turmoil. it requires larger intervention later. the united states, working together with mexico and canada in economic partnership and with its other allies, can help shape the emerging world in both the atlantic and pacific regions. ..

and what if this is public debate in education. but we must understand is that the yarn will be determined by the quality of the questions that we ask. american military power has and will continue to play a role in upholding, restraining him at destabilizing rivalries and providing a field for economic growth in international trade to

follow. it is a sense of basic security that a strong and consistent american political presence provides and has made possible many of the great strides of the third world era. it is even more important today. the united states has pointed out they should have a strategy, not a budget driven strategy. and in that context attention must be given to the modernization of our forces. america has played a role as

stabilize their and it is a vision for the future. and all great ideas and achievements before they become a reality. i would like to thank you mr. chairman mr. ranking member for conduct team hearings. i am happy to answer your questions. >> thank you very much. thank you for your compelling statement. i think all of the witnesses and i will be brief so that my colleagues can have a chance to answer questions. we will probably have to break within a half-hour or so since we have votes on the floor of the senate. secretary albright, should we be

providing defensive weapons to ukraine and government? >> mr. chairman, i believe that we should. i think they are moving forward with a reform process, which i think can be healthy, but their security needs to also be ensured and i believe countries have a right to defend themselves. we should be careful about a confrontation ourselves but i do think that we should be providing defensive weapons to the ukrainians. >> dr. kissinger you described it, u.n. secretary schultz rather well. but i am not sure that the average american understands that iranian ambitions and maybe both of you could explain perhaps to the committee into frankly the american people, what are the iranian ambitions and why should we care? may be beginning with you, secretary schultz.

>> i keep forgetting. their ambitions are to have a dominant role at least in the middle east to continue their pattern of terrorism directly and through hezbollah and to enhance their position by the acquisition of nuclear weapons. they give every indication, mr. chairman that they don't want a nuclear weapon for deterrence. they want a nuclear weapon to use it in israel. so it is a very threatening situation i think. actually, a nuclear weapon used anywhere would dramatically change the world everybody would say we have to do something about these awful things. but it can wipe out a state like israel.

>> dr. kissinger. >> every country is out of its history and there are three strains as a national state in the region. in this capacity its interests and those of the united states quite parallel and the united states found a reliable partner and not as a goal. secondly, iran reflects a history of empire that is spread across the entire middle east and is one of the major themes of its history extending into

the 19th century. and third iran was the third state advocate of the islamic ospreys in of national borders and the foreign policy are the domination of the particular interpretation of religion. aaron and foreign policy since the advent of the ayatollah regime has been a combination of the divisions and has asserted a dominant position towards neighboring states and towards

states well beyond it. and of course with respect to the eradication. so, with aspects of the current negotiation and so far as the state to state negotiations. but insisting iranian regime has never disallowed its policies that include persian imperial and religious domination. it is supporting now the states within the state and other countries and we have just heard

the degree of the hezbollah attack on syrian territory. so when one speaks of political cooperation the question is whether the political orientation of the regime has been off the. it cannot be judged alone by the nuclear agreement in which the removal is a greater premium interest. so that is the challenge we face in that we can only assess what we know the outcome of the negotiation. >> said under shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service and for being here today.

i want to begin with a report that was asked to be done by the department of defense, but the rand corporation did looking at the last 13 years of war and what lessons we've learned from those 13 years. the report stresses the number of conclusions. i won't go through all of them, but first, it suggests that the u.s. government has displayed a weakness in formulating national security strategies and that the weaknesses really due to a lack of effect of civilian military process for national security policymaking. you all talked about the need to have a clear strategy for what were doing. i wonder if you could comment on whether you think those conclusions are going in the

right direction and inking about how we address future foreign policy or if you think that is totally off-base. secretary albright, do you want to begin? >> thank you very much. and it's a pleasure to be here. let me just add how that read the rand report and i do think our civilian military relations the control of the civilian control line the military think the decision-making process is one in which the military has to be heard in which there may be different opinions that the whole basis of the national security system in the united states is that different voices are heard. i think that there needs to be a process whereby and i agree ms in terms of what george shultz said, there has to be a tsm and

execution. and while there may be voices at times that disagree, ultimately it is important to get a comment policy. i do think the last 13 years have been particularly difficult in terms of determining why we were in two wars and try to figure out what the decision-making process really was and getting into those wars, not in terms of rehashing them, but trying to figure out what the appropriate decision-making process says what the channels are, those that operate outside the channels and i do think i very much in favor of a process where civilian and military opinions are both regarded, but ultimately civilian control over the military. >> dr. scholl's. >> i recall a time when president george h.w. bush deployed forces along with

coalition forces to expel saddam hussein from kuwait. that was a clear mission and doors to buy votes congress as well as in the u.s. and when that had happened, he stopped. one of the most romantic examples of not allowing to control what you're doing, there is a mission that was accomplished and he stopped. he should have gone on to baghdad. he should've been nice. you should've done that. but i thought it was a very important movement. if you take afghanistan, after 9/11 there was practically a no-brainer that we should go and try to do something manner and we did and we succeeded brilliantly and then our mission

changed and were therefore occur because of mission creep. i think to a certain extent we fail to take some advice on iraq because some of the general society has to have a greater amount of manpower they are so that you have some control. if there is looting it shows you are not in control and there was a lot of alluding. so i think that was the case that we would have been better off taking more military advice. but in terms of the decision to go ahead in both cases, it seemed to be very well taken because the evidence, at least has turned out not to be so, but the evidence seems to be clear that iraq was moving on weapons of mass destruction and we had of course 9/11 in afghanistan. so i think we have to be very careful in these things.

this omission in the military tell me. that gets decided and you go and you're successful and you have to be careful that the mission doesn't change. it's something you didn't provide for her in the. >> thank you very much. i don't know dr. kissinger if you had anything you wanted to add to that. >> the question has two aspects. it is the organization adequate to give every significant group an opportunity to express itself but the second challenge we have placed in defining the national strategy has set in our national experience have had a different experience that most other

nations that are two great oceans. so for americans with individual issues for which there could be a dramatic solution, after which there was no need for further engagement until the next crisis came along. but for most nations and for a style more than ever the need is for a continuing concept of national strategy. we think of foreign policy and dramatic issues. other countries don't think in terms of solutions because they think it is another problem.

so it is the question of national education and answering the question, what are our object gives. what is the best means to keep these objectives? how can we sustain them over a period of time? i have lived now so long that i may experience in after world war ii with great enthusiasm in the great national difficulty in a number of them, including the last two especially which became the only definition of

strategy. we have to avoid that and we must now be objective and the political strategy. that i think is our biggest challenge. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> first of all i just have to say i am just overwhelmed at the point of view and there's nothing i can say that we thank you enough. one of the things i want to accomplish at this hearing was to help to try to describe in the american people because they don't know and you probably assume they do know the current condition of the military.

i'm going to read something and this is going to be to dr. scholl's and dr. kissinger. this is 1983. he is talking about how we should budget for national security. i am going to quote appeared to start by considering what must be done to peace and review all the possible threats against our security. a new strategy for strengthening peace, defending against those threats must be agreed upon and finally her defense must evaluate to see what is necessary to protect again any and all potential threats. the cost of achieving these ends and the result is the budget for national defense. does that sound good to you? >> right on the mark. >> dr. kissinger. do you agree with his statement in 1983 of president reagan? three of president reagan quite >> yes, yes. >> thank you.

>> the problem we have right now as we watch what happens to our force structure. in a minute i do want to ask you about the ukraine but when you think about the places where we should be could he in all of that, we have to consider that we don't have the capability that we've had in the past. our policy has been to be able to defend america unto regional friends roughly bad as they change the words around a little bit. at the same time, two regional conflicts at the same time. i'd like to ask the two of you how you evaluate our current conditions of our military capability starting with you dr. kissinger. >> our overall military capability of our united states military. i think our capability is not

adequate to deal with all the challenges that i've seen after some of the commitments in which we may be moving and needs to be reassessed carefully in the light of the shrinkage that has taken place on budgetary grounds in the recent decades. >> dr. george schultz coming to a group that? >> i think you have to realize the prime role of the government is to provide for security. that's number one. so one of the things he did was older paramilitary. he got a lot of objections on

the budget director. but he said this is the number one thing. and as our economy improves things got better budgetary leave. but still, let's build up our military. when he took office, people were not even wearing their uniforms and to the pentagon. stand up straight. be proud of yourself. then i had a military buildup of considerable size. the statement was peace through strength. we actually did not use their force is very much because it was obvious to everybody that if we did we would win. so you better be careful. >> excellent statement. dr. albright, i do agree with your position for a different reason. i happen to be there at the time of the election in november and a lot of people don't realize what really happened.

not just bush and co. and the rest, the first time in 96 years that they've rejected any communist seat in the parliament. never happened before. in light of that in the previous were looking at what's happening in ukraine, what effect do you think that house on many of our allies, and the action that we have not taken their? >> i think that we do need to help them defend themselves. we were there also for elections and took very many brave steps. the people of ukraine have been disappointed by what had happened after the orange revolution in terms of their capability being able to bring reforms into place. generally, and the larger question, people do look at how we react when one country invades another and takes a piece of territory.

that is as both my colleagues here instead it is breaking the international system and therefore i do think it's important to take a strong stand they are by providing capability of ukrainians to defend themselves, but also that nato in fact can and is taking steps in other parts of central and eastern europe of providing some forces that move around and nato has been a very important part. i do think if i might say to the questions that usb others, others, i do think that i'm very could learn about sequestration in the deep cut that have been taken and i hope very much that this committee really move some not because i do think it jeopardizes america's military reach. as somebody who worked for senator muskie at the beginning of the budget process, i do know about function 150 and 050. having defended 150, i admire

with secretary gates has said about the importance of providing money for the foreign policy aspect of our budget. in answer to many questions here, we are in the middle east for a long time and the military part of this is important, but we also have to recognize what you said, george and terms of the longer-term aspects bear where we need to figure out what the environment is that has created this particular mass and be able to use other tools of our policy to deal with that. >> thank you are a match. my time has expired. one question further record from doc or scholz. -- dr. schultz. you outlined behavior for us. i'd like for you to submit how we are doing relative to that course of behavior that you recommend. thank you very much.

>> and consider the definition of a day you tried to reach an entity which measures by the most suitable. i am easy about beginning a project of military engagement without knowing where will the death and what we are willing to do to sustain it in order to avoid the experience that i mentioned before. ukraine should be an independent state, free to develop its own relationships perhaps a specialized at to nato membership. it should be maintained within

existing borders and russian troops should be withdrawn as part of a settlement. i believe we should avoid taking ample mental steps before we know how far we are willing to go as a territory 300 miles from moscow with special security implications. that does not change my view of the outcome, which must be a free ukraine and must include military measures as part of it. but i am uneasy when one speaks of military measures alone without having the strategy put forward.

>> dr. schultz, secretary, do you want to add to that? >> i agree. i am totally with henry statement of where we want to join as a free independent ukraine. but i think we have to be active in trying to hope that, about. i would point to two particular things that we should be doing. number one, we should be organizing and energy after to see to it that the countries around russia are not totally dependent on russian oil and gas which has been used as a weapon. i am interested to know that there is an lng receiving ship in lithuania and i think they are getting from the region. we have a lot of gas in this country. we should be allowed to have lng and get it there. there's plenty of oil around to get their number one to relieve those countries that this dependence on russian oil and

gas. and maybe we teach them a little bit because in addition to low oil prices i lose market share probably permanently. but i wouldn't hesitate. i think i am here and not on -- madeleine albright's camp. they have boots on the ground. they are there foods. let's help them be effective because they are russian boots on the ground, don't anybody kid themselves about what is going on. >> thank you dear dr. albright i will suggest that you become a member of the budget committee again and you can use your expertise and experience. senator manchin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for attending the three of you. it's such an honor to have you here with your expertise and knowledge of history is where we are as a country and hopefully get us to where we need to be. with that dr. kissinger calmly

said the you said the united states has not faced a more diverse or complex array of crisis since the end of world war ii. i look around at all for generations. my generation is vietnam. the generation of today's 9/11 afghanistan iraq. now it is kind of gone into another direction of concern that we all have. i would like to hear from the three of you and you have all touched on how we would approach it. when you start looking at where does the united states of america truly willing to spend its treasure and contribute its blood, which is a horrible thing for any of us to have to ask her do but if we are going to be doing treasure and blood where we are going to be addressing the greatest threats that we have yeah yeah yeah problems that we have, which will tonight at i first?

.. in terms of danger. the conflict between the nuclear armed russia and a nuclear armed america was greater than any

single danger we face today. and the most anguishing problem one could face was what happens if the strategic plans of both sides had to be implemented by accident or whatever. but it was a relatively less complex issue than we face today. where we had a middle east whose entire structure is in flux. its latest, a 73 middle east war, american policy could be based on the existing states in the region, and achieved considerable success is in maneuvering between.

today, middle east policy requires an understanding of the states, of the opportunities of these states, of the various forces within the states, a situation like syria with two main contenders are opposed to the, violently opposed to america, violently opposed to each other, and a victory for either of them is not in our interest. the rise of china apart even from motivation of leaders presents a whole new set of problems. and economic competitor of great

capacity a state that is used in its -- of being central kingdom of the world that by its very existence, they are bound to step on each other's toes, and the management of this it's a different problem from the middle east as i described -- >> the middle east is the most dangerous ones we are facing right now do you think a nuclear iran? >> then we have a nuclear iran. so we would have i would say the most immediate short-term problem is to get rid of a terror base state that controls territories. >> gotcha. >> that is isis. and we must not let that go to

another war that we don't know how to end. there's a lot more long-term problems also exist, and the challenge to our country. it's not to switch from region to region, but to understand the things we must do and separate them from the danger we probably cannot do. so that is another challenge in that magnitude for the current generation. >> mr. chairman, would it be possible that doctor schultz doctor schultz, would you just give us your idea of what you think are most bravest concerns are right now? >> of course i agree with what henry has said but let me put some additional points on it.

i think we tend to underestimate the impact of the information and communication age. it changes the problem of government. because people know what's going on everywhere. they can communicate with each other and organize, and they do. so you have diversity everywhere and it has been ignored or suppressed, but it is asserting itself. remember, the problem in iraq with maliki was he had to govern over diversity but he wanted to stamp it out. he didn't understand at all how you govern over diversity. so you have that problem which tends to fragment populations that make you governments a little weaker. just as that's happening with problems that demand international attention are escalating. i think as henry said as i said

in my initial testimony, there is an attack on the state system going on. the attack on ukraine is part of it. isis is a major part of it. they are a major challenge to the state system. they want a state -- a different system. i have a sense, henry, china is drifting into kind of a sphere influence way of thinking. that's different from the state system. so that's a challenge. iac nuclear weapon proliferation -- i see nuclear weapon proliferation coming about. that is devastating to a nuclear weapon goes off somewhere, even mike physicist friends say hiroshima was just a little plaything. well, look at the damage it did. nuclear weapons would disintegrate the washington area

totally. the threat of nuclear weapons is a really big threat. and we were making progress, but that has been derailed and we're going the wrong way right now. i think, and i gather in washington, it's very controversial, but i have a friend at hoover who is retired chief of naval operations, and we started a project on the arctic. senator sullivan knows about that. there is an ocean of being greeted there. that happened -- that hasn't happened since the last ice age. the our big mills all over the world taking place. the climate is changing. and there are consequences. so that's happening. we never get anywhere with it unless we're able to somehow have actions that take bold on a global basis. i might say sort of

parenthetically, i had the privilege of chairing the mit advisory board on their big energy initiative, ma the same thing at stanford. so i see what these guys and girls are doing. it's really breathtaking. we had an mit scientist come to hoover the other day and i think he has cracked the code on large-scale storage of electricity. that is a game changer. because it takes the nmc problem out of solar and wind -- the intermittency problem. if you have some energy stored where user, you are much safer. at any rate i think these energy are in the things are starting to get somewhere, and -- but that is a big threat. so these three things are huge concerns of hours and we need of a strong military. we need to have a strong economy and we need a strength of purpose in our country. we probably have done the best job with our problems of dealing

with diversity because we started out that way. we are the most diverse country in the world, and our constitution provided that the you remember, if you've been reading lynne cheney's book on madison, it's a wonderful book and it's clear that george washington, having suffered because the continental congress didn't give them enough money to pay his troops, wasn't a strong government, but he and his colleagues, they saw they would never get the constitution ratified in less they provide a lot of role for states and communities. so our federal structure emerged. it's a structure that allows for diversity, and it's very ingenious. you can do something in alaska we don't have to do it in san francisco, and they certainly don't want to do the same thing in new mexico. there's a difference, but the differences reveal. so we have these big problems,

and then in a sense you look at them and say tactically, how do we handle iran? how do we handle ukraine? how do we handle isis? it falls within the broader framework. >> i do think the biggest threat is climate change in its national security aspect, as has been described. and it leads me to say the following thing. our problem is that not everything can handled militarily, and that we also have a short attention span. these are very long-term problems and also americans don't like the word multilateralism. it has too many syllables in pins in and ism, but basically it is a matter of cooperation. and if you look at these issues it will require american leadership within a system that other countries played a part in. and otherwise i agree with everything about henry and george have said. by do think short attention span

and multilateral ways of dealing with it. >> i'm sorry mr. chairman. >> not at all. senator sessions. >> thank you. thank you all. it's time for us to think about our role what our strategy will be and what we can realistically accomplish in the future, and the longer i've been around these issues, the more less dreamy i become. dr. kissinger, i think i'm reading world order come and thank you for your contribution to the world. in fact, the book. i think you quote bismarck or maybe you can get it correctly i'm happy is the statesman who is not as happy after the war as he was before the war, something to that effect. so we just have to be careful about power and how we use it, and sometimes long-term thinking

can avoid short-term problems. i think all of you for contributing to the. our subcommitsubcommit tee deals with nuclear weapons. i am very concerned about proliferation, dr. shultz, as you indicated, worried that our allies are losing confidence in our umbrella, and they may expand. and, of course iran will clearly likely kick off proliferation if they achieve a weapon to end as one of you noted, dr. kissinger, you indicated we moved from iran not having a nuclear weapon to iran not, iran could get close to a nuclear weapon but not have one. you've expressed some concern about that. would you expand on that a little bit? >> i am concerned as everyone

pointed out the shape of the focus of negotiations from preventing iran from having the capability of building a nuclear weapon, to a negotiation in which, which seeks to limit the use of the capability in the space of one year that will create huge inspection problems but i reserve my comment on that until i see the agreement. but i would also emphasize the issue of proliferation. assuming one accepts the inspections as valid and takes it takes account of the stockpile of nuclear material

that already exists, the question is, what do the of the countries in the region do? and if the other countries in the region conclude that america has approved the development of an enrichment capability, within one year of nuclear and then if they insist on building the same capability we will live in a proliferated world in which everybody, even if that agreement is maintained will be very close to the tipping point. and i hope and i wish that this liberating issue be carefully examined. because it's a different problem

from not having the capability at all to having a capability that is within one year of building a weapon, especially if it didn't spread to all the other countries in the region -- especially if it spreads to all the other countries in the region. and they have the feel of each other that they will produce substantially different world from the one that we knew, and from the one in which the negotiations were begun. >> it should be pointed out that a bomb made from enriched uranium is much easier to make than the hiroshima bomb was a uranium and enrichment bomb. wasn't even tested. but not resume bomb was a plutonium bomb. that was tested.

you can make it unsophisticated from enriched uranium fairly easily. that's not a big trick. so the enrichment process is key key. >> welcome in the short term than doctor -- in the short term then, dr. kissinger, i think reducing short term being the next several years. this could be one of the most dangerous points in our foreign policy, this iranian nuclear weapon. because it goes beyond their capability to creating proliferation within the area, the threat to israel, and a danger that we don't need to be faced if we can possibly avoid it. >> i respect the administration's effort to overcome that problem, but i am

troubled by some of the implications of what is now publicly available of the implications of the executive on the future evolution of nuclear weapons in the region and the impact of all of this on an international system where everybody is within a very short period of getting a nuclear weapon. nobody can really fully trust the inspection system or if some -- i would hope gets carefully examined before a final solution is achieved. >> we historically have tried to draw a strong line between access to the technology to produce a nuclear power plant and access to enrichment technology and we have tried to

put that line in there very strongly. and we have cast the line aside already in the iran negotiations negotiations. >> senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to the witnesses for the very instructive testament to really just one question. a week from sunday we begin the seventh month of a war the war on isil as described by the president invite others in the administration. american service personnel have lost their lives in operation inherent resolve and those from coalition partners have as well. there's been no and rational debate or vote upon this war. i think all agree that it will likely last for some period of time. it was justified by the administration based on the two authorization for use of military force that were passed at different times under different circumstances, under slightly different geographies under a different administration

and under a vastly different congress. as former secretaries of state would you agree with me that it is more likely that the nation was sustainably support a war if there is a full debate on it before congress, and if congress in fact weighs in as constitutionally contemplated with respect to any war being waged why this country? >> my experience is as an administration official, you get a much better policy and to get it much better ability to execute that policy if it is discussed and there is consultation between the administration and the congress. as i said in my testimony, our watchword was if you want us -- i think the consultation will provide a better policy and a better execution.

>> president -- >> this war we're not talking about, it started a long time ago. i read testimony from 1984, 30 years ago, and i think this is a deep problem that goes beyond terrorism. terrorism is a tactic. the object is to change the state system, and we need to understand what these people are up to. and that will help us design the kind of policies that are needed needed. >> the president has asked in his state of the union message that there be an authorization of use of military force and i do agree that there needs to be discussion of it and consultation. i think it is very important for there to be more education of the american public as to what the stakes are. >> i agree with what my

colleagues said. i want to reemphasize the remark i made earlier. we should not let this conflict with isis like the pattern of the previous wars which starts with support and after a while it generates into a debate about withdrawal, especially since the existence of a territorial space for terrorists which is not existed before a country that has its global objective is the eradication of the state system. once americans engaged, victory is really important objective.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank each of you for all that you've done for the country and your leadership. secretary albright it was a privilege to be in ukraine with you during the presidential election, so thank you. wanted to follow up to ask you about nato presence in the baltics him and we had dr. brzezinski before the committee the other day, and he had talked about, on putting a small number of u.s. ground combat forces in conjunction with nato obviously as part of a nato contingent in the baltics 202 that it would be a tripwire, but the force would obviously be of a size that wouldn't be one where we're trying to send a conflict message. i wondered as to what you thought about that in terms of nato's presence in the baltics and what you think we should be doing in addition to providing

defensive arms to ukraine to help buttress nato. >> i do think that when we were in cf and ukraine, generally together, i think we understand as together we met with the leadership, the importance of americans support the -- kiev -- for what they are doing there. and nato in the baltics i agree with dr. brzezinski. i think that it's important for the baltic countries are members of nato and i think it is very important to show that kind of support. the question is whether they're kind of rotating troops or their permanently by do think the united states needs to be a part of a grouping, which also requires other countries from nato to be there. i know dr. brzezinski spoke about the importance of germans the brits, et cetera also think about you think that it is an important aspect of our common approach to this through nato. i also do think that nato is at

a stage where it has to come we were talking about organizations that have been started many years ago, that our support for nato in getting the other nato countries to pay up what they are obligated to do under the 2% of the gdp for activities, i think as i've understood the new secretary-general, he is talking a lot about the necessity of this rapid reaction force of really making nato more capable to do with the kinds of problems that are evident in the region. thank you. secretary shultz, i wanted to follow up on what you said about iran's program particularly their icbm program. i wrote a letter with others on this committee to ask the president to include in the negotiations the missile program, because our estimates are that they will have a icbm capability perhaps by this

year. and so i wanted to get your thoughts about as we look at these iran negotiations, do you believe that the missile program, their icbm capability should be included as part of a result that is important in terms of our national security interests? >> certainly. i think their support for terrorism should also be on the table, because that's part you get a weapon and you're going to use it. >> as i look at these negotiations those two pieces are missing and they are very very important. i was also interested to hear what both you and secretary kissinger has said in terms of where concessions that have already been made on enrichment that make i think a very difficult outcome for a good result that doesn't lead to some kind of race within the middle east the sunni-shia race in terms of a nuclear arms race if were going to a certain amount of enrichment. >> you have to remember the

iranians are not known as rug merchants for nothing if they are good bargainers. they have already crossed lines. they've already outmaneuvered us, in my opinion. so we have to watch out. >> secretary kissinger, i wanted to follow up on something that you had testified before the senate foreign relations committee on the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, enjoyed called attention to the disparity between russian and american tactical nuclear weapons at the time. i wanted to get your thought on what we have learned is according to the state department russia is developing a new mobile nuclear ground-launched cruise missile in direct violation of the 1987 inf treaty that, of course, secretary shultz has referenced as well. and that dismissal -- business was likely in development even during these new s.t.a.r.t. negotiations, if you look back in the time window. wanted to get your thoughts on what our response should be to the developments of this

ground-launched cruise missile, and as i look at this come in our response is not just a matter of response of a treaty violation but what are the russians interest in developing this type of cruise missile? >> that's motivation. >> yes. >> for developing this weapon is if you, i said in my statement, i said the western border is the least threatened border of russia. but it has along with china a huge inequality of population, and a long border with the other regions of the world.

so the motivation undoubtedly is to use nuclear weapons to balance numerical -- superiority of russian forces along many of its borders. but to the extent that these invaluable with signed agreements, the united states, even if it already understand the motivation cannot accept nuclear armed control treaties, violated because a new strategic opportunity developed. and so i believe we have to be very firm in insisting on carrying out these agreements. >> thank you all. >> i want to say to the witnesses, i ask you to stay longer than i originally bargained for in and i apologize for the.

this is been a very important hearing, not only for this committee but also for the members of congress and the american people as for the benefit of your many years of wisdom and experience you have provided us with important not only information but guidance as to how we should conduct, not only this hearing, but our national security policy. we are honored by your presence and we thank you, and this hearing is now adjourned. [inaudible conversations] ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> committee chair john mccain issued a statement after the hearing which had been interrupted by code pink protesters saying those responsible must be held fully accountable for their actions. in my 32 years in the house and senate, i have never witnessed this kind of physical intimidation of a witness at a congressional hearing. >> c-span2, providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend, booktv. now for 15 years the only

television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> in his annual state of the state address, new york governor andrew cuomo proposed a $142 billion budget including higher spending on education, infrastructure and tax breaks for homeowners and small businesses. governor cuomo delivered the speech one day before state assembly speaker sheldon silver was indicted on corruption charges. the state assembly majority leader has said democrats will pick a new speaker without input from the governor. from call baany, this is an -- from albany, this is an hour and a n half. [applause]

>> thank you. [applause] tha thank you. thank you. thank you very, very much. happy new year to all of you.ou and to stacy miller, who is a master teacher which identifies literally the best teachers across the state of new york,xtraor she's doing extraordinary work. let's give her a round of applause. [applause] big welcome to our new lieutenant governor who's doing a great job already. to the new assembly members, welcome you. to the new senate members, we welcome them. [applause] we've been joined by comptroller

tom denapoli. pleasure to be with you, mr. comptroller. let's give him a round of applause. [applause] attorney general eric shied nearerman -- schneiderman pleasure to be with you general. dean skellos. to a good year dean. [applause] assembly speaker sheldon silver, pleasure to be with you, mr. speaker. [applause] independent conference leader jeff klein, pleasure jeff. thank you for being here. [applause] to senate minority leader andrea stewart cousins pleasure to be with you andrea are. [applause] assembly minority leader brian cole. thank you, brian. [applause] we have the members of our fine court of appeals. it's an honor to be with you. thank you, judge. [applause] to our host mayor kathy

sheehan, thank you very much. [applause] to the very tired mayor of the the i of new york -- may year of new york who went to paris and back in one day, pleasure to be with you, mayor. [applause] to all the elected officials who are here today, to my colleagues to our friends thank you all very much for being here today. let me begin by thanking the senate leader and the assembly leader for their aecom caution for my -- accommodation for my father's passing. the state of the state address was moved back to accommodate the ceremony around my father's passing, and i truly appreciate their consideration in doing that. i also appreciate all the members of the senate, all the members of the assembly who came down to pay their respects to my father. it would have meant a lot to

him. he had tremendous respect for this body and tremendous respect for the process and for the legislature. and your attendance was overwhelming. many of you came from distant parts of the state, and i want you to know heart felt on behalf of the cuomo family we thank you very much for taking the time to come and to all new york ors. there's been such an outpouring of notes and letters and phone calls, i can't even begin to explain it. so on behalf, again of my father and my brothers and my sisters, e -- we want to thank all new yorkers for the respect that they have shown to my father. now, if my father knew that we'd delayed the state of the state on his account, he would not be happy. [laughter] slowing the function of government is not something that would have been o.k. with him. so what we've actually done is

accelerated the budget by moving the budget up five days, and this is going to be the first joint state of the state and budget presentation. and we'll actually be five days ahead of schedule which would have is made my power happy. now, the good news is since it's a joint presentation -- budget and state of the state -- you only have to sit for one presentation. that's the good news. the bad news is it's a three hour presentation. [laughter] so i will do my best to move along. but there's a lot of good work that we've done and a lot of good work that we want to do that we want to talk about today. what is the state of the state? new york state is back and new york state is leading the way forward. and none of this would have happened without the work of the

people in this room. look at how far we've come in just a short period of time. 2010 we had an 8.9% unemployment, today it's 5.9%. [applause] we had we had chronically low credit ratings, today the highest credit ratings in 40 years by all three credit rating agencies. [applause] upstate was in a state of decay and decline and alienation and upstate is rebuilding everywhere you go today. [applause] taxes and spending were going up up and up, and today we've cut the tax rate to the lowest in 50 years. [applause] property taxes that were going up at about 6% a year are now capped at 2% and then frozen at that rate. when you look at --

[applause] you should applaud that. it was a it was a period, it was a period of historic progress, and it has made our state a better state. and it has made life for people in our state were better. and that's what this is all about at the end of the day, making life better for people and that's what we have actually been doing. now, i won't say it was an easy four years. it was a hard four years, and it has taken a toll. some greater toll on some of us than others. but look at where we were when we started. look at how good dean, dean skellos looked just four years ago. [laughter] and look at shelley. four years ago he was looking good. we were, like -- [laughter] saturday night fever dudes. that's what we were just four years ago. and four years later it's really sad -- [laughter] pictures don't lie. [laughter]

no it's true. it really is true. [laughter] but we belief -- and i'm sure i speak for dean and shelley, it was worth it. and we'd do it all over again wouldn't we? [applause] new york is now a state of opportunity once again. and our goal today is to reach even higher. and that's what our 2015 opportunity agenda is all about; economic opportunity, public reform education and fairness for all. we start with the economy because business is the engine that pulls the train. it's all about jobs jobs jobs. it was about four years ago and it is today. and it's about keeping the economy growing. and to keep the economy growing, we have to keep doing what we have within doing that got -- been doing that got the economy running in the first place. and in two simple words, it is maintaining the fiscal

discipline that we have established. remember where we were four years ago. the state of new york was spending more money than the people in the state were earning. i mean, just think about that concept for a moment. the increase in this state spending was going up at a faster rate than new yorkers were actually earning income. and that wasn't one or two years. that was for 50 years, the rate of spending was higher than the rate of income. we have reverseed that trend and actually turned it the other way. the state now spends over the past four years 1.3%, that compares to 6.8% over the past 50 years. because -- [applause] it's not a complicated formula

because we spend less, we can tax less. and we have made historic progress in that regard. last year the lowest middle class tax rate since 1953. lowest corporate tax rate since 1968 lowest manufacturing tax rate since 1917. so by controlling the pending at 3 percent -- the pending at 2%, we can continue to keep taxes down. if we continue to keep taxes down we keep businesses coming our way. and that's exactly what our goal for this year should be. starting with small businesses. small businesses are 98% of all the businesses in new york. small business is where the jobs are being created. that is the life blood. anything we can do to generate small business is what we want to do. we want to have a tax cut for small business that is dramatic that would take the small

business taxes from 6.5% down to 2.5% the lowest rate in 100 years and send a real positive signal. [applause] and that will show that new york is continuing to be a pro-job, pro-growth astronaut. the next -- pro-growth state. the next taxes we have to attack are the property tax. the increase in real estate taxes is due wholly to the increase in the cost of local and not state government. these taxes on real estate are too high. local government has in many communities been guilty of great waste and duplication. who said that quote? i'll give you a hint. me. [laughter] secretary hillary clinton, fdr, ronald reagan, steve aquario.

[laughter] it is not ronald reagan, it is not hillary clinton, it is not me. it is down to steve aquaruo and fdr. [laughter] and if it is steve aquario, he is fired. [laughter] so it is fdr. but that shows how long this problem has actually been going on. it has been new york's chronic problem. and when people complain about high taxes in new york, they're talking about the property tax. just remember: the number one business tax is the property tax. the highest tax we collect in the state of new york is the property tax. $50 billion total compared to $40 billion for everything else. we attacked it over the past four years.

2011 we capped it, 2014 we froze it. 2015 we're going to cut it and really respond to the needs of homeowners all across this state. let's pass a 1.7 -- police [applause] we have proposed a $1.7 billion property tax relief for 1.3 million homeowners who will save an average of nearly $1,000 per year, and $1,000 in savings can make a difference in people's lives. we would also extend relief to over one million renters in this state. when you put the two together 2.3 million households, just you should a million upstate -- just under a million upstate 340,000 long island 139,000. this is real meaningful, significant tax relief that will make a difference in people's

lives and send a very strong signal that the new york we brought you for the past four years is the new york that we're going to continue. [applause] a growing economy also needs to invest in its infrastructure. we have started a very aggressive infrastructure redesign program down state with john f. kennedy and laguardia airports, also with stewart and republic airports planning our regional airports as one unit. we want to make republic and stewart -- republic is on long island stewart is in the mid hudson -- we want to make them tax-free zones so we can bring businesses to republic and stewart and take some of the traffic from jfk and laguardia and move it out to the long island and stewart airport. we also want to build four metro

north stations in the bronx to open up that side of the bronx -- [applause] hoorah. i have a name for one of the stations, diaz station we're going to call it. [laughter] rubin diaz station. [laughter] we'll invest 150 million to construct vertical parking structures at strategic locations in long island and westchester to assist commuters coming in on the lirr. we also propose using $1.2 billion of the settlement funds to protect thruway toll payers for a year so there'll be no increase in the thruway toll for the next year. [applause] and to help finance the tappan zee bring. we're also working with our partners in washington to secure

federal funding to fund the public transportation over the bridge. congresswoman nita lowey has talkin' the lead on this -- taken the lead on as has congressman peter king and they've been very very helpful. infrastructure today is less about roads and bridges, in my opinion, and it's more about broadband. a state that doesn't have broadband is not going to be economically successful going forward. believe it or not, we still have 500,000 homes and 4,000 businesses who have no access to broadband. it tends to be in upstate new york and it tends to be in poorer communities in new york city. the last place really we should have the absence is where we have it. we want to invest $500 million leverage 500 million in private sector money from the broadcast providers, and let's get new york state fully wired so every

business, every home can compete, and let's start doing that now. [applause] and there's a new way of thinking about growing jobs in new york state. jobs are coming out of our higher education system. you look anywhere in the country, anywhere in the world as a matter of fact where you see regional job growth and it's always linked to the higher education institutions. and we're in the process of talking our sunni and our qni system and turning them into job generators. you look at stanford university in silicon valley, that was an academic exercise that was actually commercialized extraordinarily well and started an entire revolution in the economy. that can happen here in new york.

but we have to make the investment. and we have to invest in suny2020 and cuny2020 so we provide educations and also to jump-start the economy. we've been doing it, we want to continue to do it with another $50 million investment this year that i believe will reap dividends. we want to couple that -- [applause] we want to couple that with the new york state venture fund of $100 million so new york state can invest in many of those young entrepreneurs and many of those start-up companies and keep them here in new york rath or or than finding -- rath or than finding equity in california or texas or florida. let's invest in our home groan

companies and keep the jobs here now. [applause] we also have significant reforms for our community college system. our community college system in many cases is charging students exorbitant tuition, running up debt giving them training and education for jobs that don't exist. and the person graduates the community college system has the debt but can't find the job. more and more the community college system where successful is turning into a training program, almost an apprentice program, for a specific industry. that part of the training is they design what they need, the skills they need. you go to that community college, you get that degree, you come out, you graduate, you go right into that company. and that's what we have to be doing with our community colleges. we want to link them regionally

with the employers in that region, identify specific jobs that are available and then educate and train for those jobs to make the community college system more rewarding. [applause] past four years we have focused on upstate and economic development like never before. i would venture to say there has never been a more concerted effort at developing upstate new york than what we have done over the past four years. and upstate was in a terrible cycle of decline. it was losing economic power through no fault of its own -- change in the economy businesses were moving away. but when you lose economic power, you start to lose people. when you start to lose people,

you start to lose political power. because the loss of population literally relates the loss of political power which results in loss of government attention, and now you are in a downward cycle. and that's where upstate new york was for many many years. and it was not getting the care and the attention it deserved. we reversed that cycle. we put -- made upstate new york a priority. we invested. that grew political power that grew population, and now you see the reverse. and just the way there's a negative synergy, i believe there's a positive synergy. and i believe if you go to a lot of these cities in upstate new york, you feel a totally different energy than you felt four years ago, and that is the turn around that we're talking about. you look at where the unemployment rate dropped historically the unemployment rate dropped when it dropped in

new york city, and it would stay static upstate new york. you rook at these unemployment numbers, and you -- you look at these unemployment numbers, and you see how balanced our economy is. the days where down state flourishes and upstate suffers are over. and this is a very balanced be picture and a very balanced economy. [applause] the regional economic development councils are working, they're working extraordinarily well. it was a new idea that said we're going to organize region by region across the state because there is no one economy there are regional economies. put everyone at one table, all the politicians, all the business people, all the academics, come up with one regional strategy and then everybody works on that one regional strategy. that's exactly what we've done. it's been a great success, a tremendous amount of work.

the former lieutenant governor bob duffy, served as chairman of the regional economic development councils. he carried the weight on his shoulders. he attended hundreds and hundreds of meetings all around the state and he inspired this process. let's give him a big round of applause and a moment of recognition. [applause] stand up, bob, come on. stand up! [applause] he's the best. we also embarked on a truly ambitious enterprise to turn around western new york. now, western new york -- buffalo -- was the single greatest economic problem in the state of new york. western new york buffalo north country and pockets of poverty

down south in the bronx especially. western new york and buffalo had been down for so long they didn't even believe they could come back. i remember when i first started speaking to groups in buffalo four years ago i would give them my best economic development pitch, and not a single muscle in a single face would move. they had heard it all before. everybody was leaving. the population was shrinking. nothing was going to help buffalo, nothing was going to turn it around. well we did turn around buffalo. and buffalo today, the housing market is way up. you have construction billions and billions of dollars in construction. the private market is flocking to buffalo. they're writing about buffalo internationally as a turn-around

phenomenon. that's what happened in buffalo. and it proved to us if you can turn around buffalo, you can turn around anything. and we're going to. [applause] and we had a great team -- [applause] we had a great team that worked at it every day and made the difference, and i'd ask them to stand and let's give them the recognition they deserve. paul, byron brown, mark, howard dempsey and -- [inaudible] [applause] pleasure. [applause] we also propose expanding our green jobs and our environmental programs. the sweet spot for the state of new york is creating jobs and creating jobs in the clean

energy clean environment area. and that's where we want to focus. we want to increase the environmental protection fund to $172 million. [applause] we also propose -- [applause] we also propose a $50 million farmland preservation fund $40 million of which will be dedicated to the hudson valley which is one of the precious assets in this state. [applause] it is a tourism asset. and we want to keep it that way. and $30 million to strengthen the southern tier's rich and growing agriculture industry, because they need help in preserving their lands. [applause] to spur new investment in green jobs in the southern tier we want to hold a $20 million clean energy competition. let's invite companies internationally to bring their best ideas to the southern tier.

we will take the best ideas in clean energy companies, we will invest in them if they site and grow in the southern tier. we did in this in buffalo. it worked magnificently well. now let's do it for the southern tier. [applause] we also want to expand the upstate economy by investing $65 million in ports and hubs from albany to as wee go to sir use to -- sir use to the binghamton rail yard. you have to be able to move goods in and out and this investment will help make it possible. also want to invest in the state fair. the state fair is symbolically and economically important. the state fair is just that the state fair. it gets a tremendous number of visitors from across the state to demonstrate the state's

development, the state's beauty, the state's resources. the truth is the state fair makes money for the state, over $130 million but the state fair in truth reflects yesterday's new york. it does not reflect today or >> let's reimagine the state fair, let's invest in it, let's be proud of it, let's get a private sector company to come in and partner with us and invest $50 million and really turn around the state fair the way the state is turning around. [applause] fort drum is a great new york north country asset. we're going to spend $1.5 million to buy an additional 1300 acres for training and $25 million for improvements along route 26. fort drum is home to the 10th mountain division which just returned from serving us proudly

in afghanistan. [applause] i visited the 10th mountain division while they were in afghanistan. i'm the person in the picture with the pen in his pocket. [laughter] i wasn't on really serious duty. but the 10th mountain division is the most deployed force since 9/11. just think about that. andbe 323 -- and 323 soldiers have been lost by the 10th mountain division defending our freedom. and we honor their sacrifice, and we have representatives of them here today and we'd ask them to stand so welcome honor you. [applause]

[applause] >> you spent -- tourism continues to be a successful jobs generator, especially in upstate new york. at one time we had a very robust "i love new york" advertising campaign. over the years it went away. we started to bring it back we got more creative in the way

we've been marketing the state. we spent over $100 million in advertising over the past four years, and our investment has been paying off exponentially. visitor spending is up $8 billion to $62 billion, believe it or not, 8% higher than the national rate of growth. that's watkins glen international, by the way and that's a very famous new yorker driving that -- [laughter] car on that track. license plate number 56 is a clue. [laughter] our tourism jobs increased by 83,000 to a total of 850,000, double the national rate of growth. that's the walkway over the hudson. we want to continue this international attention to upstate new york with our challenges and our $25 million investment in "i love new york,"

the adirondack challenges the governor's cup, the fishing challenges, the promotion of our wine industry which is doing great, and we want to continue this effort because it's been reaping dividends. we also want to expand our global markets as the next step. we want to set up a global export/import bank. the federal government has one. i worked with it when i was in the federal government but it has a tremendous impact. and if we capitalize our export/import bank with $35 million, i believe we're going to see multiples of that as dividends. we're going to be leading trade missions to new york's top economic partners including canada china israel and mexico. i'm going to invite the leaders to come with me on these. we went to israel last year and we had a great trip. and this year we're going to be our own version of the three

amigos. [laughter] a little different than the past but the same basic idea. so we will ride again. [laughter] we'll also lead a trade mission to america's newest economic partner which is cuba and we would like to be one of the first states to cuba just from a competitive point of view economically. let us be the first one there, let us develop the relationship, let us open the markets and let us get opportunities for new york companies. our -- [applause] our economic recovery must reach all new yorkers, and there are new yorkers who are still left in the shadow of opportunity. the sad truth is with all the growth in the economy, poverty still exists in this country and poverty still exists in the state of new york. two of poorest communities in the state of new york in those

orange areas are areas where they have poverty greater than 20%. but two of the poorest are rochester and the bronx. rochester has the highest child poverty rate in the state and the bronx has the highest overall poverty rate in the state. we want to build on our successful efforts first at employing minority youth. we have a strike force that's been working in the bronx, it's been working very well. we want to add $10 million to get young people jobs jobs jobs keep them off the street corner give them a positive path to follow. [applause] in rochester we are creating an anti-poverty task force to lift children and their families out of poverty. and we're starting that now.

pope paul said if you want peace, work for justice and that's just what we're trying to do. we have the highest income inequality since the '20s and for too many the dream of economic mobility has been replaced with the reality of stagnation. many people believe if you are born poor, you're going to die poor. and that is the exact opposite of what the american dream promised. the american dream was all about mobility, and wherever you start, you can move forward, and you can move up. that was the beauty of this country. and that's why people came. it didn't matter if you were rich or you were poor, the if you were white or if you were black, you came here, and you could be whatever you wanted to be. you had a chance to do it. this country never guaranteed success, but it did guarantee opportunity. and that promise is slipping away. and we have an agenda that will

work to bring it back. first, we believe we should raise the minimum wage. we raised it once we believe the gaps continue to get worse. [applause] we would raise the minimum wage to $10.50 statewide and in new york city where -- which is a high cost area -- to $11.50. [applause] minimum wage is very simple. we believe if you work full time, you should be able to pay the rent and pay for food and not live in poverty. that's the basic promise of employment. [applause] and we're not there yet. [applause] we still have a hunger problem in this state and many communities we're expanding our

emergency food access because in 2015 there is no excuse why any man, woman or child should go hungry in the state of new york. [applause] and to provide housing and affordable housing, we want to increase our investment by $486 million. let's do the affordable housing we need. let's do the community development we need so we don't wind up with homeless people in the first place. [applause] on the chronic issue of unemployment for minority men we have a urban youth jobs program that provides the employer with a training subsidy if they sure a young person. we'll pay for the training, and we'll also subsidize part of the income. we've hired over 20,000 young men with this program. it works, let's keep it going

and double the funding and double the jobs. [applause] four years ago the state's procurement goal for minority women-owned businesses was 10% which was about $800 million in state contracts were set aside for women-owned businesses and minority-owned businesses. we raised that 10% to 20%. last year we surpassed the 20% and we went to 25% which was $2 billion in state contracts that went to women-owned companies and minority-owned companies. this year we want to take it even to a new level a national level, set the highest goal in the nation and go to 30%, $2.4 billion for minority and women-owned businesses. [applause]

many of our new college graduates face high student loan debt as they begin their career, and it's a troubling situation because they have high debt and low wages. we want to help them get on their feet for their first two years. if they come out of college they have high debt and a job where they earn less than $50,000 per -- which which is the level they probably can't afford to pay off their debt -- we'll pay the debt for the first two years so they can get their feet under them and they can get on with their lives. [applause] we have, we have a vast array of not-for-profits and community development organizations in this state that are really an untapped potential that we want to bring into the mainstream, and we want to develop to access

state programs. we want to grow the capacity to a new office of faith-based community development services, going to be led by assemblyman and pastor -- [applause] let's give him a round of applause. karim camara. congratulations. [applause] [laughter] he only gets one yea? give him more than one yea. yea! [applause] we'll also invest $50 million in the not-for-profit sector on a capacity-building fund to get them the technical skills they need to do it. [applause] education, the great equalizer. and this is the area, my friends, where i think we need to do the most reform and, frankly, where reform is going to be difficult given the

situation of the way education is funded in this state. our education system needs dramatic reform and it has for years. and i i believe this is the year to do it, this is the year to roll up our sleeves and take on the dramatic challenge that has alluded us -- eluded us for so many years for so many reasons. we will pursue an ambitious p-12 agenda professionalized teaching reward excellent teachers, transform state's failing schools, expeditiously but fairly remove ineffective teachers, expand charter schools, pass etc and the dream act, extend mayoral control, continue support for 4-year-olds and pre-k. let's do them one at a time. [applause] we want the best teachers in our classrooms. every study says the quality of

the teacher makes a difference in the school. we must start treating teaching like the profession that it actually is. [cheers and applause] in 2013 in this legislature put in place a quote-unquote bar exam an entrance exam for teachers. last year every prospective teacher had to take a 12th grade math -- a 12th grade literacy test. of the teachers who took it, 32% failed a 12th grade literacy test. and these are teachers who are about to walk into a classroom. these are teachers who were give -- who we're giving to our children. we need a real set of standards for entering the profession.

and we also want to recruit the best and the brightest. and i believe you have to incentivize for that. we are proposing that we will pay full tuition for suny or cuny for the top graduates if they commit to going to teach in new york schools for five years. [applause] and we will create a residency program to give teachers or early training -- teachers early training just the way we do with doctors. [applause] now, everyone will tell you nationwide the key to educational reform is a teacher evaluation system. why? so you know what teachers are doing well, what teachers need work and what teachers are struggling. a teacher value walkings system. evaluation system. new york has talked about it for

years and years and years. we were supposed to implement the teacher evaluation system five years ago in exchange for receive eking federal money called race for the top -- to the top. the schools were reluctanted to do it. last year we said if a school didn't complete a teacher evaluation system, they wouldn't get state funding. the exercise funding -- the excess funding. lo and behold 100% of the student -- of the teachers now have a teacher evaluation system. 100% of the schools adopted a teacher evaluation system. that's the good news. we have teacher evaluation systems for every school in the system. the bad news is they are bologna. now, 38% of high school students are college ready. 38%. 98.7% of high school teachers

are rated effective. how can that be? how can 38% of the students be ready but 98% of the teachers effective? 31%, a third of eighth graders, are proficient in english. but 99% of the teachers are ratedfective. rated effective. 35% of third to eighth graders proficient in math 98 % of the teachers rated effective. who are we kidding, my friends? the problem is clear and the solution is clear. we need real accurate fair teacher evaluations. [applause] we asked the state department of education for their ideas and they gave us their feedback and we accept their recommendations. to reduce the overtesting of students, we will eliminate

local exams and base 50% of the evaluation on state exams. second, the other 50% of the evaluations should be limited to independent classroom ons vawtions. observations. teachers may not be rated effective or highlyfective unless they are effective in both the test and the observation categories. we will stop local score inflation which has resulted in virtually all teachers being rated by setting scoring bans into state law. we propose tenure to to only be granted when a teacher achieves five consecutive years of effective ratings and once we have a fair evaluation system we can incentivize performance. [applause] and we will. i believe that teacher -- the teacher evaluation system should be used to incentivize and

reward high performing teachers. and if a teacher is doing well enoughize that teacher who is doing well and pay them accordingly. we would pay any teacher who gets highly effective a $20,000 bonus on top of the salary that that teacher is getting paid because we want to incentivize high performance. [applause] in 2013 we created the master teacher program which rewards the highest performing teachers in the system. today we have 552 master teachers. these are the best of the best. these are mentors to their colleagues, they have achieved the highest tests on scores they are teachers who go above and beyond and give more to

their students than anyone has a right to ask. we're joined by them today. let them stand so we can honor them and thank them for their contributions. [applause] for teachers who need support after the evaluation we will offer a teacher improvement man to get them the help they need. in the unfortunate case we have a chronically ineffective teacher who despite our help can does not improve, we must protect our students by removing the chronically ineffective teacher from the classroom. [applause]

under the current system, it is so hard to remove an inineffective teacher that most districts will tell you that they don't even try. we'll follow fed's relation and make it fairer, easier and faster to remove ineffective teachers from the classroom. we propose allowing a district to remove a teacher after two ineffective ratings unless the teacher can show that the scoring was percentage lent. let's remember my friends, i know these reforms are tough, but the purpose of the education system and why we do this is why taxpayers give us money to fund education is so that we can teach and nurture our children. this was never about protecting and growing a bureaucracy. it was about helping young

people. it was not about creating an educational industry that then supports ancillary organizations. let's remember the children in this process and then we'll wind up doing the right thing. [applause] we must acknowledge that while education should be the great equalizer, right education is what made the american dream a reality -- my father could go from behind a grocery store and through public education become governor. colin powell could grow up in the bronx and through public education could become head of the joint chiefs of staff. for too many it is now the great discriminator. and the truth is we have two systems. we have one for the rich, and we have one for the poor, and the greatest symbol of disparity is our failing schools. students in failing schools lag well behind in virtually every

academic category. state average for graduation is 76%, failing school 47%. worse, more than 9 out of 10 students in failing schools are minority or poor students. nine out of ten minority or poor students. there are 178 failing schools in new york state. 77 have been failing for an entire decade. over the last ten years, 250,000 children went through those failing schools while new york state government did nothing. just think about that. and that has to end this year. i understand the obstacles to abuse. [applause] i also understand what our students need to move forward.

we should be ashamed of those numbers. the education industry's cry that more money will solve the problem is false. money without reform only grows the bureaucracy. it does not improve performance. state average per student $8,000. state average in a high needs district $12,000. failing district in buffalo which has been a failing district for many, many years, state spent $16,000 per student. so don't tell me if we only had more money, it would change. we've been putting more money into the system every year for decades, and it hasn't changed. and 250,000 children were condemned to failing schools by this system. let's end it this year. we'll take another relation from sed and propose using the massachusetts model in new york. when a school fails for three

years, a not-for-profit, another school district or a turn around expert must take over the school, and they must create a plan to dramatically overhaul and improve the spire school. the entire school. we'll turn each school into a community school and develop a management overhaul plan. the takeover entity will overhaul the curriculum, override agreements and terminate underperforming staff, provide salary incentives and grant priority for pre-k extended learning community schools, early college high schools, wrap around services so we're giving the students the services they need but we're making the changes that we have to make. in this mix charter schools provide a viable option for many of our students. we propose giving students in failing schools a preference in the charter school lotteries. [applause]

the current charter cap is 460. there are 159 slots left. only 24 available slots left for charter schools in new york city. we want to add another 100 to the cap and allow the cap to be statewide to eliminate any artificial limits on where charter schools can open. [applause] to insure that charter schools are serving all of the public we will propose an innovative anti-creaming legislation to insure charters are teaching their fair share of high needs populations, english language learning disabled and free lunch so no one can say that the charter schools aren't taking the same cross-section of public students that the public schools have.

[applause] all students deserve a fair shot at the american dream, and that's why we want to pass a $100 million education tax credit for public and private sector partnerships, and let's pass the dream act for $27 million in this budget and let's make it a reality. [applause] if we're serious about fixing this problem then cities also have to be part of the solution. we're calling on the mayors to join us. let's extend mayoral control in new york city where mayor de blasio has taken control of the school system. let's give him a round of applause. [applause] and let's consider the possibility in other cities where we have chronic long-term

problems with the education system and let other mayors step up to the plate, and we will work with them in that regard. we know that the earlier students somewhere a classroom, the more punt -- students enter a classroom, the more opportunity for success they have. therefore, we've committed $1.5 million to phase in pre-k for 4-year-olds, and we're excited about that. [applause] we'll invest another $365 million this year in pre-k for 4-year-olds, but we also want to take the next step and we want to start designing programs not for 4-year-olds, but for 3-year-olds. [applause] all the studies say the earlier you get them in the better. let new york be ahead of the curve by enrolling 3-year-olds who are now making some of the largest cognitive and behavioral gains. [applause] we're going