sorry, i didn't do my math today. a leader accepts or spots ability, was up their sleeves, and fixes things. in working with mike chertoff, it made it possible for me to do that as governor where i got to act for my heart and for the people i love and care for and i'm proud that we went through these storms unprecedented and never has that happened to any state and we recovered at a faster rate than anyone could imagine and we did it by and large without a whole lot of criticism. don't you want washington to work that way again? don't you want washington to work in a way that we are proud? [applause]. >> bath, thank you for the kind introduction and i went to recognize president morris who is doing an extraordinary job as president of the new hampshire senate and he has a 5:30 a.m. plane tomorrow. he doesn't live around here.
everyone says new hampshire is kind of a small state. i don't think it's that small. i had been traveling all over the place and it's a pretty good distance where he lives in salem , to be here and i appreciate your friendship and support. look, we are leaving in extra ordinary times and dangerous times. if everything was rolling along well then you could probably say, let's take a bet on the big guy on the stage and let's just go for it. everything will work out. this country is growing and everything is fine, but that's not what is happening. we are living in dangerous times, in times where people have lost hope. we are living in times where the middle class now is perpetually seen the claims of their income and sadly we are living in times from the day barack obama was inaugurated, where six and a half billion people or more are living in poverty and today if
people think about america's strength and whether we are secure, a growing number of people correctly say we are not. america's leadership is lacking in the world and when we pull back, voids are filled. they are filled by nationstates that cs now as we can vacillating and they take two steps forward when we timidly take steps back and now, we have these new asymmetric threats of terror that are uniquely different, a caliphate the size of indiana with 30 to 40000 terrorists, islam and radical terrorists because that is what they are, that are organized to destroy western civilization and can do it in all sorts of ways, most particularly by focusing on what they perceived to be our weakness, which is our liberty and our freedom. there is a lot writing now. i believe people in new hampshire, most particularly, are going to say, hey, we have a lot of influence in this process it we are first in the nation.
we actually make the candidates walk over the hot coals. we don't sign up the first time we meet them. sometimes we don't fine up until maybe the fifth time we meet them, right, beth? that's new hampshire. that's the way it is and i admire that because i think every candidate ought to be able to be tested, have the questions come at them from all different directions to show their mettle, to show with their depth of knowledge is, to show their hearts, to show their strength, to show their conviction and my bet is that the people of new hampshire are not going to tarnish their incredible reputation of being discerning voters and tarnish the first in the nation primary status. that's why i am here, to make the case that's we need proven leadership during these difficult times. in august, i had a chance to lay out a strategy to deal with
isis. this was before the paris attacks. this was before the russian plane was shot down by isis supporters. this was before the attacks all around the world including the tragedy in paris and most particularly the tragedy in san bernardino. after that, all sorts of candidates were scurrying around saying what they would do in changing their views that they had in august or in the summer. they scurried around and now they're talking about carpet bombing and other things like that to show that they were strong, you know, showing they really thought it through. here is what i said in august, prior to all of this, this is what the national security the upper our country, first and foremost. this is the case because they are organized to destabilize us, to attack us in ways that will freeze as in place, make it harder for us to be a vote to lead the world and create a more secure united states. my strategy started with arming
the kurds it directly and as anissa ministration refuses to do that. they are our strongest allies and we should on them directly and give them confidence that the united states has their debt-- back. we ought to engage with the iraqi military, which we have not done, other countries have. we should advance our troops that are in a racket, inside the iraqi military to train them, fortify them, to give them confidence so they can be successful as well. a third, need to reengage with the sunni tribal leaders that felt abandoned with this administration led by secretary state clinton and president obama when they abandoned the sunni partnership that created a fragile secure though secure iraq as of the surge. for, we need to get that damn lawyers often backs of the war fighters. this is ridiculous what we have to do now. lead bases in the middle east to attack isis and half of them go back because they have not
gotten approval. layers of approval that is required. the united states will always adhere to the international standards of war fighting, but why should we impose additional restrictions endangering our troops, by the way, by putting these restrictions on as if this were a law enforcement exercise. this is not a law-enforcement exercise. they have declared war on us and we need to fight a war against them. that is the strategy when you combine that with safe zone inside of syria, for those in my -- my heart breaks for the 4 million refugees that have been uprooted inside of syria, 4 million refugees. they are now in camps in turkey, lebanon and jordan. the way to solve that problem isn't to send them off too far off including our country, it's to create safe zones inside of syria and provide protection there and allow us to build a military force that will be sunni led with american training
on the with arab support, with the world supporting it to destroy isis and bring about civility by taking-- by bringing about regime change in syria and that requires a load-- no fly zone. that, my friend, is a strategy. not reacting to events as they come, but thinking it through. here is a little insight into this but i hope you appreciate. i know what i don't know. i admit it. i feel better now. if you like i have given myself therapy. i hope you want a president that recognizes the best thing to do is acknowledge what you don't know and then seek out the best information possible. that's how it works. that's a leaders lead. they don't lead by saying i'm the big guy on the stage and i will take care of it, just blanket kind of big talk. that's not how leaders offer a. they operate by creating strategies and having the determination to stick with it
and i believe i have those skills to do it and i hope that you understand that i thought these things through. i believe we can destroy isis and create a more stable middle east, which will be in our national security interest and if we get that right, there's a lot of work that needs to be done in washington dc for our country sick as well. declining income in this country should not be the norm. it should not be the norm. it should be our highest priority to make sure the middle class that defines who we are as a nation, in fact, has defined our greatness begins to rise up again and that means we need to have the courage to change the culture in washington dc. lets me give you another insight. i don't think that people that disagree with me are bad people. i just think they might be wrong. [laughter] >> trust me, there is a huge difference. if you start with the premise that people that disagree with you have bad motives or they are
evil or they are stupid or whatever it is, you get a bad result. over the last seven years we have had a president who whenever he has had a chance to use his extraordinary skills, it consistently is to push people down that disagree with him to make himself look better. i for one am sick and tired of this because he is creating a divide that is hurting our country and i, like you, love this country and if we love it, start foraging consensus to unite around, purpose rather than constantly be dividing us. if you are president obama and someone disagrees with you on the iranian agreement and i for one believe it is one of the worst agreement ever negotiated, that it will create instability in the region, that it rewards a regime not deserving of reward, a regime that is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the-- world, that isn't necessarily going to open up their country. that naïve notion has already
been rejected by a ran themselves. they have made it clear that whatever the deal was, that is fine, but we will not negotiate anything more to united states and that a people is wrong. president obama says to people that disagree with him, that they are part-- they are in cahoots with the devil to america crowd. how wrong can you be? why not just assume for a moment that people might have a principled difference of opinion. in washington dc, we need to start at where we have consensus the into solve problems. let the atrophy of lack of consensus begin to change. where we start exercising the consensus muscles perhaps a bit so we can start fixing the things that are reported to fix. there is a bipartisan consensus on entitlement reform. there is a bipartisan consensus, i know in my heart, on shifting away from washington so we can create 21st century rules around our economy.
there is a consensus on embracing an energy revolution that will create high sustained economic growth and higher wages. it will require a president who doesn't start off each day assuming that people are his enemy. to disparage them and push them down to make themselves look better. a sign of strength, in my mind, is to stop the divide. is to build consensus and if we were going to build consensus, i would argue that 4% economic growth should be our aspirational goal and if we can do it america's done it in the past and there is no reason the world that we can to do it again. don't let the naysayers said the new normal of 2% growth is acceptable. 2% growth means rising poverty. 2% growth means median income will be at incline. 2% growth means increasing demands on government. 2% growth means we will have double-digit increases in people receiving food stamp in the divide in our country and social
costs associated with that is unacceptable for a great nation like ours. the final thing i want to say to you is that i believe that life is precious, that is a gift from god and i hope people aren't offended by that notion. because it is. look, if you believe like i do that life is precious, that it's the finally inspired, that everyone has a role to play and everyone can make a contribution, which i truly believe, then you don't organize society around your government. more regulations. you don't say you have got problems, it's not your fault, i will take care of you. that's what the left does. that's what hillary clinton has promised us, more of the same. more rules. more taxes. more spending. i will take care of you. if you start from the premise that everyone has a chance to reach their god-given abilities, then you have the opposite kind of view about the role of
government, it should build capacity for people to achieve earned success. i want to be president to tear down the ceilings of people's aspirations. i don't want to tell them what line to get into. i want to tell them whatever your dream is, let's make sure you have the capacity to pursue those dreams and whether you achieve them-- achieve the dream or not is not as important as the pursuit. that is my life lesson. it's learning through trial and error how to be a better person, a better husband, a better father. it is the pursuit of life that matters. a conservative will never win if we play the game that the left place by pushing people down that disagree with us. we have two campaign with our arms wide open, with a hopeful optimistic message, with a basic belief that the greatness of this country is not through its government, it's through the interaction of 300 million plus people with the capacity to
achieve their own dreams. imagine on america where everyone is in pursuit of their own dreams? the interaction of all of us together will create more prosperity, more activation, more love, moral compassion, more creativity, more goodwill for everything we doesn't really want than any government program ever created. i think that is an aspiration worth fighting for. that's why i come here to ask for your vote. you, in new hampshire, as i have said will make a difference. if you decide that you want a candidate representing the republican party that is an agitator, that only praise on people's fears, then it probably will happen. if that happens i can promise you this, hillary clinton will be elected president of the united states and if you think things are bad today, imagine what it would be like for eight more years, possibly, of the same thing of pushing people down, of dividing and creating
opportunities for people, of abdicating the possibilities of allowing people to be successful on their own terms in their own ways. this is worth fighting for. i intended to fight to the bitter end and i hope you'll join me. thank you all very much. [applause]. >> thank you, guys. thanks for coming out. i feel the-- warmth already. i was feeling a little nervous, but the heat is on and i feel better. [inaudible] >> did you call mother and father that to wish them happy anniversary? >> i did, think i'd, i can answer that honestly. my mom has gotten suite all of a sudden. i'm getting nervous.
my dad said, jeb, it doesn't feel like a day over 70 years we have been married. that's a standard joe. i said where you going to do, are you going to do something romantic with mom. he is 91 and she is 90 and cheat-- he said yes, we are watching a mystery movie at 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon. that's very romantic. >> i also want to get your-- two part question, a bit more serious. what are your feelings about common core and what are your feelings about the department of education? >> , and core standards have been poisoned by a political environment that it sounds common core effectively means different things to different people. so, i will tell you what i'm not born that will make it simpler.
i'm not for the federal government being involved in the creation of standards, or curriculum directly or incurred-- indirectly. recently the k-12 law was authorized like six or seven years late and in that bill, the president signed with bipartisan support and that hardly have either and it expressly is prohibited the federal government being involved in the creation of content or curriculum or standards, so i think people's voices were heard on this regard. but me tell you what i'm for because that is as important as well. i am for high standards. i want standards to be high that when you access them, you know whether a student is college and/or career ready. they-- it should be locally driven, strategies to make sure that happens and the state drives the policy. today, in new hampshire, today in florida, today in this
country, no more than 40% of our kids are truly college and/or career ready. now, for those that think we are not spending enough money, maybe maybe in some school districts because union contracts of 20 years ago they suddenly sucked the money out of the classroom that's probably true, that the civil fact is on a per student basis we spend more per student than any country in the world other than i think belgium and luxembourg, literally. so, who is going who? are we just want to accept-- one site says we need local control and the other side says, we shouldn't have any standards and accountability around it. i believe we ought to have a robust, form oriented, state driven education system with local control driving the policy , but everyone ought to be held accountable because if you are getting only 40% and i am being generous or, 40% of your children graduated high school
or not graduating it all, sadly, and they're not college or career ready, what kind of life they live? will they play tight in for the new england patriots? no, that job is already taken. this has to be a national call in from the bottom up. florida, we did that. we created the first statewide voucher program, the second statewide voucher program and of the third. i took on very powerful teachers unions and the bureaucracy that hated it, but because we graded schools in way that everyone understood, we ended social promotion in third grade, this insidious idea that literate kids at the end of third grade should go on to fourth grade even though they cannot read the math of. we challenged all of that stuff and change our education system. we pressured it with a school at choice and we have had the greatest gains in learning in the last 15 years and i'm proud of that. if you give parents more options, i can guarantee you one thing, the public schools get better.
i will give you an example. does anyone here have a child with a learning disability? i mean, it's like 10%, 15% of the student population in most places and i know scores and scores of children who are struggling. in the united states you have a civil right to be able to have a contract with the local school board about you child. there has to be contract. that contract, if it's not fulfilled, you get into a big argument and a lot of times there are litigation, always a fight, the school districts never like to to deal with this, the parents are frustrated, so in florida we decided to do something different, which is any parent who believes their individual education plan, required by federal law, that is not being taking care of, if they unilaterally think that, they can send their child to a private school with the state local dollars. so, you would think that's going to destroy public schools, right next guess what, the greatest
learning gains on the nation's report card test that you can't teach to, guess which state has the greatest learning gains in reading? florida. the public schools got better because god for bid that these 30,000 kids would either come back to the school districts or god for bid others would leave. competition and choice empowers quality improvement and that is the focus. high expectations, high accountable the, more school choice and if i am president of the united states i will fight on the other kids that are stuck in failing schools, not to impose a federal solution, but to make sure the federal government is a partner for the states that want to have meaningful reform and as far as i'm concerned, the more radical, the better. yes. [inaudible] >> now everyone can hear you estimate is a veteran i would like to hear you address the issues of the va and what you might do to alleviate some of those problems? >> i think we should all give a
round of applause to all of the veterans here today. [applause]. >> thank you. so, about six months ago, right at the beginning of my campaign the poll-- first policy rollout we had was a plan to reform the veterans administration. i based this on listening-- had a roundtable discussion for about a month all around the country listening to veterans talk about their frustration, talking to former secretaries of the veterans administration and military leaders who are concerned as we draw down our military that the number of veterans now entering the veterans administration will overwhelm it. that apartment already in crisis and so i crafted a policy, we rolled it out in south carolina, and it basically goes like this first, the veterans administration needs career civil service reform. there a 340,000 employees in the veterans administration and
while they have shortages in some professional parts of it, the bureaucracy is enormous and it is slow. it is molasses like slow. they have created management reforms in their mind that are completely wrong. $142 million of bonuses went out last year for performance bonuses. including lowering, lessening the waiting list for veterans. now, we now know that in some parts of the country what they did was take people off the waiting list, but not give them care. veterans died. do you know how me people got fired? three people. it is shameful. shameful. to treat anyone in government-- for anyone in government to treat a client or a person that has earned the support, but most particularly veterans, so first and foremost, we need to have,
we need to and change the employment law so you don't have lifetime employment where you reward the people that do good work and you can the people that don't do good work at all. [applause]. >> quickly, second, veterans are deserving of choices. i brought up school choice for education and it improves quality when parents are in power to choices and i can promise you the veterans at ministration would improve its quality if the veterans had a choice to go to their private provider or go to a private clinic or go to a private hospital. that's what we need to do is not to make it so bureaucratic, but it is so bureaucratic and so complex again, this insular organization wouldn't consider this an opportunity to serve veterans and give them greater service. they are saying they are threatened, so they maintain this complex system so that veterans don't have that choice. it should be opened up. it is not to hurt the veterans administration. it is help veterans that this
billions of dollars are spent. , i think the veterans administration has a huge opportunity to create centers of excellence. because now you have the challenges, posthypnotic stress being a big big challenge that is somewhat unique to this current generation of veterans. they should aspire to have the best quality care with the best research and the best doctors to deal with this. develop best practices to deal with this great challenge. homeless veterans exist in many cases because of post to stress and inability to integrate themselves back into the community, so take advantage of this opportunity to really sore. this is not a negative thing. this is an opportunity and the resources are there to do it. another great challenge for veterans is now many veterans would have died in previous wars and now their lives are being saved, but their permanent
disabilities, long-term permanent disabilities. families struggle with this and, of course, veterans struggle with this. why not make veterans administration the place in the world to be able to provide support for people that have long-term disability issues? it will be long-term and at some point these folks get abandoned and that should not happen. the final thing i would see just as need to manage it reform, only veterans administration should be in charge of building other bilt-- buildings. they have one building in aurora, colorado, that was mostly $300 million, pretty good size and anyone in the hospital business knows that the healthy hospital, all the bells and whistles. they are at $1.8 billion right now and they have not gotten a funding from congress because finally congress that enough of this nonsense. how do you go from 300 million to $1.8 billion? you can't make that up. that's almost like the cost of the obamacare website. [laughter]
>> bringing sound business practices to washington dc may sound like a nerdy thing to do, but it actually is essential. we are way overspending in so many areas. i think the army corps are to be building until proven otherwise, we should just move everything over to the army corps. they have a much better proven record of building things that stay around for a long while and at the final thing i would say is that there are many more women that are now becoming veterans, which is a good thing. many more enlisted women and as they leave, i think we have to shift our focus and i would like to get your views on this, towards women's health issues as well. the veterans administration can play a constructive role there. here is an example-- i don't know, there are people that run to the fire and there are people that runaway. you noticed? when i see a problem, my first impulse is moving forward.
because the greatest joy in service is fixing things; right? i mean, you had a mess, the department of homeland security, it is just like this gigantic beasts. there are all sorts of problem in government hands and when you see a problem, the first impulse should be, man, we can do better i know how to do this. i will bring the best people in to solve it and i will bang heads until happens. that's how you lead. you can't say the dog ate your homework everyday. you can't blame your predecessor everyday. maybe i'm overly sensitive about that. [laughter] >> here is my promise to you if i president of the united states, on day one i will doubt that i will not blame my predecessor about anything. i will accept personal responsibility for the mess that exist. i know that it exists and my joy will be in fixing it rather than blame another people for what it
exists. [applause]. >> yes ma'am. >> i have a question about your opinion on background checks. before you answer, let me tell you who i am. >> sure. >> on the mother of one child. she was murdered one morning as it she was making coffee and studying for school. she was executed. her only child, my only grandchild saw this and the gunman turned on her and shot her six times. she was left for dead. she survived. i'm not anti- nra because not only is my husband a member of the ni, i know responsible gun
owners and i'm also not against the right to bear arms. what i am for is some common sense, so that you don't have to look at my eyes, all of the around the room, if any you have experienced anything what i have , that you don't have to have this happen to you. i just don't think it's unreasonable to step up and do something. i have to have a license to drive a car, please, what is the big deal about background checks? >> i am happy to answer that in my heart goes out to you and your family. in florida, we have a 72 hour waiting period and eight background check. is required and it works and we are probably, maybe, i don't
know there are a few states that might claim they are that post-- most pro- second limit, but florida sec-- rakes up their high. we have 1.5 million concealed weapons permit holders. we also believe in background checks and i don't have any problem with doing that and the fdle is our state agency that does it, not the fbi i-- the fbi because the fdle does a better and i think in general states ought to be able to make these decisions themselves. here is my problem with president obama's actions of yesterday and in general when he talks about this. i asked-- respect the emotions he talked about yesterday and for a guy that is pretty cool, calm and collected i like a president that actually shows his heart. there is nothing wrong with that at all, but his first impulse whenever there is a crisis appears to me to have policies that will take a brave rights from law-abiding citizens and made worse yesterday by having--
by using executive power he does not have. look at, in our democracy if you have an idea in your president, or your governor or you are a mayor, you go to the legislative body and you try to get it passed. here's a good example of what president obama instead of doing what he did, because it will be overturned in the courts, in my mind. he doesn't have this authority. there is no law that delegates authority for him to do this and certainly the constitution does not provide for this. why not focus on the landing there is common ground to deal with these tragic cases that we see on television of these mass murders? the common denominator by and large, there are other elements of it, certainly san bernardino was an attack of terrorism, but most of these cases, these are deranged people that are severely mentally ill. we do not have a unified mental health system in this country. we have holes in it and we have
privacy rights that make hearty to identify people when they are getting out of control. so, you have these cases and we don't have the ability to determine whether people that have mental illnesses are actually being able to acquire guns. when i focus on that? conservatives agree with that. i would agree with that. that nra might even agree with that depending on the specifics is of the bill, but his impulses to do the opposite of the bill which is to say that if you don't agree with my view then somehow you don't care about these tragedies, which is not they are not true and makes a harder in the gap gets wider and wider, so i think in florida, we dealt with the issue you are describing and it works. as i said, no one is saying that florida is not a pro- second limit state, but we do have background checks in a big urban can't estate that is important because people move in and out and it's important to be able to have that period of time, i think, you can do the proper
background checks and again i'm sorry for your loss. look, there are a lot of crazy things going on in this world and each and every day we see them more often now because of the focus on these things and it breaks my heart that we have to even be talking about this, to be honest with you. yes. >> i agree with your foreign policy on syria and i was wondering about another current for-- for an issue with china. what is your current stance on the united states relationship with china, especially with the prospect of cyber attack and economic manipulation last year with the stock market? >> so, china is going to be, for the next several decades it's-- in all likelihood china will probably be the most complex and maybe most important relationship the united states will have, the two largest economies and that will stay the same for a long while. we are intertwined economically.
there are real challenges. china's worldview is not shaped by liberal democracy. is shaped by a much more centralized control economy. intellectual property doesn't appear to hate-- had the same by you it does here. cyber efforts that they are making our big challenges for our country, so here's what i think we ought to do. one, when we say we pitted to asia, which we did with great grandiosity, we ought to do it if we are going to do it. i would not have made that statement of a pivot just because i talk to a lot of people in asia and i used-- i did business there and i traveled there a lot and what they say was you talk about pivoting to asia, but no one seems to be talking about pivoting to asia when asians--
doesn't seem to be as high of a priority and there was not a big pivot to asia. so, if you are going to do it and by the way, a pivot as a manger leaving something else than the rest of the world wonders why are you a banding lees or europe, the role of the united state is not to pick and choose the places where they work. it's in our economic interest and security interest to be engaged in asia and i think we should do it to counter the influence of china in the world. it's in our economic interest to do so. so, if we are going to engage with the china issue be comprehensive and there should be complete dialogue i'm a but we should recognize that they are a competitor, not an ally and at that we should be-- we should have our guard up and rebuild our military. the idea that we have to announce that we are sending naval vessels through international waters, which we now have to do because we feel like that is a sign of strength, that's a sign of weakness. to actually announce that you are going to international waters, that actually confirm
some legitimacy to china's claim. the fact that they would build an island 100 miles off the coast of the south china sea in the middle of the ocean where trading patterns are the largest in the world, where bodies of trade take place, we should just do that as a matter of course and we should fly planes over those islands as a matter of course. we should make it clear to our friends that we have our back, the japanese, the koreans. we see the upheaval in the world when we pull back with a north korea the most recent example, so we have to be engaged with china, but from a position of strength. we have to rebuild our navy and military to make that happen and the final thing i say is, the chinese don't understand anything about us. based on my experience and we don't understand anything about them. that is dangerous. so, hank paulson and the strategy that i thought was appropriate, this former secretary of treasury, which was to have ongoing dialogue so that
any misunderstanding didn't go and create a larger problem. i will give you one example. when the-- president obama got reelected he had a summit with president sheikh, the newly minted president of china and they did it in palm springs, it was a big deal in china. i was they are. and mrs. obama didn't go to this summit, this weekend a summit with the two presidents and family were going to get together get to know each other and in china that was very important. they united states it clearly wasn't. mrs. obama had other things to do. so, every meeting that i went to and i went to many of them, we spent the first 10 minutes where i got lambasted because our country insulted their glamorous first lady and insulted the first family of china and insulted china. i am going, look, i'm not a big fan as you notice the president obama, but i'm defending president obama and mrs. obama saying, there is no way that michelle obama is going to go out of her way to insult the
first lady of china. she might have had the same challenge that a lot of families have in the united states and it brought back memories of having to do my kids science projects because they refused to do them. [laughter] >> she has two teenage daughters. i am sure she had something going on with her family was really important. we all had that experience. the chinese would have never thought that because our culture is different than theirs, so engagement has got to be essential in that regard. [inaudible] >> a copy of that was given to your brother. >> why don't you begin near the end. >> that was pretty close. it's a series of poems. >> fantastic. >> my only question is, i am 55 -year old guy, i live to five years in tallahassee, while you were governor and i saw your actions firsthand.
you had a t-shirt on, sweating, doing your thing and i grew to admire you then and there, well before you started running for president, mr. bush. my compliments. i watched you as a person. >> this must have been the skinny jab, before i got fat. >> i was chosen by an organization to go down there and work as a rescue worker for katrina two days after katrina, so it was a nightmare. without your actions the federal government kind of dropped the ball with that whole thing going on and if it were not for your facilitation of people and resources, i really don't know how that whole panhandle of florida, biloxi, thing would've worked out. it was your leadership that really helped a lot with that whole transition and the influx of people, i almost got a feel for what it must have been like to live in another country like in the middle east where an influx of human beings, souls
pored through tallahassee, hundreds of thousands of people coming-- and i lived right there as you come down the big band off the i-10 exit and people were mobbing the hotels and dogs in this and that and pet alligators and it was unbelievable. >> they are from louisiana, so-- [laughter] clec as a new england man, i grew up kind of an old-fashioned way and to be quick, this woman kind of touch me and earlier i spoke to some people filming questions. i'm a god-fearing man, a radically christian guide and i respected my dad. i respected mr. ferrera, who lived down the street and when he saw one of us doing something wrong he would come over and grab us by the air in march as home and when he would don't be off at the front doorstep my father would say, joe, what did he do, that's all right,
charlie, no problem and i was held accountable. i don't believe that guns are weapons have anything to do with some these things we see on tv every day, but psychosis might have a lot to do with it and a departure from godliness, a departure from the church, a departure from the american family and absolute departure from the american family. i was blown to smithereens that we started out this meeting with the pledge of allegiance and as everyone realized it's one nation under god, indivisible. if a nation under god indivisible and jeb bush, i believe that you would stand up for people like me and defend our rights as much as they are founded in our nation's history. i believe that you, personally as a man of integrity, i believe in you and i believe you would stand up for our rights because we have now become the minority. [applause]. >> thank you. a couple of points. a couple of quick points.
one, the bill of rights-- the constitution is a blueprint that we should cherish. we should cherish it. we should just eight it's an interesting document. some countries have constitutions that are constantly amended. it loses its value. our constitution is to be cherished and respected. the right of religious freedom is called the first freedom. because it is at the heart of who we are as a nation. the whole bill of rights is important, but the right to be able not just to have a religious faith, i mean, there are people literally that say, get over it. it's okay to have a belief, but you have to keep in your church pews are your synagogues or, you know, or at home. that is not what the first freedom is all about. the first freedom is allowing people religious conscience,
which means that they have the right to act on their faith and they can do it in the public square. and in a tolerant big diverse country people have to be accepting of the fact that not everyone has faith as they are organizing principle, but those that do have faith have that exact same rights to be able to act on their faith. we can solve this problem. this is not the most comfort's problem in our country, but to exclude people of faith from the public square, i think we do it at our own peril because there are a lot of people that act on their faith to take care of the homeless, to feed the hungry, to take care of children that have been the amended, neglected and abused port. or committed to improving the quality of the environment and a lot of times it's motivated by faith and every time you limit someone's actions in that regard i think you limit the ability to solve problems the way of americans have always done. second-story, and this is what it relates to katrina, because
i'm doing this in honor of secretary mike chertoff. katrina was going to hit pensacola. we had a for storm that hit pensacola the year before and it was wiped out already. had that storm hit at the power that it was planning to hit, it was the largest storm, i think, in american history, a five and a half, if you will and it was heading right towards pensacola, so we mobilized support we had six other people at the armory of the florida national guard in tallahassee, and we shipped in them out. we had all of the stuff that we were so good at because we had a lot of practice. had disaster management teams, evacuation teams, everyone going and i sent to them off going west. the storm waggles to the east or west a minute waggles back and hits mississippi. so, it wasn't going to hit pensacola and craig fugate, who is now the head of fema for president obama was my director
of emergency management. he calls me and says, we have got i don't know, a thousand people prepared to provide support, but it's a mississippi. there are no rules that allow a state to do this. we have cooperative agreements, but they are not about the first response. what should we do and i said keep going west. keep going west. the first responders in the six counties of southern mississippi that had storm surge, 20 feet high, 20 miles inland, i think, i-10 is about 20 miles inland. you can still see where the search went up almost above the overpasses. i mean, this was an incredible storm. or just piling up. it wiped out everything. police cars were up in trees. there were no police officers. there were no firefighters. it was wiped out. the first responders, the first police officers, firefighters, city managers, everything were
from florida. it was because we knew how to do it. we were trained. and we had leadership and people accepted personal response ability and they went at it and i think a lot of lives were saved because of that. you never heard about it. never heard about it. now, the end of the story because i was going to tell this , we actually didn't get-- we did not know if we were going to get reimbursed because there were no rules about this and a year and half later we got a 135 million-dollar check to reimburse us for the effort. because we ended up having like 3000 people in southern mississippi to take care of this. i just want to say, that's how government should work. occasionally you kind of have to break the china, break the rules a bit, not to do something for your own self, but break the rules on behalf the people. we need a government that is not our master, but is our servant again. i think that katrina experience
as a relates to florida is a good example of how can work. [applause]. >> my question is, if you were elected president, would you make steps to fix welfare and if so, what with those steps the? >> yeah, in fact, tomorrow i'm unveiling a welfare reform proposal. anyone that loves policy, is a little dirty, a little wonky, im. i admit it. of two jeb 2016.com. and you'll see the most comprehensive detailed plans for everything from western land policy to the veterans administration to entitlement and tomorrow we unveil our welfare reform proposal in advance of a poverty summit taking place in columbia, south carolina, saturday, that jack kim son, jimmy and paul wright and tim scott are hosting, so i'm excited about that and i
think that is one of the great challenges of our time. today, if you are born poor you are more likely to stay poor than anytime in american history and if you're in the middle, you're getting squeezed. we have lost upward social mobility. it is always defined our country, at least the mythology around america is does not matter where you start, it doesn't matter what zip code you are boarding, it's what you do that will define your success. increasingly, we are finding people stuck and part of it is the trillion dollars a year of transfer payments to try to provide for people in poverty is actually putting limits on people's possibilities rather than a floor for their aspirations and i think we need dramatic welfare reform, 2.0. one of the great social policy changes that took place was in the 1990s, when newt gingrich and the republican-led congress passed welfare or form. president clinton vetoed it twice and realized it was good politics, supported it and it
was a huge success. welfare rules declined in florida by 90% and it changed to a work-related program. here is what our proposal layout. there are three things that will lift people out of poverty, work , marriage and a high school education. at least. you do those three things, and it gives you a giant leap forward in terms of the probabilities of being lifted out of poverty. and we need to also recognize that there are a whole lot of people that are on the bubble, if you will, between the middle class and poverty as defined by the federal programs. they are doing this on their own. they are making ends meet, they are one paycheck or two paychecks away from disaster. do you think it's fair for people who are working and is struggling to get unfavorable treatment compared to people who receive benefits without the work requirement?
i think it's important to lift people out of poverty. it's the right position, but it's also a question of fairness and equity. we should not force people to say that i have to not work in order to get a better economic deal. that's wrong, so a total recasting of our transfer payments and also dealing with the massive fraud and abuse that exists in these programs. and be serious about it. the uk went through welfare reform when david cameron got elected to become prime minister and they had welfare programs far higher and bigger than ours. it was a big problem for the uk because they were on their knees basically economically and their debt levels were way too high, so he does something interesting. he did not cut welfare benefits, what he did was require everyone to go through the eligibility croft-- process again and what they found in england, in the united kingdom was that there were 20% people that were
receiving benefits that weren't deserving of it. and bringing back the proper balance where you are in eliminating private abuse and providing support for people that truly need it which is essential i think it a just society, but not putting feelings on people's aspiration has to be how we go about this going forward. of finally, just like the veterans administration, can organize them themselves out of a wet paper bag, our welfare system doesn't embrace technology as it should as well. much of these programs ought to be shifted back to the states and what we ought to do is use 21st century solutions of technology to be able to administer them. the administration costs of food stands and these other programs is in the billions of dollars. the rates are way too high. i would like to be able to do the following, which is to say it if we weren't doing it this way, how would we do it?
how many people of had that chance in life? that's one of the greatest exciting things in the world; right? to have the ability to say let's start from scratch and whatever it is we are trying to create with all-- without all of the vestiges of legacy costs and mindsets that are tied to the past. i think we should do that with our welfare system to give people the dignity of support that they deserve, but not a ceiling, simply a floor that so they can go way beyond where they are today. i am glad you asked that question because i'm excited about going saturday, to lay this out and the final thing is, education reform back to the first question, we have to revolutionize how we educate. if you think a child that reads at that grade level even if they have a high school degree, because we have schools, with states that will have such low expectations you can pass, you can graduate from high school, but you can't read at a sixth grade level. who's fooling who? that's a child will never be
able to fill out a form to get a job. and then we blame everyone else by the happens. when i was governor, we had an eighth grade level high school graduation test. and that was actually better than some states that had no graduation test requirements. i was in a lab for a kid that was taking, practicing for the last chance he had to pass. he had already graduated and somehow he made b and a's and graduated and made of the course credit passing, but he could not pass this eighth-grade level test and i'm looking over his shoulder and that question is a baseball game starts at 3:00 p.m. and is at 4:30 p.m., how long is the game. he could not answer it. that america is america-- is an america that dooms to fail. that child was deserving of teachers and parents and our society that says, we want to
have expectations up here, not down here. it's time we stopped dumbing down every thing and recognize that children are smarter than we give them credit for and hold them to hire expectations and everyone should be held to hire expectations. that was a tragedy and that should never happen in this country. if we want to lift people out of poverty, then we have to give them the skills to achieve earned success. too many kids don't. [applause]. >> yes, sir. is that a patriot act you are wearing? >> yes. >> that is such a surprise in new hampshire. >> first of all, i want to thank you for coming and second of all , my name is tom emanuel. i am leaning towards donald trump and i was just wondering, i was wondering why you think he's a jerk. [laughter] dimmick let's see how much time we have.
[laughter] >> let me say some nice things about donald trump, first-period i have this looming presence of my mother behind me. by the way, don't ask my mother what she thinks. [laughter] >> i like the fact that he is not embarrassed about his success. i think we ought to be celebrating success in life. i think it's great he is been successful, wonderful, i mean, and he's maybe exaggerates his success of it and all that, but it's good. it's an american thing to be successful and to be proud of. i like the fact, to a limit, that he is politically incorrect because we are way too uptight. there is no leeway anymore about expressing your views. there is no margin of error and everyone assumes that you are, you know, hateful or a racist or whatever it is and while he is exaggerated way over this topic that rate it, fact that he has
made a contribution to kind of loosen things up a little bit, i think that is good. here is why i called him a jerk. and i'm serious about this. and it troubled me. i spent eight years, as i said, i believe life is precious. i think life is truly a gift from god and this disabled compared to the smartest person on the world, we are all equal under god's watchful eye. it is a deeply held, and when anyone disparages people with disabilities, it sets me off. that's why i called him a jerk, because he disparaged it person who he knew had a disability and made fun of him. what kind of person would you want to have in the presidency that does that? do you want a president that disparages women? muslims of all kinds? people with disabilities,
hispanics? i mean, we are getting down to about 90% of all people here. [laughter] >> at what point do we say enough of this? lets start solving problems. you don't solve problems the way bort-- barack obama operates. he divides us up and pushes down people that don't agree with him. you are not going to do it the way donald trump doesn't either. if we are going to solve problems and rise up again, we need someone who has a completely different approach. someone who has a servant's heart. someone who does not think it's about them. someone who has a proven record and knows what he doesn't know. donald trump in the debate last week and this is important as we look at the possibility and i'm not certain because we only had news reports and you have to get this stuff verified. ..
and go back and rewind the tape about what donald trump said about the nuclear triad. is he a smart guy? would he be able to learn about this? i don't know. maybe if he takes the time to do, but he sure heck better if he's going to be president. we are living in serious times and i think we need a serious candidate and i want your vote.
[applause] >> i'm going to track you down and get you to support me. [laughter] >> you're on my list, brother. yeah. yeah. wait for the mic. i'll turn back here for just a little here. you're next. [laughter] >> i am a political science student, graduating senior? >> what school in. >> madison university. >> great. >> i'm pretty discouraged to start career in politics just because of all polarization and disagreement that we see in our government. i think it's important to have a leader that can bring the two sides together that you were speaking about. i just wanted to know a little bit more about how you're going to compromise beyond starting on
that common ground and get people towards the middle and rather than pushing people apart. >> sure, first, i hope that if you have a passion of politics, i hope that you're not discouraged by this campaign. this will change. it never does. they never stay static. i think there's going to be a sobriety that kicks in. as you get closer, you want to know who is going to sit behind the big desk and make tough decisions and has leadership skills. second, if you're interested in politics, i wouldn't go with federal government. [laughter] >> it works in florida, it works in new hampshire. why is it budgets are balanced?
budgets are passed at the state level. now they're not even passed in washington. why is it that city councils and mayos pass budgets? >> leaving it here for remarks from secretary of state john kerry live. >> not to steal any of john's thunder, if that's even possible, by taking questions, they'll be plenty of time for that believe me over the course of next few weeks and beyond that, but i wanted to share with you a couple of points that i think are important. obviously this is a moment of intense diplomatic engagement and ingest the second half of this year of the last year we achieved several very important
breakthroughs. the paris climate change agreement. 186 nations coming together for the first time, all of them, playing out plans to address climate change but most importantly with legally binding structure by which it will be measured and revisited over the course of five years and then adjusted accordingly. the transpacific partnership which represents 40% of the gdp of the planet but a very significant alliance of nations that want to do business by high standards from all of the asia pacific, the reopen of embassy
in nevada and reopen of a plan, signed onto by saudi arabia and iran and other countries and organizations for ending the syrian civil war. we also saw major gains on the greened against daesh and syria capped off by an impressive victory by iraqi forces with coalition supports in ramadi just this afternoon, earlier this morning,est cause me, i did -- excuse me, i did a video conference from embassadors from turkey and iraq and we discussed the road ahead in securing ramadi and moving forward in the rest of the campaign, for which we have a clear plan and great expectations. i should also point out that last year was also a good year for democracy in such countries
like nigeria, sri lanka, there were elections in venezuela, argentina and elsewhere, all of this is not an end onto itself. it's a means by which we move achieve our goals and to secure the values and the interests of the united states to make us more secure and offer us greater economic opportunity, and all of this sets the stage for what will surely be a challenging, extremely busy but i am convinced very promising 2016. on the joint comprehensive plan of action i talked with secretaries not only on reef but relationship between saudi arabia and iran, but the foreign
minister made it clear to me they intend to complete obligations with respect to implementation day as rapidly as possible and we are currently engaged ourselves in making certain that we're prepared to move on that day and i think it could come without being specific sooner rather than later. on the joint comprehensive plan of action, may i point out we have already seen very significant results. iran has shipped overseas most of its stockpile of enriched uranium and with that, it shipped on of iran in one shipment on a ship, a russian ship that will take those materials and eradicate them and
transform them from the potential of any bomb manufacturing. with that iran literally shipped out its capacity currently to build a nuclear weapon. we went from two months of potential breakdown time, two to three months to nine months. and in the next days we will meet our task of being more than a year of breakout time. obviously it's our task to continue to ensure that iran lives up to commitments while building on our own commitment at the same time to address the questions of iran's activities, whether it's missile activities or other activities in the region and we will continue to do that. i can assure you as well as continue to press for the return of american who is have been unjustly detained.
in syria, we remain extremely focused on the efforts to deescalate the conference and negotiations between the government and opposition are still scheduled to begin in geneva and all indications are and both my conversations of foreign minister of saudi arabia and arif. they both assureed us that differences between them at this moment expressed very publicly will not interfere with their willingness to work. the peace process remains strong. concerning asia, i have been
consulting in recent days with allies regarding the south china sea and north korea test. we discussed various options in ways we should proceed forward. we agree that had there cannot be business as usual and we agree that we will work very closely together to determine the steps that we can take in order to address our increasing concerns about that nuclear test. that test simply undercovers firm and continued commitment to regional security and global nonproliferation and we remain committed to that beginning with our dialogue next week with the
phillipines and i'll be leaving in a couple of weeks to go to begin the work on the summit that we will have and also possibly to have meetings regarding the north korean situation. so let me make it clear, the united states is today more deeply engaged in more parts of the world on more consequential issue than ever before in history, all in one time. and the reason is because our interest demand it and our friends and allies welcome it and want it. we therefore anticipate additional activities in the months to come in such places like ukraine, afghanistan, central america, colombia, cipruss, libya, south sudan and the list goes on.
believe me we are confident, i am personally confident that because the values we bring to the table of what they are and reflect those of the american people, i believe we have earned strong international support and i believe we will keep it over the course of these challenges. now, as we prepare for this year, let me make it clearer, my friends, it is vital that we undertake all of these efforts with the fullest possible strength for our country. patriotism demands it, commitment to our country demand it and interest to our country demand it. that is the prime reason why i wanted to drop by this afternoon. a quarter of a century, almost 29 years in the united states senate, i deeply respect the foreign policy prerogatives of the congress and the united states senate and as a former
chair, i am particularly sensitive to them. i also respect enormously the responsibility to advise and consent on nominations that are put forward by the president. but at the same time i think most americans would agree that in managing world affairs, the united states of america should always strive to put our most capable team on the field and it just doesn't make sense, it hurts our country to do what the senate has allowed to happen over the course of the last couple of years. and that is to leave open for sometimes more than a year vacant important positions for our nation. former vice president wrote over the break regarding of having embassadors in place in this day in moment of american history where they can do any number of
things vital to our security and advancing our economic prosperity, but right now the under secretary of state, one of the most pivotal positions of this department, the very hub of our day-to-day diplomacy with every region is vacant. we have embassador tom shanon, outstanding nominee for undersecretary, veteran foreign officer who was approved unanimously by the senate foreign relations committee and yet for months, one person has been holding up his nomination, no vote on the senate floor. anyone familiar with u.s. foreign policy knows that legal issues are connected with every single thing we do. if we are negotiating the
treaty, if we are negotiating an economic agreement, i mean, whatever it is, if somebody has a counselor problem at a country, legal opinion is critical to the policy judgment that is we are able to make. if we are going to use force in a particular nation, legal judgments are absolutely essential to our rights to be able to use that force. for almost the full three years that i have been secretary of state i have never had the benefit of the permanent legal adviser to the state department. we've had extraordinary, capable acting leadership and i'm very grateful for her extraordinary leadership over the period of time, but that's not the way it's supposed to be. we've now exhausted her amount of time that he's legally allow
today serve as a legal adviser. so we undermine our own ability as a nation to work on legal questions with other nations and with other agencies of our own government and it hampers our capacity to respond from congress, the foyers that we get, all of these are legal exercises and we need to have a full legal team on board. by not having a permanent selected senate confirmed presidentially nominated legal adviser in place we are deprived of the full wait of the legal authority and leadership necessary to do the best job on behalf of the american people. now here again we have a qualified nominee in bryan egag who was approved by the foreign relations committee and his nomination has been blocked on the senate floor. one of our most significant
bilateral leaderships is with méxico, and this is true economically, environmentally, socially on border security which you here presidential candidates chopping about, it is a relationship that thrives on mutual respect, that is why the president spoke a professional roberta jacobson, top diplomats to be embassador in méxico city, and it is disparaging to that country that we don't have the respect to send the embassador that that country needs and deserves. the nomination was approved by the committee, it has been endorsed by six previous embassadors to méxico from republican and democrat administrations alike and yet, the vote on her nomination has yet to be scheduled.
in the coming year we have a huge agenda with europe from countering daesh. we've seen what happened in belgium and paris. they're all members of our coalition against daesh. they make up part of the 65 who have joined the fight to destroy daesh and yet we have not with respect to put embassadors in place to work with the highest levels of national security in order to help organize that effort and promote america's commercial interest and ensure the security and effectiveness of congressly mandated changes in the visa waiver program. all of these are issues with direct impact on the safety and prosperity on the american people. this is not the time to have vacancies on posts and certainly not the time to have vacancy
because 99 other senators or 90 or 80 even have the opportunity to have the vote. by voting soon on these embassadorrial nominations already approved by the committee, eight already approved and nine on the committee waiting to be passed out. so in making these requests, i just want to make it clear i fully respect the senate's right to deliberate carefully, and indeed, the advise an consent process was to provide that kind of deliberation, but there is a point where the equities involved in these relationships and in our national security interests and economic interests
mandate that on behalf of the american people we should have a vote. so let somebody who opposes come to the floor and state oppositions and let senators make up their minds and pay the respect to the rest of the senate to be able to cast their votes and make up their minds. but end this notion that one united states senator or two can stop the entire process and put the united states not just? an embarrassing situation but in a negative situation that actually hurts our security, hurts our interests, sets back our ability to carry our values at the highest level and most importantly sets back our ability to organize fully our effort to defeat daesh and protect the people of the united states of america. i ask that when the men and women that we send up are
clearly qualified and supported by enough senators for confirmation, then the process should go forward at a reasonable pace. that is fair and it is the good democratic way to do business, and we face many challenge in the world today. we should not be making our own jobs harder by failing to put ourselves in the best position possible. so i appeal to the united states senate, please act without further delay on these and other nominations before you and in so doing, you will strengthen both american and the institution that you serve. thank you. >> mr. secretary, public questions about your agenda. as the confirmations are held up, do you think you have a major problem in north korea and too much time paid to iran and other challenges while north
korea was left without getting enough attention? >> let me make it clear, north korea has never been left unattended to. not for one day. we have had meetings, we have had constant consultations. on the first trip that i made to china when i raised the issue of the climate negotiation that resulted in china joining with us, i spent most of that trip and most of that time on north korea. now china had a particular approach that it wanted to make and we agreed and respected to give them space to be able to implement that, but today in my conversation with the chinese i made it very clear, that has not worked and we cannot continue business as usual. but there have been any number of trips, any number of conversations and i'm happy to have john lay out the entire tick dock, if you will, that will show you how the premise is
inaccurate, it's without foundation. >> time for china to crack down with north korea. >> john will address it. it's time for everybody that this does not continue as business as usual. thanks. >> nice effort. there's something wrong here. [laughter] >> i'm not sure what it is. it doesn't have to come down that far. [laughter] >> all right. okay. i do have just a couple of things additionally and the secretary alluded to this and i wanted to -- but i want today -- i wanted to flesh it out a little bit more. as we mentioned he met with ash carter as well as other leaders
from the state department here in the build to go discuss coordination on all the lines of effort in the counter isil campaign. this meeting was one of the series of meetings between secretary kerry and secretary carter to discuss reinforcement efforts in the campaign. today's meeting focused on next steps following continued progress in ramadi as well as efforts to cut isil supply line between mosul and roka. we are working to support the government of iraq as they continue to work and stabilize in ramadi. our efforts are much diplomatic as humanitarian. we are working working with the coalition to address the very urgent needs. also on sirra, we welcome the un
statement which you may have seen on these hard to reach communities there in syria, 400,000 people live under siege in the down that we talked about yesterday. as i said yesterday, starvation of war is indespicable. and then a program note i think you may have seen our meeting on this but this evening later on we are going to make publicly available online another 2900 pages of emails from former secretary clinton's account. with today's production we will meet the 82% mark for total number of pages of documents released which was the goal set for last week, including in today's release we expect to release about 45 documents with upgrades. in other words, upgraded class
if i can -- classification, the documents will not have fully completed data fields but searchable as they have been before and as they were last week. >> let me begin with the point that the secretary of state comes down with us is great but he's making an appeal to the senate to essentially change its rules as they exist now in terms of holds and in the broad sense and specifically making the case that the urgent developments around the world demand that they act, and i think it would have been appropriate for him to stay and take some questions to defend that position because the people who have the hold, the lawmakers who have the hold in the senate have some pretty song feelings about it.
with that in mind, i would like to ask about that, among the complaints or concerns that are involved in these holds is the fact -- the idea iran nuclear deal was not a breakthrough but a break down, prevented it from acting in response to bad behavior that is not covered by the deal. in other words ballistic missile why has the administration not acted if, in fact, the secretary is saying that you're taking on and going after iran for its bad behavior? >> there's an awful lot there. he's not asking the senate to change rules. he's -- no he's not. he said more than once that he understands their role,
appreciates their role, nobody understands it more than he himself but he wants them to act on these nominations. many of them as he pointed out have already cleared committee, so he's not asking them to change their rules or aggregate any authorities, it's about doing the right thing for the country and moving forward on nominations that have cleared committee. that's it. that's it. your question i know gets to this -- you know t press reporting last week about -- about possible sanctions related to the latest ballistic missile launch by iran. what i can tell you that process is still moving forward. i don't have an update for you. there are still technical issues that are being worked out but as we have in the past, i fully expect you'll see in the future continue to hold iran for other destabilizing activities and nothing in the iran deal precludes or prohibits our ability to do it.
nothing. it was about shutting their pathway to a bomb we will say it again today that we have other tools to deal with destabilizing activity by iran. >> right, by the criticism is you're trying to preserve the iran deal by not giving iran excuse or treating them with kids' gloves. >> simply not true. simply not true. i've seen the press reporting on this. i have seen the comments by anonymous sources and critics on the record. there are some techniccal issues that are being worked out. let me finish. because we are working through these issues we are somehow treating iran specially or with kid gloves is false, not accurate. >> on the first thing, was he not making the point that if a nominee has enough votes to be
confirmed that there shouldn't be holds allowed by individual senators or two senators? >> he's not disputing the process of hold. >> then i misunderstood who he said. >> he was making a case that there have been, you know, many of them now either not acted on or held for too long and some of them for reasons that have nothing to the with the state department and state department policies, and you know better than anybody. >> he's not arguing that the senators should be able to have a hold but saying saying that he shouldn't be able to use it? >> come on, matt, he understands the process better than me but not have holds to particular decisions and for one individual legislator to be able to hold up an entire process like that for the length of time that these have gone on, you know, that's not helpful to american foreign policy. one last one which is about the content of one line in what he
said to us in which you subsequently tweeted so you obviously fully back it. that was the line that you both said now that north korea -- >> he said it. >> north korea nuclear test only undercovers america's commitment to asian collaboration. i don't get that at all. it only undercovers north korea's willingness to violate un sanctions. i don't see how it undercovers commitment. >> it under scores for us to work with the problem. we could argue -- >> no, no. under score the fact that north
korea is willing and eager -- >> the test reinforces lots of things. it reinforces that the north is still making the wrong decision and still proving willing to destabilize not just the pen insulta -- peninsula and undercovers america's leadership in the region. you know, there's been this threat out there that we woke up to this idea, that the north was pursuing the capabilities and now there's this idea that there's going to be a fur flurry of activity. we've put additional missile defense capabilities in guam, we
added missile defense destroyers in japan. we have the navy basically at 60% in the pacific region just from a military perspective. there's been lots of deterrent efforts put in place and a spade of sanctions since 2006. and now their international committees need to come together again. >> none of the things prevented or kept -- >> did id stop them from doing this test, no, but it does reinforce and underscore the need for our efforts in the asia pacific region. >> can we stick can north korea, actually. if test is confirmed will have tested three times on president obama's watch, does that not suggest to you that your approach toward them and the un
sanctions that you have imposed with our partners previously just hasn't worked? >> clearly the regime hasn't been deterred from doing these tests. there's no question about that. i mean, the sixth of january show that had they still have the capability and the willingness to do that. as for the motivation, you have to talk to them. they have choices to make. they keep making these bad decisions. it doesn't mean that international pressure on the north is going to or should change in its character. there's lots of different approach that is you can take to a problem like this. i think we all recognize that open conflict on the peninsula
is not a place you want to go. so we are going to keep adding, keep increasing pressure. i think also if you take a look at the sanctions regime in the past, we had a question questions about enforcement. we haven't seen any major problems of enforcement but i think we all agree that in some cases the sanctions could have been tougher. but there wasn't consensus at the security council level for that. now we have another opportunity and maybe this recent test can give us an opportunity to kind of get a little bit of what we are asking, maybe now is the time to put in place a tougher sanction's regime with stronger enforcement meths -- methods and change the structure.
>> your emphasis has been on un sanctions, why not impose u.s. secondary sanctions that would prevent other countries from trading from north korea? >> well, i'm not going to rule that out. i'm not going to rule anything out. the united states in many cases unilateral sanctions. >> are you considering those now? >> i think you can safely assume that u.s. decision makers are considering a wide range of potential options here and i won't speculate. >> last one for me on this. we are quoting south korean military that south korea has asked the united states to deploy strategic weapons on the peninsula. it's not perfectly clear what it's meant by that phrase so i'm going to ask a specific question, is the u.s. government giving any consideration to the
restoration of tactical nuclear weapons to south korea following this latest nuclear test? >> i wouldn't privy to know the answer to that question and even if i did, i don't know that that's the kind of thing that we would discus. let me start by saying i'm not aware of that request by the south koreans, if it's true that would be brought in military channels. i'm not aware of any such discussions, i'm not aware of the request. i would point out that we have nearly 30,000 troops stationed at the peninsula. we have a very ready presence and it's about being ready, and of course, other assets in the asia pacific region elsewhere
that wow could draw upon if needed. we always have to be ready for that. but what we really want to do here and as the secretary hit this when he was up here is get increased international consensus and uninimity in strength behind measures to put more pressure on them to start to make right decisions. >> can i pick up on that? do you think there's a pressure point that finally is going to get the north koreans to say, yeah, the sanctions -- they are sanctions up to the hill between un security council and u.s. bilateral sanctions and the kind of larger affects of that. you don't have a lot of room to go, what happens when you put all the sanctions that you can on north korea and you still
find that three generations of north korean leaders have not done anything and it doesn't seem like the sanctions are really making a big difference. >> well, they're making a difference and having an effect but are they having an effect so far in changing the decision making. i think if you look at the test on the sixth of january in one i could understand, well, no. but let's see where it comes out. that's why we asked for this emergency meeting yesterday at the un and that's why we continue to call on the un, the security council in particular to take this up and come up with more robust tougher measures. >> that would suggest that you think that there's a pressure
point, a particular level of sanctions or certain amount of sanctions or a particular kind of sanctions that are actually going to stop north korea from, you know, from this behavior and curve nuclear missions. is there anything to -- what is there to suggest that any particular amount of kind of sanctions is going to make a difference? a lot of people at this point are now suggesting that a new type of policy is needed because sanctions are clearly not working. it's certainly not going to do anything to the existing program that they already have which is already a great threat. >> it would be irresponsible not to take a look at the potential for additional sanctions. >> or additional policy, perhaps? >> additional measures are going to be considered and sanctions are certainly one measure. i won't get ahead of decisions that haven't been made but it would be irresponsible not to
consider going forward. >> would it be irresponsible not to consider other than sanctions when sanctions have not worked? >> it's not that we have turned a blind eye. even on the military front alone there has been a much stronger emphasis on having in place options to deter, and if not deter to defend if need to. >> what about -- >> sanctions are one option and it is an option that we want the un to take another look at and they said they would look at other measures. i don't want to predict how it might come out. we need to take the process continue. it would be irresponsible not to. to your question, what gives you an expectation that you're going to be able to find a breakthrough? we have to try it. >> it sounds like -- i mean, i understand about military options to defend and deter, but really isn't your role to
dismantle ultimately -- dismantle the program and have a nuclear free korean peninsula? >> the goal is to make sure that north korea doesn't have that capability and it's verifiable and reversible. but we want to do as we said before through the venue of the six-party talks and we have said that we are prepare today return to that form but the north to prove that it's being to be able to do so. >> i have one more on nomination s. we already got away from that topic. if you have so many important key positions that have not been voted upon and you respect the right of the -- congress for the
prerogatives why -- >> that's a question that you have to ask the president. i won't get in the conversation. >> a brief one on north korea. it remains the goal of the administration that korea should be a nuclear-free peninsula? >> yes. >> the idea to remove nuclear from a being nuke-free. it seems to me that your goal and the whole world's goal -- >> what they meant by strategic. i'm not -- [inaudible] >> i'm not going to get into a
debate about something that will and won't be introduced. >> the south koreans in response to this test are going to start broadcasting propaganda back over the dmz which in the past the north is the equivalent of act of war. do you think that the south koreans, this is the a wise decision by the south koreans to resume broadcast or would you advise them not to? >> i won't talk about whatever private discussions we may be having with south korean leaders. suffice it to say, i'm not going to talk about any specific action that is the south may be taking in response to the north's most recent nuclear test. it is clear that north korea's action constitute another violation of commitment under international law including several un security council resolutions and remains on the north, as i said at the outset
of my answer we remain in close community case with south korean leaders on our response and the international response to north korea's action. >> does that mean that you do not regard -- >> i'm not going to comment of action that is the south might take. >> so they can do whatever and you're not going to comment? they can do whatever they want and you don't have anything to say? >> that's not what i said. what i said i'm not going to comment on any specific actions that they have taken or any private conversations can korean leaders. >> why not? can you explain why it is? >> we need to put that front and center on the reckless and prove
-- provocative behavior. >> this is not intending to suggest that you're excusing the north korea's behavior. something in the past has lead -- has been a provocation. >> as i said, we are in communication with the south korean leaders. we are going to continue to be in communication with them about the appropriate responses of the sanctions. >> wait. but you said you're in communication with them, what about coordination with them? i mean, shouldn't it be kind of way forward that you the south koreans and the japan and japanese in particular as this kind of trilateral group of allies move forward? >> i'm simply saying we are in
constant communication with south korea's leaders about appropriate responses moving forward. lucas. >> can you clarify, when we spoke to counterparty, we can't return to business as usual, was he talking about north korea or south china sea? >> i don't want to parse anymore than what he put it. i think what he was referring clearly, though, was that this is a moment now that the international community needs to take very seriously and through the un to approach the response to north korean -- north korea's
provacotive behavior. there's been resolution where the security wasn't in agreement and maybe those sanctions could have been stronger, and it's not about finger pointing now or blaming, it's about -- it's about seeing this for what it is, this test as it underscores the need for a response. >> is this an example of red lines being ignored. you have china sending commercial airlineer to the south china sea, you mentioned about iran, technical issues are still being worked out but a number of congressmen and media outlets reported the november test. that was over a month ago. why can't the state department confirm iran test and are red lines being ignored? >> i'm simply not going to be
able to get into more detail about what the potential response would be to iran's continued, you know, ballistic missile program other than to say that we are mindful of it and we are going to continue -- we have tools at our disposal, lateral and multilaterally and continue to explore those tools, and as i've said, you've seen us response in a sanction -- through a sanctions regime through ballistic missile activity in the past and you'll see response in the future. >> just going back to why can't the state department acknowledge that iran did conduct a test. are you saying that lawmakers are wrong, iran news conducted a test in late november, why can't you acknowledge that iran conducted any illegal ballistic missile test? >> i'm not going to get into intelligence matters here, but
what i can tell you we are mindful of the program and we are going hold them accountable. the sanctions pulled back is not accurate representation. there are response tools at our disposal. we will continue to use them. we are technical issues that we are working through and when we are at a point when we can talk about that more openly, i will, we will. >> is it not the case, i know we and multiple news organizations have reported and have seen the documents that the treasury department notified certain members of congress on december 30th that they intended to impose ballistic-missile related sanctions, is that not a fact? >> i would point you to the department. >> is it also not a fact that the treasury department then later that same day and lots of news organizations have reported
this and i believe obtained the documents, then e-mailed the lawmakers' offices to say, no, we are not going to do this. something got pulled off if you notified the other -- two of the other branches of government and then you notified that no, we are not going to do it. i think pullback is not an unreasonable phrase. >> i'm talking for the state department and i'm telling you that we have in the past and we will in the future continue to hold iran accountable for ballistic missile program that we know they continue to pursue and when we are at a stage where we can talk about exactly what that accountability is going to look like, we will lay it out for you. >> a pullback is a perfectly reasonable phrase. >> that's not -- it's great to always be defended. i'm sure that that's helpful. but what i'm telling you is that
may be accurate telling based on sources you may be talking to and other departments. i'm telling you from the state department's perspective we don't find that to be accurate characterization of what happened. >> seven lawmakers wrote the president and are you saying that the lawmakers are wrong to say that a ballistic missile was wrong in december? >> i'm not saying it was wrong, i'm not going to talk about intelligence matters in the podium. >> i want to speak about what the treasury's communication with the lawmakers might have been. did the treasury department tell the department to hold off on sanctions? >> there are conversations all of the time about how we are going to hold iran accountable. i'm not going to detail conversations.
>> that accusation has been made or claim, i just want to give you the opportunity again if it's not true, deny it, tell us that it's not true and save yourself -- >> save myself, yes. >> save the building the criticism that you're bending to iranian will to try -- on ballistic missiles to try to save the nuclear deal. >> we will continue to use those tools as we have in the past and when we are at a stage when we can talk about it, we will talk about it. go ahead. >> back to iran. >> let's go to you. >> you can put as many sanctions as possible on north korea but so long you don't close the corridor from china, i'm saying from a few years visit from
europe to north korea, so long they are not closed, they are getting everything that the rulers want from china. you can put as many sanctions, what are you doing to stop china feeding them, cutting across all the sanctions, the sanctions are of no -- they laugh at the sanctions, north korea. >> china is a member of the council. it's an expectation that every member is going to abide by it and enforce it. i'm sure there have been some ripples and things that could have been done better. we look now in the wake of this most recent test u this is an opportunity for the international community including china, this is an opportunity now to -- to ratch
up the pressure on the north. they have an influence as you rightly point out in your question. they certainly have a relationship and an influence in pyyonyang that in many cases cannot be duplicateed on any nation on earth. but we are going to have to see where it goes. >> is there any kind of monitoring that international, other partners have on trade that goes on between that corridor? >> all that kind of stuff is -- that is the stuff that is considered, factored into a discussion about a sanctions regime and putting real weight under a security council resolution. i mean, that's in many cases
what sanctions are, it's a restriction of trade, it's a restriction of resources, and again, i'm not going to get ahead of what the un, security council may or may not do here. embassador spoke yesterday to the possibility for tougher sanctions. it is a measure and it may not be the only measure that the international community explores but we need to let the process works out as well. >> i have one on india, should we do now or later? >> you're on a row. >> they have identified as the chief mastermind of the air base attacks and also for -- of the handlers, so are you saying anything to islam about -- are you reach to go pakistan? >> of course, we are talking to
pakistan. >> yes, you talked to them. if you remember the joint statement, he promised that he's going to go back -- and that was two months the attacks take place. he promised to take action against terror groups. has he taken action? >> a couple of points. the government of pakistan has condemned the attack. they are committed to investigating. so let's let them do that and let's see where the investigation goes. we would obviously like to see it investigated it too as completely and thoroughly as possible so we can understand what happened. the government of pakistan has said they are not going to discriminate as part of terrorism operations, and this is a country that knows well the threat of terrorism. we've talked about this.
soldiers that have been killed, innocent civilians have been killed by terrorists and continue to be. it's a regional challenge that requires real regional solution and we want pakistan to be a part of those solutions. >> so will you -- is it safe to say that from now on we should have a line up or a list, we are asking to investigate, now this we are asking -- but nothing is happening. six americans were killed and as the president has said, anybody anywhere kills an american we are going to not leave them alone and what's going on? what do you say to that? >> i don't think anybody can look at our ct our counterterrorism record over the last decade or so and say we are not doing anything. i mean, there's been a lot of effort across the u.s. to get at the terrorism threat.
not just from a military or intelligence perspective, and as for countries in the region, yeah, could they do more, sure, which is why we continue to encourage bilateral, multilateral efforts in the region. the relationship with pakistan is complicated. i get that. we don't always agree on everything. i can't speak for how long it might take them to complete an investigation or the degree to which they intend to be transparent about it after they completed it. all i can tell you, as for the attackers, i will say again today, we obviously want to see all the perpetrators brought to justice. we know that it can take a long time. it took an awful long time to bring osama bin laden to justice. we -- we look forward to seeing the result of that investigation
i'm not any position to -- wickedly as the government of pakistan itself condemned this attack. they said they will investigate it, not discriminate between terrorist groups when the conduct counterterrorism operations. you know, the have been very open about that and we look forward to seeing the results of their investigation and we continue to not only encourage a sense of aggressiveness in ct operations by pakistan by other regional powers, but we have expressed and we will continue to express our willingness to support those operations as required or as deemed fit by those nations. [inaudible] what is your independent assessment of who was behind this attack? >> i don't have an independent assessment of who was behind this attack. we don't have an independent assessment. it just happened two days ago,
it's being investigated by the pakistanis. they have condemned it. we have condemned it. let's let their investigation move forward and we will see where it goes. >> do you have confidence in the pakistanis to conduct an investigation? this is the same pakistan that condemned 9/11 and yet bin laden was the living right next door to a pakistani military facility. academy. still a facility, right? army, they said they had no idea, whatever. do you think they are capable? >> we certainly look forward to and expect and want to see a thorough, complete, fair and transparent investigative process. and whether that, we will have to let it go through. [inaudible] >> it's not -- it's not for us to describe a time onto someone else's investigation but obviously in all investigation wanted to be thorough and you wanted to be complete. and clearly we all liked them to be done as quick as possible and
made transparently discussed come when it is complete. but as for the government of pakistan to sort out how long this investigation is going to take. it's more important to us as it is in her own investigated issues here in the united states that it be a good, solid, thoughtful and comprehensive investigation. not that be done by certain timeline. we are very cognizant of that when we conduct investigation. we would rather get a right than get it fast and we will defer to pakistani authorities to determine their own timelines and their own deadlines and established which they want to hold themselves with respect to this investigation. >> i have been in contact with the pakistanis after the stack and what led -- [inaudible] >> we have been in touch with pakistani authorities since the attack but we are in touch with pakistani authorities everyday as you might expect at all
different levels. i'm not going to detail specifics of diplomatic discussions with had with pakistani authorities. >> this conversation with former minister zarif this morning him as he always does raise the case of detained americans. is there reason to believe that there's going to be any movement on that anytime soon? >> i don't have any specific development to reach out to you, matt. it is a consequence of the i think the secretary alluded to in his opening statement. >> but he didn't do it did come up in the call specifically. >> it always does. there's not a single conversation he has what he doesn't raise this issue. i don't have any more detailed readout of what the secretary gave himself, but he said to himself h you raised this issue. he always does. >> do you have any reason to believe the iranians claim that the saudis or people operate with the saudis over yemen
conducted an airstrike on the iranian embassy? >> we've seen reports of airstrike. i've also seen reports that there was no real visible damage to the facility. we are not in positio a positiot now to know for sure exactly what happened. but as we have said -- [inaudible] >> i've seen reports of the strike. i've seen reports both in the press and elsewhere that there was no visible damage to a dozen in the wasn't in giunta saying preliminary reports that there was no visible damage. but more critically we want to make sure that the tensions between saudi arabia and iran come down. we want to see that progress continue to be made toward other pressing issues in the region. and as the secretary said to give himself come he got assurances from leaders in both countries that progress would not be derailed.
>> do you know if this alleged strike came up with zarif? >> i don't know. >> should it turn out to be a false claim, i mean come is about, will you call the iranians out for crying bowl? >> let's see where it goes rather than hypothetical. [inaudible] >> can i finish up on yemen? sorry. in addition to the alleged strike on the iranian embassy, human rights watch today is in saudi arabia -- into civilian areas in yemen, us-made cluster bombs and basic human rights watch says there may be some u.s. liability in this, but you should conduct your own investigation, not just rely on the saudi one to find it at the war crimes was committed. >> we are going through a matter of an additional comment on a. the loss of any civilian life is tragic, and nobody talks more
about our passion do not see innocent civilians killed, injured or otherwise affected more than the united states. as we have said many times would continue to urge all sides in the conflict, including the saudi led coalition, to take proactive measures to minimize -- minimize harm to civilians. we've previously discussed reports of alleged use of cluster munitions with the coalition, underscoring that such weapon should abuse in locations where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians. we've also been forced to members of the coalition of the need to avoid as i said civilian casualties at the importance of precise targeting. continue to urge all such debates in assistance to mitigate and avoid harms to civilian and comply with her obligations under international humanitarian law. >> any comment on the human rights watch claimed that you're legally complicated in this if that turns out to be the case?
>> as i said earlier we've encouraged the saudi led coalition to investigate for himself speak but you should -- >> -- alleged harm to civilians or collateral damage. we have urged that saudi led coalition to do that. >> whether you will investigate speed i don't know that such investigation by the united states into a potential use of this particular weapon by the saudi led coalition. >> can ask about the joint comprehensive plan of action speak with you have spent the secretary was talking to them they would implement between the end of the month. do you have any doubt that it might not be implemented or it can come unraveled? all of this tension and reports suggest that saudi arabia is basically deliberately provoked this crisis to scuttle the deal?
any doubt what she said both in conversation with zarif and others they committed themselves to the prospect that is saudi arabia committed also to the jcp held, plan of action? >> i can't, i don't think i can say it any better or clearer than the secretary just did a few minutes ago, that he is an expectation that we will get to implementation day, that it will be sooner rather than later, and casey certified to congress and as we've said publicly, both we the united states, i cannot speak for us, i can't speak for any other nation involved, we are marching towards meeting our commitments for implementation and we've seen clear evidence that the iranians are doing the same thing. >> to all -- notwithstanding come you are going ahead no matter what with implementing at least your part with your partners? >> absolutely, yes.
>> can i follow-up on the india question again speak with you want to try it another way? >> no. a different question. >> different question, sure. >> answer just by saying no. spirit. >> no. just kidding go ahead. [inaudible] >> i have no idea what the motivation for the attack would be. i guess i could have just said no. >> to clarify something when the sector spoke to his chinese counterpart did he mention the chinese landing airliners on these contested islands? did that come up in conversation? >> i think i read out a call that he made yesterday with the vietnamese counterpart. what, without getting into the details of these discussions which i am loathe to do, i can tell you broadly speaking that
tensions in the south china sea were certainly a topic of discussion. [inaudible] >> i really got to go. this is got to be the last one. [inaudible] the regime agreed to allow humanity to do some of -- >> we see no movement by the regime to do that. what we welcomed was the u.n. statement which expresses the need for the regime to allow the axiaccess which was to continueo believe is absolutely vital. thanks. [inaudible] >> the rollout, such a mess, the release produce thousands of e-mails coming out tonight. is this transparency, the order is not correct? >> lucas, i would absolutely take issue with your characterization that it's a mess. is a court ordered schedule every month through the end of this month for us to release a certain percentage to get to the entirety of the 55,000 pages -- hang on the second.
i didn't get a chance to enter. 55,000 pages of documents come and we are working away methodically through the. now, we've been pretty successful up until this month. we went able to in a variety of reasons as you say very honestly the holiday schedule didn't help much. we were not able to get last week to the total but in just a few short days we've been able now to catch up to the 82% that we are responsible for. we are meeting the courts pashtun we didn't meet technically this deadline but we have in the past and will continue to do that the best we can moving forward. >> do you believe that retroactively classifying information is legit? does the intelligence committee signed off on the logic? >> you can talk to them but it's a legitimate? sure. i've been government service now for more than 30 years and it's not unusual that in for the review of a document, for whatever purpose whether a foia release or investigation or just a review of policy when you look at document, to change the
classification overtime? it can be done. >> forty or 50 years after events happen documents come out from the archives and their declassified. they are not -- >> over 40 or 50 years that this happened but we are talking about documents now that are fairly recent, and as come and as i said before, again, almost all of these upgrades are the confidentiaconfidential level wu know is the very lowest level and it's mostly to comply with freedom of information act, the law itself, to comply with provisions in the law. not because they're some sort of malicious or intent to obscure information. >> your inspector general is saying no, they did not release these e-mails. >> we absolutely welcomed inspector general's report. secretary kerry for it actually. as you look at the report you will see of the four major recommendations that they made,
they considered and resolved because we are already working to government those steps. we frankly agree with the findings of the ig. we are grateful for the good work that they did in putting the report together and we're moving out smartly now to implement all those recommendations. we know we can do better. that's what secretary kerry as the ig to do this the first place. make processes continually better, okay? thank everybody. >> later house speaker paul ryan is going to sign health care law repealed of the house passed yesterday. the measure also defund planned parenthood for one year. once speaker sides and what's called an enrollment simmered the bill goes to president obama who is expected to veto that bill. live coverage coming up at 4:30 p.m. eastern. >> a couple of live road to the white house begins coming up both featuring republican presidential hopefuls campaigning in new hampshire.
carly fiorina will be in manchester sort at 6:30 p.m. eastern. this debacle called for -- -- this network will cover the event. next tuesday january 12 president obama delivers his final state of union address to a joint session of congress. live coverage is on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. 75 years ago president franklin d. roosevelt outlined what he called the four freedoms in his january 6th 1941 state of the union address. this clip of a paramount newsreel courtesy of the fdr presidential library and museum includes that portion of the speech. the film is preceded by a short interview with paul sparrow, correct of the fdr library. >> this year marks the 75th anniversary of president
franklin d. roosevelt's four freedoms speech, the core part of a state of union on january 6, 1941. we are joined by the director of the fdr presidential library and museum paul sparrow. what was the four freedoms speech? >> guest: it was really an opportunity for him to try to explain what america should get about the war that was racing in europe, and the war that was raising in the east. in asia. it was a way for them to sort of look at the future and say what we're going to be fighting for? the four freedoms, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear, he thought these were the things that defined the difference between democracy and the dictatorships that were at that point running rampant throughout the world. the american public at the point was still fairly isolationist dictated want to get involved in the european war. they were still angry about the fact they had not been repaid for the loan from world war i.
so he was time to help them understand that it was a global world, a global village at the things or happening overseas directly affect them input into their building to enjoy these freedoms were so vital to american democracy. >> host: it's called the four freedoms speech, part of a genuine sixth state of the union speech. was the reaction by congress and the rest of the american public to that speech? >> guest: there was a little bit of a delayed reaction. at first there were some critics is sort of pan to the speech. it is only the last two and half minutes of a speech that ran over 30 minutes long in the first part of the speech is a fairly traditional, back then called the annual address to congress but it was a fairly traditional state of the address, here's what i didn't and here's what's going on in the world. those four freedoms will begin momentum over time in making a really central rallying cry.
norman rockwell created the four paintings sell years later which went on to raise $180 million in war bonds, travel the world. they became very famous. degenerate a park on roosevelt island in new york. there's the awards given every year international awards. it created the foundation for what the world can't think of as the essential freedoms and, of course, that motivated eleanor roosevelt when she was attracting universal declaration of human rights for the united nations in many ways formed the foundation of that seminal document in the post war world's post to your website mentions that fdr went through some seven drafts of this. how do you think, what was his inspiration for these four freedoms? where did he find that? >> guest: i think the core inspiration was the first minute. i think he understood the power of the first amendment that the first amendment, in addition to speech and religion, it has assembly and petition at the
things that were a little hard for people to understand, any content for society. he wanted to draw from the strength of the first amendment this idea that the government cannot interfere with these core freedoms. but he wanted to expand that so that the idea was that you had this freedom from want that people shouldn't starve to death, that the government has some responsibility to take care of the people. and freedom from fear in the sense that government should not be able to just invade neighboring countries, and petition the sense of sovereignty and that people should have to live in a safe and secure. this was the underpinnings of his own philosophy about peace, global peace felt so strongly about creating the united nations, but only when you had a consortium of countries working together to to prevent the kind of horror they had experienced in world war i, and that was the unfolding in asia and europe. >> host: flashforwards and five years to 2016. how do you think that concept fits into today's world and
today's political climate here in the u.s.? >> guest: quite extraordinary. almost everything the roosevelts bought for 75 years ago is relevant today. it's on the front pages of the newspapers athletes are television shows how this idea of religions intolerance, this idea of the freedom of speech and expression as underpinning all of the issues we have accounting governments still trying to repress the rights of the people to speak. china and resilient they changed the laws to make it harder for bloggers and people to comment online. is freedom from want is critical. we see a very dramatic increase in the quality of life across the world. there are few people living in abject poverty today than any point in recorded human history. so that has been progress made but i think you think about freedom from fear, americans right now are being inundated with these messages of fear, these messages that we are in danger. in fact, it's a safer world now than it has ever been but there
are these terrorist organizations out there that are inflicting terror and the we media operates today relatively small events take on global significance. if you think about, in 1941, more than 1 million people were killed by the nazis. the level of physical violence, the love of death and destruction happening in so much greater than we are experts in today and get the in today and effective activate these extreme ai. i think the idea of creating a world in which people are free from fear and would eliminate things like the syrian refugee crisis. crisis. if people felt like he people felt like he gets to indulge and will be protected regardless of the religion they would have an opportunity to earn a living protect their families then you would not be seeing the greatest refugee crisis since the end of world war ii. >> host: paul sparrow is director of the franklin d. roosevelt presidential library and museum. thanks for being with us. >> guest: thank you so much
for having me prospect of nexters look at that four freedoms speech, part of the 1941 january 61941 state of the union address. >> the first is freedom of speech as an expression of your in the world. the second is freedom of every person to worship god in his own way. everywhere in the world. the third is freedom from want which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants, everywhere in the world.
the fourth is freedom from fear, which translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor, anywhere in the world. [applause] >> this nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women. and its faith in freedom under the guidance of god. freedom means the supremacy of
human rights everywhere. our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. our strength is our unity of purpose. to that high concept there can be no end save victory. [applause] >> coming up next representative jason chaffetz chairman of the house oversight committee talks about the password for this committee committee and the legislative agenda for 2016, the republican was at the brookings institution this morning.
>> well, good morning, everyone and welcome to brookings and thank you for joining us today. i'm honored. of congressman jason chaffetz from the state of utah with us today to discuss government oversight. he is the chairman of house accountability oversight committee and is going to talk today about various things that committee discusses, covers, analyzes and tries to keep the government accountable to the taxpayer and citizens doing its job as well as possible. i'm michael o'hanlon, what are the things we would therefore undoubtedly talk about given my background images is certainly homeland security and tsa which is what of the many parts of the government that the congressman specializes in in studying, but we look forward very much to 20 or 20 bits of conversation up
your among ourselves two questions because clearly we can arrange very widely given his expertise and his background. i would like to think that he's also the guy that -- brigham young quarterback always wanted to be. people busty young was going to run for public office some day. this is a byu football alum who did run for public office and his engravings for the country. congressman come welcome to brookings. glad to have you. >> i always wanted to be steve young. [laughter] i was a place kicker, not really a football player. attached the company throw a flag. steve young is the real deal. >> well, i think a lot of us like to be steve young but a lot of us are very grateful for what you are doing to its remarkable portfolio. it's got to be a dog when. you are covering all of government anyway sandwiches begin if you could explain for the general viewer on c-span,
for the audience what the house oversight and government reform committee does. >> again, thank you for having a wonderful institution. it's an honor to be. oversight of government reform was founded roughly in 1816. the idea was every expenditure by the executive branch would have some degree of oversight. that expand over the course of time to 17 different committees have been contracted back and forth. when abraham lincoln came to the united states congress, he served on this committee. there's a great story about how he was referred to as spotty lincoln cases challenging administration and challenging the president about the mexican-american war started, and it's very inspirational to me. >> nevertheless it had various different names but in the assets we can investigate anything at any time. there are certain parts of intelligence, signals intelligence, human intelligence
that certainly the exclusive purview of the intel committee and anything else we can get our hands and our paws on an everyday are going to try narrow the scope because is always somewhere doing something stupid somewhere. >> before we get into specifics, how do you think about narrowing the scope? one of the things you've done about with his tsa. maybe that's an example because jurisdiction for homeland security activity has traditionally been held a bit mixed up and defused it is not the sort of case we look and see if maybe you can put the credits rolled, or you just to keep an eye as to what is a big issue that other committees are not looking at? how do you choose a topic? >> we have some degree of authorization that we authorize washington d -- washington, d.c. issues, for instance. user types of things we have the postal service. we have jurisdiction on.
but 90% of what we do our investigations. actually it's the second largest committee and the house of representatives in terms of staff and budget for staff to do these investigations. and so it's a rather large operation but the government is a large. we are overwhelmed. we are broken into six different subcommittees. what's new this year is we have an it subcommittee. that is information technology. the federal government will spend roughly $80 billion a year on it, and it doesn't work. since barack obama took office it usually the mark i did because it's the same time i was elected, the federal government has spent in excess of $525 billion on it. and i can tell you, i can go to almost every department and agency, it doesn't work. it creates great massive vulnerability. specifically to the tsa, it's a
very visible part of what the public comes in contact with the federal government. i have very deep concerns about homeland security overall because it was supposed to, post 9/11, come together, bring these there is agencies together and that better coordination. but what we've seen is this rapid decrease in morale. look at what's happening in the secret service. one of the more notable things we did in the last year is a very deep investigation into the secret service. they have not had any oversight and i think they suffered because of it and as relates to the tsa, we've had a lot of security get off at the airport. those whole body imaging machines, the aips as to what to call them, the puffers, you know, the single best way to identifies an explosive device is a dog. ..
airports. >> host: this is interesting. if we stay within a minute it sounds like if you forgive me for using this term you are a bit of a radical on the fed. sounds like most of the debate is to use these full body standards, do we increase training, do we need that kind of machine and use a the logic of the technology oriented psa is incorrect and wants to think more as you say low technology, discard some of the machines and compliment them, when you talk to the people in france. and behavioral profiling is something that has to happen. k-9s have the ability when you enter the parking lot to when you are on the plane to the
mobile, look what amtrak is doing hah, investing in dogs. and we go to the white house, it doesn't work. we don't see them on capitol hill. the head of the capitol hill police wanted to use these machines because it doesn't work. and all these other places, iraq, did they deploy and there. and behavioral profiling, they go through a metal detector. you want to see an entertaining instagram account? one of the best in the federal government. it is unbelievable what they -- more than 40 of them were loaded 18 of them had a bullish in the chain. that was one week.
that is the good old metal detector, scanning the bags, but this idea of pat downs, taking the shot doesn't work. s and the inspector general came in and looked at this, almost 100% of the time. >> host: one more question that is so important, we all care about this and look at your diligent oversight, what is the next step? your committee, u r not authorized for appropriating funds for a new approach so much as shining a spotlight on how things are going today, to build a coalition with the chairman with relevant committees that authorize and appropriate funding if you take it to the next step or from your vantage point the attention to the
subject can spur that on. wikipedia sunlight is the best disinfectant is what we were able to do. i call the triangulation to achieve the government reform, part of the title. oversight and government reform. in this case we had 450 airports, roughly 2 million air travelers going through the system each day. you have tens of thousands of gsa agents most of which are good hard-working decent patriotic people but we have got to work with the authorizing committee and the appropriations committee and that triangulation is what we are trying to achieve to institute the reform but so much of what we are able to accomplish is highlighting and working with the inspector general community. 72 or 74 inspectors general represent 13,000 people. we rely very heavily on the due
diligence and look at an issue for a year and able to have a hearing and i like that and bring in witnesses and administration and ask some questions and explain what they did to get in trouble and what they will do to get out of trouble. >> guest: >> host: how well does the committee work and bipartisan cooperation? the subject having worked on capitol hill myself, the country sees congress largely polarized but i wonder if this is an issue that is more legislative versus executive and how you would describe your ability to elaborate with democrats. >> guest: there's a tendency to protect whoever is in the white house, whatever party. is a fundamental mistake to not holds accountable. fear the critical during the bush administration republicans didn't hold the administration accountable as much as they should. they should have performed
hard-hitting investigations but it does come down to personality. i am fortunate that i get to interact with elijah cummings who again along with a wonderful way. we of the 200 joint letters and usually when you get a letter from the oversight committee is not at a boy, it is more aggressive than that. we have done 200 joint letters so far. we will disagree on stuff but we have a mutual understanding, we will disagree, be passionate, we won't be disagreeable with each other, i went to baltimore and took a tour and elisha came out to utah and i took him out to parts of the world he had never seen before so i was fortunate to work with elijah cummings, a good decent man and we are working together in a lot of good bipartisan stuff. >> host: the question on the tee
s a --tsa most of the employes are hard-working and dedicated, sometimes they are the butt of jokes because we ask them to do things that are impossible and put it on them when it doesn't work. in the short term we have these big debates about technology and you shine a spotlight, what can we do about this morales issue? how do we make sure the tsa does not erode further as far as the quality of people? >> one thing we're looking at is the rise in morales at a place like the fbi and the decrease of morale in homeland security i believe there are 320 different
agencies in a survey. secret service was 319 but at 320, another homeland security agency, they have a deep-seated cultural problem with homeland security, worse than any other. not just more pay because other agencies are not necessarily getting more pay but job satisfaction, management, treating people equally. one thing we found on secret service, there are parallels to the "after the betsa, managemend to the same standard and that is demoralizing. that epa is another area we are looking at as one of vote worst morale that there is. a lot of sexual misconduct at the epa. a lot of people viewing bourne's
sites by the thousands, still allowed to stay at work. that is demoralizing, people have to go in to work with. i don't have an easy solution but management has to come up with a way to make those jobs more satisfying and it is difficult, people don't like to be patted down or take off their coats and shoes and it is a tough job. >> host: a quick question on the secret service and ask you about an upcoming freedom of information act issue you have coming up and then turn things over to the audience but on the secret service, a beleaguered in recent years with different issues, where are we in the repair of that agency? >> it scares me. i don't think they are there yet. we should of 450 page bipartisan report, we offered more than 2 dozen recommendations along the
way. they got to turn that shipped around. training is a huge part of it. you know what the average training time for secret service, take the agency officers, averaged about, what is that average time a secret service agent spends in training over the course of a year? in 25 minutes, 25 minutes, you go into a major metropolitan police department, they are going to spend 10% of their time training and yet you find secret service agent officers, i am very supportive of spending more money to help them in training. how do you protect the white house? you had that guy who jumped the fence, not exactly carl lewis but those running across and gets into the white house. the secret service can't why to the american people. he blue right past the person,
got in, left, right, got tackled out there by the east room, they were not candid about it. that was demoralizing for a lot of people. there were officers who had never ever been in the white house. you have never been inside those doors? i can get a pass and go in on a tour and you haven't done that? people out there didn't have radios that day. when a person jumps a fence and says what did you hear in the year piece? we didn't have enough, they were not working. how do you train on the white house? when the president goes out of town, they spray paint on the grass what the white house looked like and the audience is smiling and laughing, that is will we have been doing. and they say i have to have one
of these things. this is going to be an elite force. that is where i grew up, secret service, fbi, so biggest thing with the secret service is staffing levels have gone down. the independent panels recommend they go up and going into a presidential year 2016 i really do worry about this, working on legislation that was authorized that allowed the secret sarah's to pull other departments and agencies to step up. when the pope came that was the way to do it but the only way they executed on that was they got people from the fbi, the tsa end need to have some permanent or at least temporary for the next year assignments that happen and make sure they're staff, presidential election travel increases, multiple
candidates, hard thing to do. >> host: the only agency, the waiters for trading house of cards, congress is a little better. coming up with the freedom of information issue, and what you are able. >> guest: very deeply, the freedom of liberation act is the with the public can go in and access information. and to introduce the freedom of information act request, it is not working. what you heard from the administration, not trying to pick on just the obama administration, to want to protect, there's a natural
inclination, that is embarrassing. that is not the way the government works. the united states of america, different from anybody else, we are self critical and open up our books. the people's business, and there is access to that information and there are certain things, personnel files, classified material, i get that but what we are doing is darrell issa and elijah cummings have legislation that will come to the fore sooner rather than later that narrows some of these exceptions and then we have a report that will shine a lot of sunshine on how broken the system is. the state department in my view is probably the worst at it. we have got to figure out a way to make this thing work. some agencies, pretty good. but most of them, 40% of the
requests, homeland security, and they are backlogged, it is unbelievable how backlogged they are. and a low issue report on that. >> host: my last question at this point, one last big picture question, now that you have been in congress seven years, in the chairmanship for a year what is your overall, you are looking for profits like you said, usually not getting christmas cards, when you are taking stock of the big picture, the way our country works, how will it is governed, how well federal government delivers leaving aside the big policy debates that obviously will always be there and should be what is your impression as to how well government works for the american people? >> a lot of good patriotic people work for the federal government. i worry about the management of the government, the scope of the government. i am a very conservative person.
we have to do more with less. some agencies need to be close off. look at what is happening with the veterans affairs, what is happening with others. there are other places we need to spend money. our military is behind in its infrastructure. so much of what the federal government is doing they shouldn't even be doing. back to my conservative routes but a lot of this should be given to the states to do. a lot of it the government should not be doing in the first place. new regulations are added but very rarely do we have anything eliminated. that is what i would like to see us do. trim the fat, get to the underbrush, clear it out and remember the core function of the federal government, allow that to happen. but right now we have too many people doing too many things, the run up in the number of employees. i don't believe government is
the solution to everything. people can make these decisions themselves and the states can do a lot not as unfunded mandates but a lot of these responsibilities should be state responsibilities. >> host: a lot of things i want to ask but let's bring in others. starting with the gentleman in the back, if you could wait for a microphone, identify yourself and a question, we would appreciate it. back row. microphone is working. >> good morning. my name is todd wiggins, i have two related questions.
and airport security relevant to everyone here. the situation referred to as the underwear bomber, how is that averted? and who is benefiting, getting the decision on that, and selling this technology and how should we look at best practices around the world when things are working more efficiently with respect to security at airports and secondly i wanted to ask if you had an opportunity to speak with either the secretary of the navy or the chief of naval operations because there's a lot going on in the pacific and i am sure you have some insight on that especially talk about east
china and the south china sea. >> as relates to overseas operations, tsa probably the biggest threat quite frankly, the international flights. and how we secure those airports and work with people in paris where we have so many of these flights. you can rank these airports pretty quickly. the thing i feel good about the underbelly is an impressive operation. i spent seven hours at jfk and looking at how they walked me through how they do the security under the plain of checked luggage and that is exceptionally well done. both internationally and domestically. there have been some other threats and things of voided. fortunately were rooted out. some everyone's in a while get
by. the underwear bomber, they learned a lot about the process and how to do that. we had the threat with shoes, things they have learned that we cannot necessarily talk about on c-span. have made great progress and our international partners are exceptionally good. but they have to be on their toes at every single moment but if you go overseas and go to tel aviv or what not you are going to get an interview. you are going to be looking to see how much you are sweating or how nervous u r and they will have u walking by, that is the right way to go. as relates to the south china sea, i just got back not too long ago from my second trip, spent more time, a while ago
visiting pacific command which is operated out of honolulu obviously. i spent time in vietnam and indonesia and others understanding the majority, majority of our naval forces are actually out there in that region and there is the reason why. we each year what is happening in the middle east, the volatility. we have to be able to fight on two fronts. as i look at the overall concern about the depletion of naval forces, the reduction of physical infrastructure we have at the airports, my concern is our ability to fight on two fronts at one time, we hear about problems in north korea at the same time we have an going on in iran and we have a limited number of carrier groups, ships and intelligence that are strained and personnel not getting an of flight time in our airports, then you have a recipe
that can be disastrous and i believe in peace through strength and i believe the united states of america has got to be working particularly with the south china sea, our friends in the philippines, in vietnam, in that area, the chinese making these pretend new facilities, new islands, new land, building military capability, that is not acceptable. the country needs to pay attention this congress needs to pay much more attention than that. not more attention to those types of things long term as what is happening in the middle east. >> thank you for coming, mr. chairman, and thank you for all you are doing. let me come back to the question
of managing the federal government. i am talking about the things the federal government has to do, not things they might do less of, but suppose a new president said to u i have got to manage these things better. what would you, come helped me do that, what would be your priorities to improve the management of the federal government? >> i want to give them more flexibility. right now more than half of all federal workers get a bonus. that doesn't make sense to the american people. some people get a bonus for an exceptionally good job. i want to pay for performance that people are getting things done i want to reward them. we should not sit in perpetuity forever with safety and comfort blanket that says you will never get rid of me and i will get my automatic pay raise, that creates a malaise that i think is unacceptable. we have to understand the core mission, the military, veterans
have to be taken care of first and foremost, they protect us. they are out on the frontlines and we are not doing really and of good work for them but a lot of these department said agencies i would challenge them to say are you telling me we are just there is no reason we can't fight 5% of what they doing. you do that in business. is a reasonable goal to figure out how to trim that fast. there are other areas i get concerned about, for instance i t is my biggest concern, spending a ridiculous amount of money. if you do to best buy you could get a better result. we are spending 70% of that $80 billion roughly one legacy systems. some have punched cards. you have agencies that just got windows 97. they don't even service that at microsoft any more. you have people looking at green
screens, das operating system. training people to go back and learn cobol which was introduced in the 60s. is demoralizing, takes more resources, technology is supposed to make life easier, faster, swifter and it ends up being more cumbersome. s management i want to give those secretaries the flexibility to root out the bad apples, get rid of those people that are doing awful terrible things, we have heard from the epa, dea homeland security. they can't fire anybody. they have got to be able to fire the bad apples and take care of those who do great work. in the front. >> thank you for coming. my name is sarah thompson, a
consultant at the world bank, i have a question. there is a government agency that has the congressional in mandated oversight committee regarding sexual assault issues. this government agency also has been investigated three times in the last two decades and all of these reports reveals several recommendations that have yet to be realized. finally they investigated this agency and this agency has actually said that you can have access to our records, you can't get into our information. and had to enter into mou it to get access. office is the federal government agency and the peace corps. and it is like punching a puppy when you are critical of very good international organizations
to a certain extent. and federal agencies. how can this happen? how can we be more critical of agencies that are blatantly acting illegally by ignoring requests for information and how can you flag this so they can be officially investigated? >> no little bit of background, we did a hearing that included the peace corps and i met with the director of the peace corps, and the latest budget actually have more people serving around the world, we get more bang for our buck out of the peace corps, and any other foreign aids that go out there. and i could go on and explain that but in this particular case my concern and again very critical of the obama administration here, there was an office of legal counsel opinion that lingered for a long time at the department of justice that basically they came
that's not good enough excuse. i'm highly critical of the administration and not allowing that information. when you get to the freedom of information act requirement, that's not going anywhere. and so that's a dangerous thing. this is how we operate in the united states. we are open, transparent. we are self-critical. we look at these things in the effort to improve. that peace corps situation, the opinion, believe me it was the very first thing we had was about the ig stability to access information to i don't care what administration is. they have to have unfettered access to all those departments and records and personnel. we are going to help change the loss of someone just retires, that doesn't excuse to get right now under the law it does. that's got to change.
that's got to change. >> could you please provide an update on investigation into the irs targeting scandal under efforts to remove mr. kostin and? >> yes. the question about the irs your we did something that really isn't an open and that is i file papers to impeach the irs commissioner. you had commissioner koskinen what if it is your responsibility to comply with a duly issued subpoena. week issued a subpoena looking for the lowest -- lois lerner e-mail. the short of it is they had these e-mails in their possession. they had a duly issued subpoena and they destroyed them. somebody's got to be held accountable for that. somebody's got, what would happen to you if the irs came to you and said, sir, you need to
provide these documents to them and you said yes, we have been. we promise we have been. and then you came back and said we had them we shredded them. they are not destroyed. i can't get into you. what do you think there is would be do? of said article is no. the irs would take you to court and you would go to jail. the department of justice has said they would not prosecute. they are not going to go after people. there are really two, in essence congress has th the power of the purse and the power to impeach. last time we impeached a civil officer was in the 1800s. i recognized it hasn't been done very often but it's darn will time the united states congress stand up for itself. and not be afraid and bashful. that everything is at the level of nixon. but congress in this particular case i think mr. koskinen is not to me was brought in to try to clean this place up but that is not what happened. that is not what happened. they knew they had these
documents. they had been sitting there in a position to the ig winning in look and they make the determination that after two subpoenas in place, one in august of 2013, another in february of 2014 these documents were destroyed in march of 2014. somebody is going to be held accountable for the. he had the responsibility for it and i think he should be impeached. >> by the way it's now at house judiciary committee. myself and six other members of the oversight committee are also on the judiciary committee. it is moving forward. i realized there hasn't been in news on it last week but you would be surprised how much is going on. mr. koskinen, he better lawyer up because it's going to get ugly. >> i was wondering what do you think of the most concerning problems if any with atf and elect a president recent action was your increased scrutiny on the atf? >> look, the president may
disagree with his approach. the latest announcement that he made. he needs to work with congress. i think the congress, the president is getting to the finish line and recognizing that he didn't make any progress on some of his core things he believes and i believe his sincerity. but the way to get things done is working with congress and he didn't get it over the last seven years. he's throwing out things now that i never heard him suggested to me. they wanted to change the hipaa laws now. that may be something we did look at but through executive order? that's just not the way you do it. atf, a lot of good men and women. we initially focus on the dea. if you recall that it is very severe problems. we had hearing and she pretty much immediately step down after our hearing at the dea. atf has its own set of problems and challenges that has not been
tier one, top of the spectrum for us to go in and investigate. we been much more about secret service and tsa and dea, epa is right up there. they don't seem to go away. they can solve those problems. i can't tell you that that's like an imminent that we are doing that. they have some of the same challenges within atf at the department of justice as others. i what do you want a quick example. sexual assaults, sexual harassment in the workplace is defined differently throughout government. and that's one of the things we're taking a deeper look at is how do you get a uniform definition of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment in the workplace? the the within department of justice it was pretty embarrassing. one of the last things that attorney general holder sent out to all the employees, remember this, was a memo saying engaging
in prostitution is not a good thing. you can't do it. even if legal any country you can't engage with prostitutes. that's embarrassing, right? and so that was found, different standards, different penalties and something that's very concerning to us. >> before going back to the audience i want to follow up on issue on gun regulation. because it seems like it comes pretty close to potentially to your committee's jurisdiction, the sense that often where the debate rather than have new regulation we should enforce laws already on the books. that gets to the question of oversight. donald trump as well as the others have been making this argument. i realize you may not want to let out your full agenda if you have one in your head until then safety broadly defined, but on the specific element of how well we should be enforcing laws on the books, what's your overall
take what is this perhaps the most logical dimension for those were concerned about firearms been in the wrong hands? is this right way to tackle the problem speaks i've got a multitude of thoughts. the intersection in dealing with mental health is something should be addressed in a bipartisan way. tim murphy, republicans out of pennsylvania, has revealed he is trying to do that. very deep concerns. what was the president and what was the administration, one of the first things they did on the confront was what we called fast and furious. they knowingly willingly gave nearly 1000 weapons mostly ak-47s to the drug cartel to see where they would pop up. we are still in a lawsuit with the administration trying to get access to that information. they claim executive privilege. they don't want us for the public to see what the operation was all about but that's what the obama administration before she was doing on guns. let's be honest and candid about that. we still are pursuing that they need to know how that gets
ferreted after trey gaudi, my colleague has made a very good void and i think the laws on the books are not being enforced. was a pun on talk about this today, but we have been quietly doing investigation on tsa. when you go to the airport and you do have a loaded gun, do you get prosecuted? the overwhelming majority of the time is no. no. okay, these are irresponsible gun owners. that seems like something that is right for prosecution. a lot of that prosecution happens at the local apple, specifically to atf as it relates to fast and furious. i hope they have tried to learn this but straw purchasing is already illegal. and so the president puts out this statement about guns and whatnot. don't enforce that. go enforce that. we are trying to get the department of justice to tell us
how many times have you actually prosecuted straw purchasing? is not a sexy going. there's not a prosecutor wants to go and try to make a case to a judge. it's a very small penalty. but they don't do it. instead, they wan went to othere onerous type of things put on the books. enforceable laws that are currently there. if you were here illegally, if you here legally on a visa you're not to be able to buy again. have to populate the database with all of those information? we had our driver's license in states that people are here illegally. if they have all those people on the do not buy list? i don't think so. they are not merely to are not merely doing are not merely to end up with laws are already currently on the books, and i think there's a lot more that they can do to make sure that guns don't into people's hands. but they've also got to prosecute these laws, when these laws are broken.
i don't think they do nearly to the greater should. >> want of a thing or what to bring gets the microphone. this one really gets -- this goes back to homeland security. we have a large population of people that are here illegally. that everybody here is just better t benefit them and provie for the kids, okay? they had come this administration had 66,000 people that were here illegally, committed a crime, got convicted, convicted of a crime, and they released them out into the public. they did not deport them. you want to go look at public safety? t. want to look at gun violence? i think that's the population. how do you release 66,000 known criminals illegal back into the comedic and at the same time say
what we need is another law on the books to make more difficult for law-abiding citizen to purchase. that's not the way you're going to solve it. criminals don't give a darn about having some new regulation out there. when you have known criminals, this is a criminal element, i still think the public understands, i don't understand how the secretary pomata could says this is in the best interest of the united states to put these people back out on the streets. that's just unacceptable. >> i want to ask a follow-up question related to work we did when i was at u.s. census commission to the question of what followed is a few questions ago, and i'll paraphrase about whether we need to consider some management changes in government. we look at ethics and compliance programs that the sentencing commission at the justice barbecue to root out wrongdoing ethic violations great independent anonymous reporting and auditing so folks can know whether the situation have been
taken seriously. almost no agencies, almost no programs have goals, objectives and milestones what they need to accomplish. are no mechanisms in place to evaluate whether folks are achieving it. the igs and gao are doing a great job are frankly there is a groundhog day aspect of gao reports. i use the example of cybersecurity. when you look at the opm a breach and to look at the 10 years that preceded that and you look at the great work that's happening headed by the white house and omb coming out of it, there was a long-standing problems and that the approach multiple administration said was going to be done to show that we take cybersecurity cicely never happen. there's no accountability and there's no consequences. >> that's right. how is it that more than half of employers get bonuses? this is what we find. we had people that engaged in sexual misconduct and yet were
they punished? was there a consequence of? no. they get bonuses. they get promotions and bonuses. what does that say to the workforce? what does that say like spinach the consequences from the secretary on down so they feel the heat that could people get rewarded and the bad apples are weeded out, pushed out the door. as you relate to the opium data breach, one of the largest data breaches we've ever had, twentysomething million people whose information is out there and has been stolen, the inspector general, i think was seven years running had come up and highlighted this. at one point they said unplug it. unplugged. it's so vulnerable. and we had the same thing happening right now the department of education. that to me, the store that has not been witnessed by what's happening in the department of education. because if you apply for a student loan, you are sending this information not only about yourself but about mom, dad, and
all the investment, albeit account numbers, all the assets that you have. they have how many of these records? almost half of america's records are sitting at the department of education. they administer more than $1 trillion in assets. they are bigger than citibank. bigger than citibank. and they have 140 some odd i think 140 different databases out there. most of which are contracted. and i actually asked the cio from the department of education, do you need more money? indicating a good answer. he said no. i need better people and i need it. it's a management problem because they've got all these contractors and it's not safe and secure. i think ultimately that's going to be the largest data breach we've ever seen in history of our nation. it's vital information, critical information. the ig is on top of it. we are on top of it by the administration, they are asleep and it scares me.
>> i'm with the league of women voters. you've been talking about how much security government employees come efficiency in such. i've spoken with quite a few government employees who work in it and they are very frustrated. they are also come well, they feel that they can't get the work done because they feel they don't have the authorization from congress about with homeland security. so they feel that, they are kind of stuck in so they hear you're not doing a good job, you can do this, you can do that. and get they feel they are prevented from doing it. and you mentioned going to the secret service and speaking with them.
and working with them on ground there can be done that going to dhs, going to the education department and talk to the it people there? because having a congressional hearing about it and just speak into the ig or whomever, that's not going to work in this case. you windy to go to the people who are in the trenches, find out what's going on and ask them, figure out what can be done to be more efficient, what works, what doesn't. so what are you doing about that? >> if any federal employee in any aspect of the government has a question or concern or a comment, we love to hear. we get about 60-70 a day that come in and say hey, we think we have a problem. we have professional staff to kind of weed through that. in those specific cases, homeland security and in the department of education, we have worked with their cios. that everything is a
congressional hearing. sometimes its request for documentation. sometimes it's an entity. sometimes our sample actually go down and visit with the. let's also be listed. you have 2.2 million federal employees, and bridges over 60 employees. democrats have just over 30 employees. we've got about 100 bodies, and so we can't necessarily go in to the great depths that i would like to go. we do rely on the inspector general. what becomes a flashing red light to me, again, where 13,000 inspector general's. remember horowitz has 500 people most of which are attorneys that are diving deep into those issues. when we have a hearing and bring up an inspector general as we did at the department of education and she says i've been looking at this thing, and we've been looking at this for years, we did a penetration test, we did make recommendations. what becomes a flashing red light is when they'r they are do
work sometime for a year or a queue at a time and make a recommendation and the administration says no, we are not going to do that. been we've got a conflict we are trying to be, tried to mediate and trying to get some resolution to. but we see the stat state depart just flat out saying we don't care what you say, we don't care, we are not doing it. in the case of what happened at the office of personnel management seven years running, they highlighted this as a major, major problem. a management issue here, the hard part is making the transition. when you spend 70% of the time on the legacy system, that slows you down to its really hard to make the transition. nobody wants to shut down, nobody wants to turn off the machines and fire up the new ones. but boy, and i have no these a solution for that. they are going to figure out department by department, agency by agency but the safety, security, vulnerability, how demoralizing it is to go look at
a green screen all day and try to work on the dos operating system. that's got to be hard hit especially when you know go get an apple computer or windows servers or something like that would be much more efficient. but if they have specific suggestions, fire away. call us, contact us. >> we've got about five minutes to go. thank you for all the questions and answers because we can do a lot. >> thank you. nick farmer. many things you talked about quite frankly been going on for decades with no impasse. do you see any way you can generate a nonpartisan outrage on part of the voters to force the government to really begin to take some action on some of these issues? >> i think you're right. we have on the floor today we were debating yesterday, an imminent vote that for both of what's called the scrub act.
the scrub act is intended to look at jason smith introduced it out of missouri, a great piece of legislation that says let's create a bipartisan, bipartisan group that allow them to go look into these regulations and weed out basically take out the underbrush of these old regulations that have no meaning anymore that maybe make things so cumbersome. there are regulations and several agencies have been told the required you fact in certain materials. that's forcing them to spend money, time and resources on technology that's really not used anymore. but that's the regulations so it has to be fact, those types of things to the regulation of highlighted last night about the width of green beans that the fda had put out in early 20th century but it's still on the books. so you get people who are concerned if i make my green
beans a little bit bigger, is that really going to cause a problem, or if i make it thinner? so you spend time in the economy, the private sector. that's what this is intended to do. democrats are fighting us on this. they think it's terrible. they don't want to get rid of any regulations. i think it's fair in a bipartisan way to go out and look at this and cut out the underbrush and do so with the commission to get away from the political nature of what would happen or not happen in congress. we don't have the bandwidth to try to micromanage this. every single step of the way. i think the new jobs we have for this nation is the it side of the equation. that's a whole new dynamic. >> question here along the ais aisle. >> hi. my name is meredith and i'm with mcdermott law firm for unity, at the beginning talking about how dogs don't have lobbies when you're talking about the
security system speed are you a dog or the lobbyists of? >> how security systems don't work. some scholars have suggested that it's not the corporations fault but it's more of a politician's fault in terms of driving and what a certain system will get implemented and it doesn't work at the -- that's at the taxpayers calls. what are some of your thoughts on these ideas that there's extortion that goes on behind the scenes that we don't see? >> i don't know that there's outright extortion but boy, if you know what, i would love to expose a. look, i say that with a smile on my face but we are serious about this. i don't see. i've been fighting the tsa on this since day one when i got into congress, and i continue to try to beat the drum and educate people and highlight this. you've got to ask yourself what is this just the tsa airport
uses these machines? it was such great technology and it worked so well, what is in use everywhere else? because it doesn't work. and get some we went in there and sold them, i'm very critical of mr. chertoff who come after left, worked as one of the salesmen there, and ms. daschle who joined him in a bipartisan way and sold to the american people a bunch of crap. and they made hundreds of millions of dollars and i don't think in of stories were written about it. i think if more sunlight, more stories, you enough people trying to sell such terrible technology. but they claim it's better, but the ig came in. they did a whole bunch of tests. i can't tell you how many. every single time to try to get something through those machines, they got it through.
>> one last question and then we have to wrap up. third row. right here in the third row. we will take both the questions together. >> fire away. fire away. >> there's a new session of congress coming up. you talk a lot about dhs to what are you going to be doing to hold their doin doing to hold tr feet to the fire in terms of legislation, hearings, defending? what else on a broader scope with your committee be doing in the next year? >> part of it -- go ahead, sor sorry. >> real quick. i'm one of those contractors in software engineering you are talking about. i had the opportunity to attend a second congressional hackathon. i asked this question of congressman mccarthy. i said when we find issues of fraud, waste, and abuse on our data service, which may go in congress to address those issues? he said take it to him directly. i followed up and is policy
director is going to host a disclosure session for myself. i understand that that's the type of session that perhaps someone from your committee office would like to attend. how exactly or who exactly is the person that i would reach out to our have a policy director reach out to do a can't? >> thank you. thanks for doing that. gop oversight is the twitter handle. you can find us on a variety of different things. go find our website from there. and once you get the please send us the information. it is involved in every department and agency. there's nobody that doesn't have an it department, right? we did something as an oversight committee because we have overreaching. we don't want to deal with all these different silos. we created a subcommittee on it. the caucus but from texas is one of spearheads that. troy stock is the staff director.
somehow will get that information to troy stock but would love to have that information. as it relates to homeland security, some things need to be plucked up. put more money into the secret service to do with france's building a model white house for doing those types of things. but a lot of what needs to happen there, the our have the authorization. congress last appropriated more money to the secret service than the president asked for. but to have a huge hiring problem. i can't get in there and solve for the. they can't solve it overnight. the problem is they are bleeding more people that are able to higher up. but didn' then when the highligd mark meadows did a good job of finding out you had some people have not completed their security clearance process and they were put on the front lines your you can't put a secret service agent or officer at work when they haven't completed their security clearance. that's what they've been doing,
and so it's a constant battle with homeland security. money is not going to solve all of these issues. good management will comment right now i think homeland as much as anybody is suffering. >> please join in thanking chairman chaffetz for being here today. [applause] >> i have a hearing at 10 so i've got to bolt out of there. thanks for hearing me out. i really appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
>> later this afternoon house speaker paul ryan is going to sign for health care law repeal the gulf coast yesterday. the measure also defunds planned parenthood for one year. wants the speaker sides and what's called an enrollment ceremony they do go see president obama who is expected to veto that bill. live coverage coming up at 4:30 p.m. eastern. >> leading up to that enrollment ceremony here's a portion of today's "washington journal" and discussion of yesterday's house vote to repeal portions of the presence health care law. program, host: e a republican representative from south carolina. good morning. how did you vote? voted to repeal, the 40th time i've done it in the house. because of the senate, it will
actually get to the president's desk. host: 62 is the number i hear. what is the significance? make the case that this vote is different. guest: this is the one that counts because we told people -- i have elected in 2010. we told people the first thing we would do is get a vote to repeal obama care and we d that. we did that. i think h.r. two in 2011, first vote we had was to repeal obamacare. but because of the democrat-controlled innocent for the first four years i was there and then because the sentiment slowly last year the senate never took up a repeal bill. it was only when where to put in a to reconciliation allowed us to get by the threshold innocent that the senate was to take up the repeal vote. this is the one that counts. this is the one that will go to his desk post that even who most likely -- >> guest: we don' told people tt people accept the. they know with barack obama in
the white house with them is present will always go to obamacare. he will never not veto a repeal bill. but they wanted to know the republicans would stand up to sort of presenting a set of star trek go back into thousand nine-2010 when we were discussing obama to as a nation. there wasn't that much debate. it was this general debate about what we should about health care but not much debate about the specific bill. go back to nancy pelosi's comment. we have to pass it on over to know with any. how do you debate something that doesn't exist? i hope now we send to the presence best people stand up and said i am be doing it and here's want and they can have that national debate we didn't have. >> host: once again republicans cannot contain their content for women's access. once again were republished of wasting time on a bill that will never become law as republican so but their 62nd vote on dismantling the affordable care
act. guest that i expect that -- was that he read? host but the spokesperson. >> guest: that's what we expected. is there a question? i fully expect that from the democrats innocent but the point of the matter is we've never had a debate in that statement the look of that statement. there's no defense of the merits of obamacare. there's a response, the difficulties before facing. i'm on obamacare. i can't get service but i can't get health care. because no one takes the coverage. there's no response to that. that's what we want. we want the president, and said here's what obamacare is accredited so we can say no, here's what we think it's not and here's why we think we can do it better. that debate needs to take place to the president mrs. that. might be as the will avoid that. what you saw last week about guns come next week but who knows what, he will attend not have that debate uzbek our guest
county vote ask questions -- you can tweak thoughts to us an e-mail us if you like. of you brought up earlier this morning that why wasn't this fight made last year when he came to putting in an attaching to the actual budget? was that a better situation? >> guest: i'm not that big fan but the senate refused to do that. i think if you done that, then the threshold changes. await were able to get this to the president's desk was by using this arcane rule called budget reconciliation. the very narrow area of law that does not need 60 votes in the senate. budget reconciliation is one. if it'd been attached to extended don't like the omnibus the threshold was a lot of 50, it would be 60 and to start 60 republicans in the senate or 60
democrats innocent they would vote to repeal obamacare. >> host: another caller this morning, what about the alternative? if you don't repeal, what is the alternative? >> guest: guilty as charged. one of the biggest, put paul right aside, john boehner and eric cantor, running the place, we had been promised since 2012 i think as the republican conference announcement offer our own set of ideas but they are there. going to website and find the. the republican study committee had a comprehensive obamacare replacement bill online for four years i think. for some reason previous leadership was afraid to bring it up. i'm glad that leadership is going to i'm glad new leadership is a place. i'm hopeful we will have the nerve, the political backbone to stand up and say that only can we not like obamacare but here's our ideas. that is incumbent upon us. if we don't do that we will have failed the country and our party. i do think you'll see something
come out of it. >> host: what are some of those alternate ideas traffic the examples i give people are sort of to look at the insurance system that work. life-insurance works. auto insurance works. the different types of interest of homeowners insurance work. how is that for this competition for it. you have ads on tv showing different auto companies selling debentures. you don't see that for health care. most of the time your employer takes it for you. you don't buy. you may contribute to it but it's not like the other insurance in that you pay for it. it your car companies your window gets broken on your car you sit down and you do a calculation. it will cost me this repair that window or i can make a claim against the insurance. i didn't like injured michael up in future. we don't do that with health care. we walked in, the doctor says you need an mri. we don't care what it calls. it's really think we by that
someone else pays for. it's a completely broken system. you could look at examples that work, cost of home owners insurance has come down. the cost of life-insurance has come down. field entrance that's kind of this health insurance. if you look at the list of things you could improve, and our models elsewhere and other insurance areas. talking about selling across state lines, i can't remember the website but if you do an internet search for republican study committee held care you can get right to it. >> mick mulvaney joining us. first call from florida. hollywood, florida. democrat's line. good morning. go ahead. >> caller: are you there? let's try another call. chicago, illinois, republican line. >> caller: hi. i question is since i have to phrase it as a question, why do republicans but democrats say that the republicans are trying
to limit women's access to health care? when actually they are trying to limit their access to murdering babies? >> guest: the short answer is we can't dictate what they say. gave a speech to your questions why do we let them say it. we have to let them say. the better question is why don't respond quirks we do try. we tried to make the case during the planned parenthood debate last year that were simply trying to live last you the money from planned parenthood to the federally qualified health center this which provide more services to more women in more places. they better serve the lower end of the economic spectrum in this country. we tried to have that argument but if immediate will not drop out when the to talk about one of these the pages into an account and it's hard to drive that message out. we agree that we tried to make the case because is not about women's health care. we tried to make it very clear that we're sending money, not
simply taking it away from planned parenthood. we're moving into other places where it could better serve women's health. that got lost in the wash post back from missouri, democrats like to good morning. >> caller: good morning. yesterday we had another republican on from the south and he was talking about gun control. this is just desperate i'm not going to talk about that, but what he said was that the republican congress could pass some gun control laws if the president would just work with them. well, did the president can work with you on repeating this health care law? or did you just decide you did it without the president help? every time we have a discussion about health care on c-span, which have been dozens and dozens of them, the only thing ever discussed is the cost of
health care insurance. why don't we ever discuss the cost of what health care actually does and how these megacorporations running all the hospitals, running all these medical groups, are just flat overcharging everybody for everything they do? i recently went to a hospital three times, three different days, did not stay overnight. was there just for testing. and my co-pay after medicare was $8000 your this was just for testing. so how in the hell can these medical groups and doctors groups and hospitals get by with this overcharging? it's not the insurance companies. it's that medical groups, the hospitals and the doctors. >> host: thank you for your
comment to you about our guest respond. >> guest: back to the original point about the president working with us to the president has never worked with us on anything. i still don't know who my white house liaison as. i was reading a book about the founding of the nation. a very first thing pressure washington did after he was working was right a letter to congress, written by the way by john adams wa was in congress at the time and congress asked him to then write the response. so we wrote a letter to sell. a wonderful piece of history. the president sort of worked with congress when it works properly. this president has never worked with congress. i don't think he knows how to do that. he knows how to organize and campaign. i'm not sure he knows how to work in the building down the hall. leapt to her own devices we would much rather do with health care than with rain in the second amendment which is what he wants to do. to your point in more seriousness, are the things house could do? the house passed an amendment
two years ago to increase federal funding for the background check system that we discovered at the time it was difficulty between the states. the states were not communicating with each other. if you are adjudicated as being mentally dangerous in north carolina, north carolina i know of a specific example but it applies generally, if not sharing information with south carolina. you could drive down across the state line or move to south carolina, go in and bought a gun and you would not turn up the background check system. that was broken i voted for that and many, many republicans did. it died and i hope that's my chemical it died in the democratic controlled senate. if the present i've got an old maid with a fixed that piece of the puzzle. but when you're more dangerous and politicking than making law, those types of things don't get done. to the other point about i for the record before about megacorporations. let me just respond to john. just because his bill is a
thousand dollars doesn't mean he was overcharged. i have no idea what services were performed i have no idea the complexity. $8000 may be a great deal for the love of health care that he got. my fear is that most people just want it to be free. that's the code were here. they think they're entitled to health as a matter of law. that by virtue of being your they are entitled to certain level of health care. i think that's a dangerous position for us today. every time we say we are entitled we are directed is the flip side of that equation. the flipside been some else is obligated to give it to me. one of the big things to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a dozen or anybody else to do anything other than leave you alone. acid is used to i'm entitled to health care, someone else are obligated to pay for it for me and i'm not willing to go there. >> host: next call is patty from connecticut, independent life. go ahead. >> caller: thank you. please don't cut me off.
i just want to say that a columnist, and republican columnist and andrew mccarthy always sai did the republicans o this all the time. they take the time doing appeal, right up to the limit so they can say we tried. they gave us to away. paul ryan gave the store away. he's going to be worse than john boehner, the chimp boy. necktie to placate the republicans. mitch mcconnell, john boehner, paul ryan is losing the republican party. that's why donald trump is making headway. now, i'm just sick and tired of it. this health care think it's a ploy. it's doing nothing, just everything else you do, nothing. i was a republican. no longer. thank -- >> host: a couple things. >> guest: i agree with her more than she realizes. of donald trump phenomenon israel.
i've seen in south carolina, leading in south carolina. i've been in probably five states. i'm supporting rand paul for president as a go at i get that sense of what trump is doing so well, it's a real. -- >> washington to live every day on c-span at 7 a.m. eastern. we leave is recorded portion to take a to the capital live for house speaker paul ryan house speaker paul ryan house speaker paul ryan. is old and a for the health care law repeal would also defund planned parenthood. with this action the bill will go to the president for his consideration. is expected to veto the measure. we're still waiting for the speaker to arrive at a number of other house republicans are in the rayburn room. this is live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> as you can see a number of house republicans including leader kevin mccarthy have filed and waiting now for house speaker paul ryan holding an enrollment ceremony for the reconciliation bill passed in the senate and the house that effectively repealed the health care law, also defund planned parenthood for a year. with today's after the bill will go to the president for his consideration. he is expected to veto the measure. again waiting for speaker ryan to arrive. we are live from capitol hill on
>> their use. -- there he is. [applause] >> thanks for coming. this is an incredibly important day. since the very first moment that the american people understood the nature of obamacare, a majority of call for different direction. including hundreds of thousands of individuals who came to washington to petition their government. today we carry out our active positive responsibility of representation. and send a bill to repeal this corrosive law to the president's desk. it will be vividly clear to all who stand with the american people and actively representing their interests, and he was getting in the way of real solutions. however, this is just the next step in a process that will continue to enact commonsense patience in reform where
patients and families and doctors are making medical decisions and not washington, d.c. none of this could've happened without the productive and cooperative effort of our leadership, the committee chairs involved, all members of our conference and our colleagues in the senate. we look forward to working together as we move in a better direction, all under the determined and focused leadership of our speaker paul ryan. we are all committed to meet the challenge of formulating a bold, positive legislative agenda on the up of our great country. speaker ryan, we are honored to be with you today. [applause] >> thank you, tom. thank you. welcome it has been a long time in getting here, but he we are. i want to thank all of our members but i want to thank chairman tom price for his leadership. [applause] >> there has been nothing short been tireless in their work. this is the closest we've come to repeal of obamacare.
and now we are sending that repeal to the president's desk. we have now shown that with a republican president that is a clear path to repealing obamacare without 60 votes in the united states senate. [applause] we are confronting the president with the hard, honest truth. obamacare does not work. it has to go. higher premiums, fewer choices, restricted access. these are not signs of success. these are signs of failure. and the american people, the american people deserve better so we are asking the president to reverse course. don't give washington bureaucrats more control over our health care. put patients in control. put them back in charge. if there's one story that is
being told here today, it is this. the idea that obamacare is the law of the land for a long time is a myth. we see this law either collapsed under its own weight, or we will see this law in the next session of congress as we are proving are today be repealed and signed and replaced by a republican president. [applause] we are also asking the president to stop sending the hard-working taxpayer dollars of all of our constituents to planned parenthood. send that money to health centers. they can be better used affair. we are asking the president to choose life, to value life, to protect life.
6:30 p.m. eastern time when republican presidential candidate carly fiorina hold a council meeting in meredith, new hampshire. that's coming up live here on c-span2. at the more we will be live in exeter, new hampshire with republican presidential candidate, ohio governor john kasich. that gets underway at 515 peace turn on c-span. -- 5:15 p.m. >> town hall meetings, speeches, rallies and meet and greets. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook and my phone. and always every campaign event we covered is available on our website, c-span.org. >> the democratic presidential candidates are all on the campaign trail this week and not just in iowa and new hampshire. hillary clinton, senator bernie sanders and martin o'malley visit -- visited las vegas last evening for the first
west caucus dinner. mrs. clinton spoke first to the attendees. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> thank you. what a great night. hello, nevada. [cheers and applause] it is so exciting to be here with you. battle board, battleground dinner. this is the beginning of a great movement for word to make sure we have a huge turnout for the caucus. and then they go on and win
for the democrats again. [cheers and applause] i want to thank, i want to thank roberto lange, everyone who has worked so hard to build our party from the bottom up all over the state. and what an amazing dinner. roberta and i were standing up year after senator reid introduced us, and she just looked out at all of you with excitement and energy that you are projecting. ..
>> i am grateful, i am grateful to all the volunteers, the precinct captains, the labor organizers, the state legislators, all of you here tonight. you are the heart and soul of this campaign. now, i love you all too. thank you. [cheering] most of all, i i want to salute and thank my friend, our leader in the senate, the pride of
searchlight, harry reid. [cheers and applause] harry deserves the thanks not only from his home state by from our nation for his decades of service. no matter how high harry climbed, he never forgot where he started from. or who he is fighting for. i have seen first-hand how committed harry reid is to helping working families across nevada and across america. and to build the democratic party here and everywhere. you have a slate of impressive candidates. my friend, congresswoman dina titus, is doing such a great job for you.
[cheers and applause] i am, i am so proud to have her support and she just introduced me to a group and she referenced an elvis presley song, and i think as i recall, dina, it was something like, born standing and ready to fight. well that's what dina does every single day. and i, i want to really put my support behind your next senator, catherine cortez masto. [applause] catherine is so well prepared, focused what she can do for you in the senate. i hope everybody takes her as
your high priority going forward. we need her in the united states senate. all the democrats running this year, they need your support and i will offer my support as well. right now i am not only running for president but raising millions of dollars for our state parties to help you build the infrastructure you need to win because i know we are all in this together! [cheering] and the next president is going to need strong partners to get the job done, so we have to elect democrats up and down the ticket, because we have seen, haven't we, what happens when republicans win. [booing] just look at what is going on here in nevada? they're undermining public education with a misguided voucher scheme that puts at risk
teachers jobs and students futures. you even have a republican congressman, mr. hardy, who says that mitt romney was right about the 47%. and that people with disabilities are, and i quote him, a drain on society. [booing] you have an attorney general who seems it made his mission to tear apart hard-working immigrant families. and in washington as harry knows so well, republicans keep trying to give more tax breaks to the super wealthy, take away health choir -- health care from 18 million americans. today for the first time they succeeded passing a bill to repeal the affordable care act and defund planned parenthood. i tell you what, it is a good thing we got barack obama in the
white house to veto that terrible idea! [cheers and applause] but i want you to stop and think for a minute. it's scary to think about them passing that through the congress but in january of 2017 a new president is going to walk into the oval office. and america can't afford for it to be a republican who will rip away all the progress we've made! just imagine what they will do on the first day. they will repeal president obama's executive actions protecting immigrant families. they will repeal the tough new rules on gun dealers and polluters that he has signed. that is just what they would do the first day. then, they would get back to their failed agenda.
they would stack the tax codeine more for those at the top. they would dover everything to bust unions and set back working families. round um and deport millions of immigrants. put consumers at the mercy of drug companies, insurers and predatory lenders. boy, if given the chance, they would appoint more right-wing justices to the supreme court. [booing] and they could get us in another more costly ground war in the middle east. that is their agenda, folks. that is what is at stake in this election. we can not sit idly by and let them take our country backwards. we have come too far. fought too hard. all across america, families rolled up their sleeves. they worked their way back from
the worst financial crisis in our lifetime and here in nevada you were hit harder than most. people lost their homes. they lost their jobs. they took second jobs if they could get them, extra shift. you had each other's backs. your hard work has helped bring america back. so we're standing but we're not yet running. the way america should. we have a lot of work to do to build on the progress of the past seven years. we face complex challenges around the world as we just saw last night from north korea. we have too many families struggling here at home to get ahead and stay ahead. we need a president who has what it takes to get the job done and make a real difference for you. that means doing all parts of the job. making the economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. keeping families safe and our country strong. tackling the problems that
families talk to me about, the stresses that keep them up at night. carrying for a loved one struggling with alzheimer's or autism or addiction. and here's what i believe. and here's what evidence tells us. when families are strong, america is strong. and america grows when your paycheck grows. [cheering] that's what i believe. that's why i propose plans to create more good-paying jobs by investing in clean energy, like you're doing right here in nevada, with solar and geothermal and wind. by investing in advanced manufacturing and putting americans to work, modernizing our roads, our bridgings, our ports, our airports. you know the nation that built the hoover dam can build a
21st century electric grid to power our 21st century economy and create so many new jobs doing it. [cheering] i am only candidate here tonight who pledged raise middle class incomes, not middle class taxes. i want to lower your taxes. by helping you with the cost of health care, college, caring for an aging parent. the republicans what do they do? well they just promise more new, big giveaways to wealthiest at at time when the super-rich and big corporations are already gaming the system. they should pay their fair share, and under my administration they will. no corporation should get rewarded for sending jobs or profits overseas. no wall street manager should pay a lower rate in tax than a
teacher or a nurse. and if we want paychecks to grow, let's start by raising the minimum wage, let's make it easier for workers to organize and bargain, let's make sure that women finally get equal pay for the work that we do. [cheering] and let's make it easier for parents to balance the demands of work and family with affordable child care and paid family leave. now, -- [cheering] i got to tell you, whenever i talk about this, and i get pretty passionate about it, republicans say, well, there she goes again, playing the gender card. well, if fighting for women and families is playing the gender
card, deal me in! [cheers and applause] i got to tell you, i am proud to be running in a democratic primary with my opponents. they have a lot of good ideas and we share a lot of the same values. the differences between us pale compared to what we see on the other side. but your choice in the caucus really matters. on february 20th you will begin the process of choosing a president who has what it takes
to stand up to the republicans, to make a real difference for american families. a president who can get the job done, and not just on a few issues, but on all the complex challenges we face. and i do not believe, i do not believe that we're going to raise incomes for middle-class families by raising taxes. i don't believe we're going to easy their burdens by making them pay for donald trump's kids to go to college for free. i don't believe that you can stop the drug companies and the big insurance companies by tearing up the affordable care act and forcing america to start all over again at square one. that plays into the hands of those special interests. so i have been laying out plans that will help families get
ahead, stay ahead and make the wealthy pay for them. hold corporations accountable, protect families from gun violence and keep republicans from taking us backwards. i know how to find common ground and stand my ground. i will go anywhere to meet with anyone at my time to find a path forward. that is what i've been doing for decades, as first lady, as senator, as secretary of state. that is how i helped create the childrens health insurance program that covers eight million kids. it is how i helped secure a treaty with russia to reduce the threat from nuclear weapons. and you can also count on me to stand my ground, especially when it comes to those powerful interests that are holding back american families. ask yourself this. if the republicans weren't worried, then why are hedge fund
billionaires already running ads against me? [applause] why are the koch brothers throwing in everything they have got to stop me? you know why? they know i will stand up to them and defeat their right-wing, top-down agenda that is bad for america and we're not going to let it happen! [cheers and applause] and they know something else. they know how i will stand my ground against drug companies that are gouging us with skyrocketing drug costs, against polluters who are poisoning our air and water. we're going to combat climate change, not deny it, against the gun lobby that blocks every common sense reform, even keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists on the no-fly list. you know, if you're too
dangerous to fly, you're too dangerous to buy a gun in america! [cheering] and i will continue to stand my ground against those who traffic in prejudice and paranoia, who spread hate against immigrants, muslims, lgbt americans or anyone else they can scapegoat and demonize, insulting each other won't solve anything. you can not make our country great by tearing our people down. [cheering] so let's remember, let's remember we have to work together and grow together. i want to give you two quick examples. first we need comprehensive immigration reform with a path
to full and equal citizenship. [cheers and applause] i am so sorry that this used to be a bipartisan issue, didn't it? yet not a single republican candidate, not one, clearly and consistently supports a real path to citizenship. you're right, donald trump calls mexicans rapists and drug dealers. [booing] he says he wants to round up and deport 11 million people. [booing] senator rubio helped write the 2013 immigration bill. now he renounces it. now we know this is going to be a difficult fight, so we have to stand together and keep the pressure on. we have to reach out and maybe the case again and again, remind people that comprehensive immigration reform could raise wages for millions of workers
and add hundreds of billions of dollars to our nation's economy. we have to remind people that at its heart, this is a family issue. if we say that we support families in our country, that has to mean something. hard-working parents shouldn't have to prepare their kids for the possibility that mom or dad might be hauled away at anytime. if congress still refuses to act as president i will defend president obama's executive actions. i will go further. there are many undocumented people with deep ties in their communities who deserve the chance to stay, like the parents of the dreamers i met here in las vegas. i will fight for them. and i will close private immigration detention centers that should not be outsourced and i will end family detention.
we have good alternatives we should use. around i will work to insure that every refugee who seeks asylum in the united states has a fair chance to tell his or her story, especially children, fleeing from violence. [cheering] now immigration reform is a big issue that dominates the headlines but i want to give you an example of another problem that doesn't make as much news but has a real impact on millions of families. because i think a president, has to be able to deal with challenges as big as the world, and as small as your kitchen table. everywhere i go across america people share very painful stories of addiction and substance abuse with me. how many of you has a loved one that struggled with this, raise your hand please. you know, last sunday in new hampshire at a big town hall and
i called on a young girl. she had been raising her hand and she told me she is now living in foster care because her mother overdosed. she asked me what more i can do for kids and families in similar situations of the truth is, i think there is a lot more we can do if we do it together. we can invest in treatment, not more jails. better training for prescribers. easier access to anti-overdose drugs and efforts that will help people with addiction end up in recovery, not prison. but not long ago i saw a great example of what we can do. sheila leslie suggested i go to a community program in reno called crossroads. it is run by the sheriff's office and catholic charities. they were tired of seeing the same people in and out of jail, in and out of the emergency room with no hope of breaking the
cycle of addiction. so they said, let's try something different and built a safe place for people to spend the night with counseling and support with some tough love. crossroads saved taxpayers an extra $20 million. by keeping numbers about people out of the hospital and in prison. when we work together to solve problems, sheriff and a priest come together to say our people are hurting. let's try something different. we americans may differ and bicker and stumble and fall but we're at other best when we pick each other up. i know it is unusual for a
candidate running for president we need more love and kindness in our country but i think we do. we all have to do our part. [applause] as parents and grandparents, as neighbors and coworkers and citizens. we have to look out for each other. we have to strengthen our families, our communities, our sense of common purpose as americans, whether you're a dishwasher in las vegas or a coal miner in kentucky or unemployed young man in chicago, i want you to feel like you have a stake in our country's future. and that our country has a stake in your future too. we can't forget that. no one should be left out or left behind. we are all part of this great experiment we call america, no matter where you're from or what you look like or who you love. i'm the granddaughter of an immigrant factory worker. and the grandmother of the most
wonderful little girl in the world. [applause] bill and i will do everything we can to insure she has the opportunity to succeed, but i don't believe you should have to be the grandchild of a former president to share in the promise of america. the grandchildren of truck drivers and teachers, firefighters, and housekeepers, should have that chance too. and in the end, that is really what is at stake in this election. what kind of a country are we going to be? are we going to be defined by fear and resentment or by what president lincoln called, the better angels of our nature? as president, i will be your first line of defense against the dangers we face. i will always have your back. but i can't do it without you. i need you and you have a real responsibility because you are the first line of defense. when you caucus on
february 20th, it is up to you to choose the right person to stand up to the push pubs, protect everything we've achieved, keep america moving forward. please join me, help me, fight for you, deliver for you, protect you, let's make america all we know and it can be. thank you and good night! [cheers and applause] thank you. ♪ >> good to see you guys. thank you very, very much. it is wonderful to be here in nevada. how is everybody doing tonight? are we democrats fired up?
ready to go?!. it is wonderful to be here with all of you and i also want to thank harry reid for his outstanding leadership of our nation. senator reid, thank you for everything that you do for us. my name is martin o'malley. i am the former mayor of baltimore. i am the former governor of maryland. i am a lifelong democrat and i am running for president of the united states. i intend to win, and i need your help. [applause] i am honored to be on this stage with fine candidates like hillary clinton and senator sanders and -- [cheering] all of us joining with you in finding a better way forward for our country. my experience though is
different than my other two competitors. i am not a former united states senator, or former congress person, though i have learned how to count votes and bring people together to accomplish difficult things. i'm not a cabinet secretary or an advisor but i have put together some terrific cabinets of really talented and diverse men and women who know how to get things done. my experience is as an executive. a mayor and as a governor, bringing people together, getting things done. what sort of things? actions, not words. the first state in the union to pass a living wage. raising the minimum wage. investing more in public education rather than less to make our public schools number one in america five years in a row. these were actions, not words. [applause] going four years in a row without penney's increase in college tuition. investing more in our infrastructure, making my state
number one in innovation and entrepreneurship, passing a climate change bill and taking actions like these. driver licenses for new american immigrants an passing the d.r.e.a.m. act in maryland. [applause] passing marriage equality. repealing the death penalty and passing comprehensive begin safety legislation. actions, not words. look, i know that sometimes it's easy to become discouraged about the gridlock in our national politics and in congress by the division and polarization of our nation's deliberative body. when that happens to you, i want to urge you to do as i do. and that is, if you want to know where our country is headed, talk to young americans under 30. because you will rarely find among them young americans who deny that climate change is real
or think that their nation shouldn't do something about it. you rarely find among them people who want to slam america's door in the face of refugee families facing genocide. you will rarely find among them americans who want to bash new minutes or deny rights to gay couples or their children. all of this tells me, all of this tells me we are moving to much more connected, much more compassionate and generous place. we have only need of new leadership to call forward goodness western us and move our country forward. so, nevada, i am here to challenge you. to challenge you to point the way forward for our country. at a time when it seems like big money has taken over our politics, here in the nevada caucuses every individual still matters, don't they?
[applause] so i want to share some thoughts with you tonight about our country. where we need to head, actions we need to take to move us forward. one of the most important lessons i learned about our country and the american dream we share i learned when i was 17 and i was working in a restaurant and i saw this new american immigrant man. his name was miguel, and miguel, without him, that restaurant would not function. i mean this guy was there early. opened up the place. humping kegs, busing tables. i was, watched him working tirelessly night after night, the heart and soul of the place. at the end of one long night i remember asking him, i said, miguel, how is it that you work so hard? instead of answering me how, he told me why in three very
powerful words. he said, for my daughter. [applause] i and i are part of the mystery of united states of america. that is covenant among us and between us in our country, you start where you start but through your hard work, should be able to give your grandchildren and children a healthy and safer children. my wife katy and i have four terrific kids. grace,ta. ra, william and jack. my oldest daughter is a first grade teacher at her third year in walter carter elementary school in baltimore city. any teachers here in the
audience? [cheering] several months ago after her dad had announced for president at home in baltimore, she returned to her first grade class, 100% african-american kids. true story, a little girl tugged her on the sleeve, miss oy mali, little girl's name was sabina, miss o'malley, i'm not so sure of this idea of your father running for president because quite frankly i kind of like barack obama. well a lot of us like barack obama, right. [cheering] eight years ago, when our nation was on the verge of being plunged into a second great depression by the recklessness and unchecked greed of wall street, we brought forward as a party a new leader in barack obama to move our country forward and that is exactly what he has done, get this. 70 months in a row of positive month over month job growth.
that's leadership. that's barack obama. that's the new leadership that our country needed. and now it is up to us. and now it is up to us. we must build upon president obama's legacy or surely we will black slide into a very bad detour. what am i talking about? forget about a hidden agenda. the republican candidates for president openly promise to take us backward. they will undo every single thing we have accomplished in these last eight difficult years. i look at their field of candidates and i shake my head. i would like to say that donald trump is the most outrageous and unqualified person ever to run for president but really, that is not fair to ted cruz. [laughter] [cheering] nevada democrats, we must win
this election and we must fight like the future of our country depends on it! because those guys can have their fear and those guys can have their anger but i know that there is more that unites us than divides us and there is nothing so divided by our nation's politics that new leadership and our love for one another can not heal. this is what we can agree on. no american family who works hard and plays by the rules should ever have to raise their children in poverty, should they? [applause] but unfortunately some billionaires would disagree with that. donald trump has said, and i quote, wages are too high. american wages are too high? i'll tell you what, donald. i'll tell you what's too high. college tuition in the united states of america is too high.
the cost of child care, that's too high. the number of americans living in poverty is too high. donald trump's opinion of himself, that's too high. [applause] no, no, no, no. donald trump, donald trump, donald trump, actually, donald, wages in america are too low. when our workers actually earn more they spend more and our entire economy grows. that's american economics. the hard truth of our times. my fellow democrats, that we need to own, if we're going to win this general election is this. this is the hard truth we need to own and we need to acknowledge in order to fix it and have credibility with our neighbors. today because of bad trickle-down, choices of the last 30 years, before president obama, 7% of us are earning
the -- 70% of are earning same or less than we were 12 years ago. that is the first time that happened this side of world war ii. that is not the way our country is supposed to work. that is not the way our economy is supposed to work. yes, we've come a long way over these last eight years but we have urgent work to do. while this eagle flies best when both its left and right wings are actually working, truth of the times, only democrat party, the party of roosevelt, the party of kennedy the party of barack obama will make our economy work again and make wages go up for all americans. that is the truth of our times. [applause] the formula of our success is that in every generation we square our shoulders to the challenge of our times, we make our country stronger, and we take actions, not words but actions, to include more people, more fully in the economic, social and political life of our nation. therefore with new leadership we
must raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, however we can and wherever we can. [applause] pay overtime pay for overtime work and make it easier for people to join labor unions and bargain collectively for better wages for all of us. [applause] equal pay for equal work for men and women and paid family leave in the united states of america. these are the choices that move us forward. instead of scrapping or or privatizing social security i have put forward a plan to actually expand social security and increase average payouts to americans in social security. we want to get wages to go up, rather than down? let us do as our grandparents and our parents did before us. let's get 11 million of our
neighbors out of the off the book, underground shadow economy by passing comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship for all. [applause] these are among the 15 strategic goals i have put forward in the course of this campaign in moving our country forward. the difference between a goal and a dream is a deadline, something i also learned as a mayor and governor. i put forward a plan to move us to make debt-free college a reality within the next five years. i have put forward a plan, and have the backbone to stand you up to bullies wall street, so the wall street economy can never wreck america's main street economy. what does that mean? that means reinstituting a modern version of glass-steagall and doing it today! [applause] making national service a universal option for every
american kid, eradicating childhood hunger in the next five years, these are ambitions worthy after great people. another one of those goals is this. to cut in half the number of americans who die from guns and gun violence in the united states. [applause] a few days ago, a few days ago, president obama stood beside families who have been devastated and shattered by gun violence. he spoke to the nation. he spoke to all of us as a people, and what did he offer? he offered us reason, and compassion, and common sense, to stem the scourge ever gun deaths. the president's executive actions will expand background checks, something by the way, which is supported by nine out of 10 americans, nine out of 10 democrats, nine out of 10 independents and nine out of 10
republicans. what was the sickening response of ted cruz? ted cruz responded, with a doctored photo depicting our president as a naziesque soldier trying to coming for americans guns. have you no shame, ted cruz? have you no shame? ted cruz actually says that the answer to gun violence is more guns. [booing] senator, the answer to cancer is not more cancer. the answer to poverty is not more poverty. the answer to gun violence isn't more guns. [applause] in my own state after the slaughter of those innocent kids in that classroom in connecticut i brought our people together to pass comprehensive gun safety ledge shin including ban on
combat assault weapons. you know what? we didn't interrupt a single hunter's hunting privileges or hunting season. in fact i have never met a self-respecting hunter who needed an ar-15 to down a deer. have you? [applause] with new leadership in washington we can save american lives. universal background checks, banning sale of combined assault weapons, holding gunmakers and gun sellers responsible when they arm criminals, because, one american life is worth more than all of the gun sales in america. [applause] another key part of our success as americans, is we don't run from our challenges. we don't hide from them. we face them square on. climate change is the greatest business opportunity to come the united states in 100 years and we need to make this opportunity
ours. i am the first candidate for president and let us hope not the last, to put forward a plan to move america to a 100% clean electric energy grid by 2050 and create five million jobs along the way. [applause] make no mistake about it, a clean energy future is future with more jobs and more prosperity, not less. and yet, here in nevada here in nevada, that cleaner, more prosperous energy future is under attack, isn't it? you guys have made such tremendous strides. you made your state number one in solar power. but look, but now look what has happened. instead of celebrating that accomplishment, instead of building on it, to create even more jobs and show the way forward, your public utilities commission has imposed outrageous new fees on everyone with a solar panel.
[booing] get this. homeowners, schools, with solar panels, creating clean green energy will now in effect be paying to subsidize carbon-belching coal-fired power plants. after creates of thousands of jobs in solar panels and installation get this, solarcity has now closed up shop here in nevada saying the state was trying to sabotage solar energy. we can't afford to sabotage our children's future any longer. we did not land a man on the moon with an all of the above strategy. it was an engineering strategy. so too is the imperative under america's clean energy future. we have the most innovative nation of problem solvers the world has ever seen. with new leadership we can rise to this challenge of our times and make a clean energy future america's opportunity for a new century. don't you agree? [applause]
because our diversity is our strength. and we are a nation of nations. plurbus unum, from many one. america is made stronger by every generation by arrival of new immigrants. my great grandparents were immigrants. half of them german, half of them irish. their first language may not have been english but their hopes for their kids and grandkids were purely american. loud angry voices today, of division, voices of fear, voices who would question our common humanity, demagogues who incite hate and try to put us against one another, well i have news for them. babies do not come shape like anchors and there is no such
thing as an illegal person. we are all in this together. [applause] we are all in this together. and almost all of our people have come here over land, over sea, and to come to our country. we're a nation of immigrants, yes. we wouldn't be a nation otherwise. i will tell you this. if you ever want to talk to someone who believes in america and who believes in the american dream, talk to a new american immigrant who has risked it all to come here. [applause] but it is going to take new leadership to break 35 years of gridlock in washington on this issue. this is not merely a constituent issue. this is an issue about who we are as a people. sort of economy we would build. sort of country we would give to
our country and with new leadership in washington we provide relief to millions of americans who hopes and dreams have been dashed time and time again because of gridlock in congress. it's a national disgrace, a national disgrace, that we now as a nation maintain the largest system of immigrant detention camps of any nation on the planet. with new leadership, we must shut them down. [applause] and we must also shred those government contracts for for profit prisons, a shameful policy in our country. [cheering] in the last few days, over christmas, immigration officials launched here in our own nation, nationwide deportation raids, at
christmas. jesus himself was a refugee child fleeing death gangs at christmas. these nationwide deportation raids are now terrorizing hundreds of families, waking them up at dawn. some of the deportees, as young as four years old. and sending them back to the hands of death gangs. this is not consistent with who we are as a nation. [applause] we don't make america stronger by breaking families up. we need to stop ripping families apart around put an end to the mindless deportation policies. the answer is not deport mothers and children who walked
thousands of miles to ask the people of united states for refuge. to join a new american progress in our own hem miss fire and seek drug traffickers who would seek to detablize whole nations in central america. the answer is have temporary protective status those who fled from guatemala, honduras, and el salavador. this is in keeping with our character as a nation. we must show with actions, not words, that we will lead our hemisphere by actions we take here, actions of compassion and humanity and the way we confront terror and ongoing threat of global terror in our homeland is not by surrendering our american freedoms and by american values but actually holding true to them. the violent genocidal evil in this world known as isis, must be confronted and must be destroyed. we must lead this effort and we
must lead by building the broadest possible coalition. the u.n. security council unanimously issued a call for member-states to redouble action against the isil and take all necessary measures in that fight the united states must take the lead making this security council resolution real. to lead effort to destroy operational capacity of isis. governments led us to victory in two world wars, not by scapegoating americans, not by pitting us against one another but by bringing us together. that is what we must do today. real leadership always triumphs over fear. even though donald trump tells the nation he would ban american muslims from travel entering our country. we know the path does not lead to the future of our country. he said we should monitor religious services of the we should start some sort of a registry, some sort of registry of american citizens based on
their faith. beginning first with american muslims, who is next? catholics? trade unions? s artists? donald trump when you launch your registry of americans who oppose your fascist ideas, you can start with me! [applause] for this much i know, we will never surrender what it means to be an american to terrorists or to fascist appeals to demagogues like donald trump, will we? >> no. >> enduring simple of our nation is not the barbed wire fence. it is the statue of liberty. and we need to act like that. [applause] and so it is my friend in this year of decision nevada has a historic role to play in crafting the outcome of this
race. nevada has a role to play in bending the arc of history forward. sometimes there are people who say to me, governor oh mali, you have got a tough fight. well you know what? i kind of like a tough fight. i've always been drawn to tough fights. i didn't run for mayor of baltimore because things were going great in our city in 1999. i didn't lead my state through a, through these last eight years in easy economic times. but when, i fought to save every house and every job i could. to those who sometimes say to me you faced a tough fight, i look back at them and say, you know what? a lot of people say you face a tough fight too, being able to give to your children and grandchildren a better future than what your parents gave to you. well i think the toughness of the fight might be the way the hidden god has of telling us we're actually fighting for
something worth saving. our children's future is worth saving of the american dream is worth saving. our country is worth saving. and this planet is worth saving. that is why i am running for president of the united states. i need your help. i'm asking you to choose new leadership, move our country forward. may god bless the people of nevada and may god bless the people. united states of america in our journey forward together! thank you all very, very much! [applause] ♪ ♪ >> thank you. [applause] thank you.
thank you very much. thank you. let me -- [applause] let me, let me begin. let me begin, well i'm trying. all right. [applause] let me begin. let me begin by thanking all of you in this room for your patriotism, for your love of this country, and for doing what too few americans are doing and that is standing up and fighting
and getting involved in the political process. thank you all. [applause] and let me, let me thank, let me give a special thanks to my dear friend harry reid and his wife landra, for their decades and decades of service to nevada and to the people of our country. harry, thank you so much. [applause] let me just say, as you have heard from secretary clinton and governor o'malley, this country in fact has come a long way in seven years. it has come a long way because of the leadership of president obama and vice president biden. but also because of the leadership of harry reid. thank you, harry. [applause]
we have come a long way since george w. bush left office. when bush left office, 800,000 people a month were losing their jobs. we had a $1.4 trillion deficit, and oh, yes, the world's financial system was on the verge of collapse. our republican friends and we shouldn't be too hard on them, they suffer from an illness called amnesia. [cheering] they seem to have forgotten the conditions that they left this country in but we are not going to allow the american people to
forget that. we have made real progress. and, we should be proud of what we have accomplished. but, and here is the big but we still have a very, very long way to go to create the kind of country we know we deserve. [applause] yes, yes, unemployment has gone down. but, real unemployment today counting those who have given up looking for work and working part time is close to 10%. youth unemployment is off the
charts. we have got to put the american people back to work and that is why i cam fighting for -- i am fighting for a trillion dollars infrastructure program to rebuild our roads, our bridges, our airports, and put 13 million people back to work. [applause] today in america, let's be clear, the federal minimum wage is a starvation wage. people in nevada, people in vermont. people all over this country are working two or three jobs to try to pay pay the bills.
it is not a radical idea to say that somebody who works 40 hours a week should not live in poverty. we will raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. [applause] today in america, today in america, millions of seem i don't remember citizens, millions of senior citizens and veterans are trying to get by on 12 or $13,000 a year. you know what? you can't get by on 12 or 30 then thousand dollars a year. my republican colleagues think 12 or $13,000 a year is too
much. they want to cut social security. the truth is, we have got to expand social security and pay for it by lifting the cap on taxable income. [applause] that music is really beautiful. but today in america the middle class of this country continues to disappear. despite huge increase in technology and productivity, millions of our people are working longer hours for lower wages. today, despite disappearance of the middle class, we have more income and wealth inequality than at anytime since 1928 and
it is worse in america than any other major country on earth. it is morally unacceptable that the top one -- 1/10 of 1% owns as much wealth as the bottom 99%. it is wrong, that the 10, 10 wealthiests families in america own more wealth than the bottom 50%. it is wrong, that 58% of all new income created today is going to the top 1%. here is a radical idea. here is a radical idea. we'll create an economy that works for working families. not for billionaires.
[applause] as you heard from secretary clinton and governor o'malley the affordable care act has accomplished some very important goals. we have done away with the obscenity of preexisting conditions. [applause] we added 17 million more americans to the ranks of the insured. no small thing. but, and here is the but again, we can do better. we must do better. [applause]
the united states today remains only major country on that's right doesn't guarranty health care to every man, woman and child. in the united states we pay highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and drug companies can double or triple the price of your medicine tomorrow. the time is long overdue for this great country to join the rest of the industrialized world and pass a medicare for all single-payer program. [applause] i am, i am a member of the
senate environmental committee and senate energy committee. harry, thanks for putting me on those committees. in that capacity i can tell you that i have talked to scientists not only throughout our country but throughout the world. the truth is that climate change is real. it is caused by human activity. it is already doing devastating harm in our country and around the world. now the koch brothers and fossil fuel industry may not like it but the time is now for the sake of our children and our grandchildren to transform our energy system away from fossil file to energy efficiency and
sustainable energy. [applause] today in america we have economy which is rigged which the rich get much richer while most everybody else gets poorer. but in addition to having a rigged economy, we have a corrupt campaign finance system. [applause] what that means it is result of that disasterous 5-4 supreme court decision, super-pacs are popping up all over the political landscape.
and millionaires and billionaires are in the process of buying elections. that is not what the democracy is about. that is what oligarchy is about and we're going to end oligarchy in this country. [applause] her is a promise. no nominee of mine to the united states supreme court will get that position unless he or she is crystal clear that one one of their first orders of business will be to overturn citizens united. [applause]
i am very proud to be the only democratic president -- democratic candidate for president who doesn't have a super-pac. [applause] i am extraordinarily proud that in the last eight months my campaign has received 2 1/2 million individual contributions , more, more, more than any campaign in the history of the united states of america. [applause]
and, listen to this. the average contribution is less than $30. what we are proving, what we are proving in very significant way is that you can run a national campaign, a campaign that i believe will be a winning campaign without being, without being dependent on corporate money or the money of millionaires around billionaires. [applause] today we have got to recognize a very unpleasant but true fact. i'm the only candidate for
president who will tell you this. that is no president, not bernie sanders or anybody else, can alone take on the powers that be in this country. no candidate. no president can do it alone. wall street, corporate america, the corporate media, koch brothers, big campaign donors, are just too powerful. that is the simple truth and unpleasant truth but the truth. that is why in my campaign what we're talking about not just electing a president. we're calling for a political revolution. [cheers and applause]
what does that mean? what does that mean? that we will not succeed as a nation unless tens of millions of people, many of whom have given up on the political process, many of them who no longer have faith in washington, many of whom who no longer vote, if we are not able to bring those people, working people, young people, low income people, back in to the political process, we will not be able to transform america, and create a government that works for all of us. [applause] thanks. [laughter]. i am very proud that in this
campaign so far, all over this country, we have had meetings bringing out over 450,000 people that all over this country, young people and working people, are now standing up and are fighting back against a rigged economy, and a corrupt political system. [applause] let me be very clear and be a little bit political here. all of us want to make sure that we defeat right-wing extremism. that we make certain that no republican becomes president of the united states. all of us are united that we'll
take back the senate, and that we're going to do well all over this country. but let me be very clear. that result will not happen with establishment politics and establishment economics. the only way, the only way that democrats win elections is when we have a large voter turnout. [applause] republicans win as they did last year, when people are demoralized, when people give up on the political process. what we need in this campaign is
energy, we need youth, we need working people, we need a democratic party. [applause] we need a democratic party that makes it clear to every worker in this country that we are on their side, and we're prepared to take on the billionaire class. [applause] our job should not be simply running around the country raising money for the wealthy. our job should be to bring working people together in basketball arenas and football stadiums by the tens much thousands, to answer their
questions, to mobilize them, so that we have the fighting force we need to transform this country. [applause] but we will not accomplish that goal unless the middle class and working families of this country know in their hearts that we have on their side and they will not know that we are on their side unless we have the courage to stand up to the billionaire class whose greed is destroying our economy. [applause] that is why i have introduced legislation that takes on the most powerful special interests
in the united states of america and that is the need to break up the huge financial institutions on wall street. [applause] as the people of nevada understand, wall street's greed and recklessness and illegal behavior created the worst economic downturn since the great depression. but a funny thing happened. we bailed out wall street because they were too big to fail. it turns out three out of the four largest banks in america today are bigger than they were when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail. it turns out that the six
largest financial institutions in america have assets equivalent to 60% of the gdp in this country, issue 2/3 of the credit cards and write 1/3 of the mortgages. when you have a handful of financial institutions that are so powerful economically, that are so powerful politically, the only rational approach is break them up and create a financial system, a financial system that works for small and medium-sized businesses, not an eye left-hand unto itself -- island unto itself is only concerned for more profits for itself.
[applause] i am the ranking member the senate budget committee and i will tell you what the republican budget is about. the republican budget is about voucherrizing medicare, making massive cuts in medicaid. massive cuts in education. throwing millions of people off of health care. and then giving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the top .2 of 1%. . .
i would not be running for president hello my state of vermont i love being a senator from vermont. it is just too late for establishment politics. >> it is not easy. i know that. there is the truth, no change that is overcome in this country has occurred from the top down. it is always the bottom up. we fought against segregation millions of
african-americans and whites together and said enough is enough. [applause] we combated sexes and made significant part because women and allies said women will not be second-class citizens in the united states. [applause] you use in the 20s and 30s grew to become a powerful force because from the bottom up workers stood together and demand the right to collective bargaining. we have made significant progress in the struggle for
gay rights. the gay community and their allies said people in america must have the right to love those who they want so years we have made a lot of progress in creating a less discriminatory society. only those that have a long way to go. here is where we have not made progress. here is we have lost ground. that is the economic struggle.
by the public and who want social security and eliminate virtually every legislation passed in this country since the 1930s which protects working people. we are in a pivotal moment in american history, and that moment is doing bring our people together to stand up and say loudly and clearly that this great government of ours the likes to all of us and not a handful of billionaires. >> that is the seat that's it gave the pm undermined
citizens united. it is a difficult struggle taken on the brothers, the corporate media, taking on wall street is not an easy struggle. they have unlimited sums of money incredible power but we have something they do not have. people stick together is nothing that we cannot accomplish and that is what this campaign is about.
>> coming up shortly republican presidential candidate carly fiorino will be holding a town hall meeting in tomorrow road to the white house coverage continues. the townhall meeting with candidate john kaysix. while we wait a portion of today's washington journal. >> he serves as the ranking member of the national congressional committee. >> how should folks understand what is going on in oregon?
monday the lack of a better word, shared legacy that all taxpayers pay for. particular proprietary property. the american taxpayer. assess the land management, very conscious of how is balance child communities and the multiuser mandates and extraction. logging in some instances and gas and oil. >> with that in mind what is going on? the land management issues and -- >> what is going on is probably less to do with
land management issues as it has to do with making a political statement. hell, the militia group that is there, the claimant others are there to make a statement that it must be returned immediately. the father and son must be released and logos should control that. even the sheriff in that county is asked the please leave. thethe local community has asked him to please leave and the political statement compromise resolution and asking members to sign on. there is not a way to communicate a position of being armed and seizing a building and occupying building. we are here to die, kill or be killed.
that kind of armed provocation, a search for martyrdom is the political tactic that has been taken. it is because i am a big believe that people have a right to civilly disobey laws that they feel. they are peaceful, nonviolent and that is how you make a statement overturn laws. in this instance it is non- provocation to make an issue there really extreme on this whole discussion about western lands. >> established almost a hundred years ago. the original owners of that land, if we're going back i
would suggest that history and context take it way back. so to me the resolutions as we disapprove. we condemn it. and i? i think it is important for those occupiers and so-called militia folks to understand there are views and tactics do not have support. >> comes from carmen in montana. independent line. >> i happen to know people like this.
be appear. after the original think i would get rid of the fight. >> the one point from the call it is important to respond to, there is an america and secure for the country is going. >> washington journal live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. they go live now to meredith new hampshire where carly fiorino republican presidential candidate has arrived for a town hall meeting. there to the white house coverage. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> what a great turnout. [applause] >> there she is. >> thank you all so much. there going to get started right away. the 1stthe 1st thing i would like to do is ask if you believe it in the budget -- lead us in the pledge of allegiance. >> to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible