mortars. we don't have antitank weapons. that is why it is so hard for us to stop isis. another question i had. besides arming the christians and yezidis and kurds an the sunni tribes who want the take their towns back and live now in dp camps. maybe 7 million people now have been displaced with syria and we have no safe zone this administration has set up to protect them. they would like to go back. they would like to have weaponry and some training from the u.s. to take their villages back. but as long as we're going to defer to shia militia or to baghdad and iran, how is this going to happen? and as long as we're not going to forward deploy our forward observers in order to call in those air strikes, how are we going to give close air support

to those kurdish units? and other units fighting isis? we need a strategy not to contain isis, but to destroy isis so those young men and women now watching on the internet, suddenly get the message that it's not their destiny to go join isis and expand the cal fate. that that is a losing cause. but that change, that takes a change of calculus. on the part of the administration. >> are you more optimistic about the iraqi now that the military has taken back ra maddy? >> i am somewhat because in the past when they've used the shia militia, the human rights abuses to put it mildly, that they've inflicted upon village populations have created a huge blowback. so, some of that is moving in

the right direction, but we could accelerate this if we listened to those in the field who want the authorization. i'd say 75, 80% from what we've heard from the commanders, the flights that go out come back without getting authorization out of wags in terms of dropping their ordnance. they've got to get approval out of washington and in this kind of situation, with those rules of engagement, you know that the challenge there. so, for all of these reasons, i would like to accelerate the roll back of isis because so much depends upon us getting a handle on this enthusiasm of recruitment that right now, is such a problem in europe. and north africa and now, it's becoming a problem here. >> for as long as there per zeed to be winning, they're going to be recruiting. let's change gears.

you introduced legislation to support military assistance to ukraine. i know the administration has frankly to me, resisted that. this is the challenge we face in ukraine. we're not able to arm the people on the ground to support themselves. it's not, there isn't an analogy to the middle east. putin is now in syria. he started in ukraine. how do we miss this challenge? >> well, if we go back one more step, where did it begin, it began with the decision to pull our intercepters out of poland and the czech republic. our secretary of state hillary clinton and this idea of pushing the reset, the idea that the obama administration wanted to send a signal to putin and we had put in an intercepter system, we were expanding a system as a counterweight if iran ever threatened europe or the united states. the concept was to have the

intercepter system in a program where we could intercept any missiles coming out of iran before they arced and fell into european or u.s. territory. but the russians were pushing back on that. and so, in the face of the commitment that had been made by poland and the czech republic, our secretary of state clinton and the president pulled out this system. and i believe that -- as weakness and on the part of the united states. and saw an opportunity when the situation presented itself in ukraine. now, myself and a delegation of eight went into ukraine and all the way to the east, as far as you can get in order to talk to the russian speaking region

there. and we talked to the different groups, the mayor, the council. the response we got was that look, we get a lot of they said this. they said putin is recruiting every skin head they can find in the russian speaking world and they're bringing them in here with weaponry, but we can handle that. because -- they're in the brig. we arrest them. that is not our problem. our problem is russian tanks. that we do not have antitank weapons. the problem is you won't sell or

give us thoesz weapons. is to give toews in ukraine a credible deterrence that says to putin, if you continue with the armor in this region, there will be an an ant ek dote for inserting those tanks because they feel they could have handled the situation if it weren't for russian armor and troops. our goal, we have the sanctions on russia to try to push russia out, but for me, if you show resolve up front, if like reagan, you awe announce that because the iranian have taken the hostages when you become president, you're going to do something about it, what happened the day that he was being sworn in? our hostages at the time were being taken to a canadian plane.

american hostage after the agreement. was signed by our secretary of state. so, i think our whole strategy has to look at what's work ed i the past. including by the way broadcasting. i was in eastern europe in east jegermny on an exchange program years ago. those broadcasts under radio free europe where we had a different plan. it was to reach out and actually change those governments, which is exactly what happened.

in east germany, where i saw this happen, you could see what was happening with the population and you could see that inevitably now, we were sharing our values. what we've had around the world to explain pluralism, freedom of regiligion, tolerance, these we the concepts that were being taught and people were listening to this. this is what should be going on now with respect to our broadcast -- and even the administration says the broadcasting is practically defined so, the legislation that myself and elliot are moving addresses that in two ways. you put a strong ceo in charge of this instead of f a seven board you know, several nine members of the board that can't

make a quorum. you give that ceo the mission we once gave radio free europe and get us back up, countering what putin is doing with his propaganda machine and rt television along with ha isis is is doing. >> the radios and also our direct broadcasting back in the day really were a lifeline of hope. we heard him talk about how they were the hearing that was really something that gave them optimism in the future. to do the same thing. the influence of the goal to get

along in -- >> so, it's morphed into national public radio. without the mission that we had at the time, and let's be honest, our mission was to infuse those societies with the knowledge that would allow them to move towards greater freedom and support for market economy, right? and a template in a lesson on tolerance of how democratic systems would work. a and the legislation isn't just about radios, but to do it, we have to feel confident in our message. about our goals. we have to be able to talk about

freedom. we have to be able to talk about these issues that i'm speaking of, freedom of religion and so forth and give people a vision. you've got to feel confident to do that and you've got to believe that the right thing to do is to empower the people. two-thirds o the people in iran who went to the streets. i don't think the right thing to do is to increase the leverage of the atoe la or the irjc in that society which will receive $100 billion plus in revenue because we've sort of forgotten all of those companies were nationalized, includinging the oil sfindustry? it's not going to be iranian people the way this has been set up. it's going through the guard's

corps. what are they going that additional money? this is not going to be empowering. for the people. in iran. so, i think this strategy has to be reversed. >> so, we've talked a lot about political freedom. we haven't talked about economic freedom. you've come out in favor of the, of tpp, the trans pacific partnership. across the pacific rim and europe and what they share with me is look, we're either going to have agreements for international trade, which are low tariffs or high standards or afwreemts if bay i didn't think is leading the process, of low

tariffs, no standards. we figured out that for us, we're much better protected in these negotiations if we can have high standards, so we're willing to give you more market access. after all, your tariffs are pretty low to begin with. ours are pretty high. we will bring them down and you write agreements with high standards and we'll sign on to that because we would sooner have america driving this train. this is also what european parliamentary yans tell us privately. now, we understand protectionistists attitudes and so forth, but when you're talking to those who understand what's at stake, they encourage

us to move forward and to lead. if you don't leave in the united states, that's not going a happy outcome. >> some of the provisions will allow the japanese and state owned enterprise to slide in in with problem. how do you take that. >> intellect yal protect provisions are a lot better. are they on indigenous innovation, what i would like to see in the end? no, i'd like to see them stronger, but on ip protections, ip productions in there. you contrast that with what p beijing is pushing, which has no productions. this obviously increasing, don't let the perfect be the enemy of

the good. that is what i would say here. and remember, this is not a situation where we abdicate moving forward, trade liberalization in a rules based system, we set up after the second world war. i just want people to reflect on what part of the consequences have been in terms of liberalizing trade around the world. part of that consequence if you look at economies then, world economy was about 5 trillion. today, it's $70 trillion f. you look at child mortality rate thence, we've got that rate by two-thirds. around the globe, the answer is not to put up higher tariffs. we saw what that looked like during the great depression.

because that great depression was a worldwide depression and one of the things that accelerated it was this, was governments moving forward with ever higher tariffs as we tariff wars and today, we're in a situation where we could be so advantaged if we can build on the momentum of higher and higher standards. because we have our allies in europe and we have our allies in the pacific rim who will agree to go along with us. but if we lose the momentum on this process, and instead, it's driven in asia by beijing, i think it's going to be a much different future. >> i take a little bit of the blame. we talk a lot about political freedom. human freedom, religious freedom. we don't talk enough about the transformtive role of economic freedom and even in the middle east, where we don't see that,

it makes such a huge difference in people's lives. i have completely monopolized the microphone as is my want and i'd like to open things up for questions. everybody knows our procedures. i'll call on you. someone will come over to you with a microphone. identify yourself and your affiliation and put your brilliant, brilliant statement in the form of a very short question or i'll cut you off. this gentleman had his hand up first. >> chairman royce with the hin due american foundation. president obama has it's come out in the media, has invited prime minister modi and sharif for talks here in washington in the spring and these talks now are overshadowed by yet another terrorist attack. as chairman of the foreign affairs question, which will wiyou advise the administration to curb religious extremism in the

region? >> i have long discussed this issue. the former chief minister and now prime minister of india. the attack on mumbai for example is where we picked up certain sbel where she knows and we shared it with the indian government. prz we were able to discern enough information to present that loss of life. our secondary problem of course is that many of the schools, in this case t campus, that exists to recruit those jihadists, have not been closed down. there are 600 schools for example as well as this let campus that exists in pakistan

that i have been trying to get closed down in three trips over the years to pakistan, i've pushed, pushed, pushed on this. part of the problem is that these are not funded actually inside pakistan. there's gulf state funding. that continues to play this role. of this jihadist ideology. so, we need to work worldwide to shut down the funding of that kind of mechanism. third, we need to work on the internet. we've got to work with palo alto as well as in india and tel aviv with respect to those involved in that i.t. community in terms of how you take this down on the internet. so, there's a number of different solutions here.

we must understand that as we dismiss isis and these other organizations as the jv team, that is not the case. this is accelerating and instead, this must be a long with containing or stoppinging iran from developing the capabilities eventually of getting a a nuclear weapons program and i would argue that the way this agreement was handled is is just a temporary ten-year, 15 at the most, hiatus on this. until we have a strategy to empower the people in iran, i think we have got a problem if the i toe la is making these decisions and until we close down those schools in the l.e.t. campus, where those terrorists are recruited, i think we have the same problem in terms of attacks in india. >> we've really taken our eye off the ball in pakistan and

we're not talking about al-qaeda as well and how what they're doing in afghanistan. this lady has a question. >> hi. penny star with cns news, so, if you could advise a new president in 2016, what would be the first priority in restoring u.s. leadership around the world? >> well, i think the first priority is the lay out a strategy in which we are going to lead. and i think reaching out first to our democratic allies and then to our other friends around the world in order to lay out what that strategy is going to look like. i think also, in terms of the road, that mean and are interpreted by all the countries in the world, it means you

cannot claim a reef as your kicko sovereign territory. you cannot take a marking pen and draw a line around the south china sea. then say all of this is our territory. so i think it's important we work with others to say these are the rules and we're not going to violate the rules and with respect to terrorism, there's a new strategy. it's not to contain it, it's to defeat it and you take it from there. >> can can i follow up on your south china sea? what more should we be doing? we're doing some freedom of navigation operations in the south china sea to push back on the chinese. what more should we be doing? >> that's the whole question here is freedom of navigation.

we need to do that with a pacific fleet. i don't think you necessarily need to send one frout there. make it clear by the way internationally, happens to see this the same way yourks pak this a worldwide issue that these are the rules of the road. >> gentleman back here. this week, you had a closed door briefing. step that is you and other leaders would like to see this,

could you elaborate on some of that as much you can as well as you know, steps that other steps that and other congressional lead ers woul like to see this mrks or future administrations take in regards to protecting and helping our allies, armenia and georgia in the region, who are a constant threat. >> i septembnt a letter to the president along with my ranking member and my committee that lay out a strategy of first putting these range finding, special equipment that can tell where a gun is fired from, so, if you have an incoming shell, it can tell which side of the line of control that the shell is coming from. direction finding committee. second, to put observers there and third, to require all sides

to pull all snipers off of the front lines. if these three things are done, the ngo committee and those in the pentagon tell us it will lead to a safer situation because you'll no longer have the trip wires, so we're pushing for all three of those actions. now, while at the same time, we're talking to both governments, i've been in paki as well as talking to the heads of states of both countries with a bipart son delegation trying to lower those temperatures. >> thank you for your time. how important is it that the usa support the kurds with lodgist cal and military capability.

thank you. >> i think it's very important because first of all, the kurdish forces are doing most of the fighting on the ground. second, the kurdish forces are the best fighters. third, as i said, 30% of the kurdish bah tall ons are female and those women are fighting up against isis and you and i have both read accounts in the american press about their bravery. i think it's morally, it's not morally responsible for us to allow -- the antitank guns, artillery, long range mortars that they have requested in order to match isis. i have no doubt that they will be victorious and i think it is a very important point.

>> do you ever worry that supporting groups on the basis of tribes or second is going to push apart just a consequence we should tolerate. >> we should be focused on giving them the equipment that they need to give their villages back. that should be the focus. the munitions necessary to take their villages back because if we do not, if we mentioned the word paralysis, if like the mrgs were in a state of paralysis, think for a minute, 7 million people displaced in camps that want to go back to their villages. what are the consequences? that is inside syria and iraq. imagine the billion and a half

in turkey, the three quarter of a million in lebanon or a million now in lebanon. the three quarter of a million in jordan chblt. the million in europe. we have a humanitarian mare and we dither because -- come through us. but the problem is, until they show a capability of standing up to tehran, to the iranian regime. engaging and the kurds and nempb the same way. until we see that action. but there is a habit that has been put into place, we have to break that habit. and i would say the way we begin

is arming the yezidis and the kurds and the sunni tribes that want to take their religious back. >> young man in the back there. >> the attempt to support our friends with the asian rebalance. how would you character iize th progress so far? what more should we be doing? what it is is an effort to move forward with a rule of law and i support very much the administration's support for the trans pacific partnership, as well as the atlantic agreement. those are tep steps in the right

direction in terms of enforcing the rules of the road. will better protect our ip property. but it will also lead to a synergy of more economic growth and i think all of that is a step in the correct direction. >> work my way back across the room. i tried to gather everybody. there are two ladies behind the camera heers. >> thank you, reporter from voice america. we talk about north korea, russia and china, so, chairman royce, in your view, which country pose bigger threat to the united states in the coming year? thank you. >> i think the greatest long-term threat is still iran. it is a threat to the region. and 15 years out, it's a threat

potentially to the united states. i'm concerned that tilt to iran will complicate our efforts to try to constrain iranian behavior. the secondary problem i think we face long-term is this by the way, ipg the ayatolla has his own calla fate. when he is talking about overturning governments in yemen, bahrain, saudi arabia, i think this idea of the shia crescent stretching to lebanon is a very, very destabilizing reality that we're dealing with and then at the same time, we have this jihadist concept of of the isis.

two driven interpretations are moouing away from any acceptance of political pluralism or freedom of religion for people to practice their own religions. that's not tolerated in either of these quarters. so, with that in tolerance and increased radicalization comes the danger that either one of those groups get ever deadlier weapons into their position. that's why i would like to see isis decisively destroyed. >> it seems that sanctions in iran is days away according to secretary kerry.

that iran in fact without input from congress. given your view of pretty substantial threat, what can congress do in the long-term in a new err of u.s. sanctions lifted on iran's sector? >> well of course, i don't think it's just my view. this particular initiative the president only got the support of 42 members in the senate, all right? and certainly, minority of the members of house of representatives, including many defections from his own party in the house. so, i think the question of what we can do depends upon our resolve to first try to enforce the agreement and i haven't seen any real resolve on the

administration in terms of enforcing it. and second, whether or not we intend to keep the commitment made by both those who voted for it and those who opposed it, which was regardless of what happens next we all agree that the -- further testing on icbms and further support for terror. this is a test of their intentions. i would put one other thing or the table. the reports that surfaced in "the wall street journal" that iran has agreed to transfer the capable capability in the hands of he has for targeting their missiles, did you know iran,

there's some 100,000 rockets and missiles now in the hands of hezbollah. but they're dumb rockets. i saw this some years ago during the second lebanon war. i'd watch those things crash into the city every day. i was in the trauma hospital. they couldn't target the tallest building. they couldn't target the airport. what iran has said was that we will transfer that conventional capability to hezbollah. we will also do that, we will resupply the rockets to ham hams in gaza and rebuild the tunnels. now, ladies and gentlemen, those are direct violations of the international resolutions and the call for sanctions is the

administration going to make it clear to the ayatolla that we are not going to allow the transfer of that capability into the hands of nazaralla? into the hands of hezbollah? i think this is an essential question and all of this, we intend to use our committee as we've done in the past to put legislation out. to encourage the administration to take action. the mrks we'd like to to have as a partner this halting iran in this kind of conduct, but whether or not they agree, we will go forward with legislation to try to force this issue. >> do we have time for one more question? young lady waving her arm and this is going to be our last.

>> a handful of pentagon officials have been calling for acceleration of the partners. they've been saying partners have having to buy from china and rug and places like that because the u.s. process was too slow. do you plan to introduce any language that would speed up the process? >> no, i don't have concerns about doing that. because we have been pushing the administration on this. it has to do also with our industrial base. the defense of our industrial base. when our allies need this equipment, it makes very little sense to have them go instead to other countries because frankly, part of keeping our production lines opened and offering a deterrence is having allies and friends able to count upon the united states for weapons of deterrence and so, this is, we've had ongoing discussions with the administration on this in order to try to expedite and

reverse some of these policies that have gone on, where things have been held year after year. i used to say month after month, but it's now year after year. >> as the congressman has to head back to his job on capitol hill, but i know you'll all join me in thanking him for his leadership. spacspan takes you op the r

to the white house at town hall meetings, speeches, rallies and meet and greets. we're taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone and always every campaign event we cover is available on our website, cspan.org. >> former arkansas governor mike huckabee took part in a candidate's forum on combatting poverty. the event hosted by the jack kemp foundation in columbia, south carolina. >> from a southerner's perspective, he said this is church. ta all the seats are on the front row. if you'll please matriculate to the front of the audience, you will find a place for your hind side. otherwise, you can stand in the back and see our pearly whites. >> mike. >> you want to talk? paul says we have to bring up the next guy, which is good

news, because i have an affinity for southern fellas. the governor of arkansas, presidential candidate, mike huckabee. come yoin us. >> thank you. thank you. >> mike, i was looking back over the work you've done over the last several years. i love the title of one of your books, hope to higher ground. i know hope, arkansas is an parent place for you. why don't you start the conversation about the road of recovery. >> well, senator, one of the things i feel like i can bring to the discussion is that i grew up in poverty. i understand what it's like to grow up poor. i find it sometimes amazing when people talk about poor people as if people are poor because they want to be. and i've often said that if you grew up poor, you didn't want to be.

to make fun of your shoes or the fact you have two pair of jeans and nothing more and you didn't enjoy that. we went on vacation and you never did. there were a lot of things, but i didn't grow up recentful. i grew up optimistic and hopeful that in america, there's the community to get an education, work hard and one day, enjoy more than i enjoy. i believe there is an incredible opportunity for us to reclaim that spirit of america are people are rewarded for their work. the growth of people of being able to move upwardly. but i think sometimes, the government policies we've created are created by people who never spent a day poor. they don't understand.

it's why i'm so very delighted to be with the two of you today to talk about it. >> let me ask you this then. given there's this sort of arrogance that there's that tin ear, what do you think the biggest thing people miss when we talk about fighting poverty? what is the biggest thing we miss? there's an instinlgt that if we have -- the war on poverty in 1965. spent over $2 trillion. poverty race is pretty much the same than it was 50 years ago, so we didn't do much to move the needle. part of the reason was we didn't attack some of the purposes and reasons people can't get out of the hole. when i was governor, and we refored welfare in the mid '90s,

we were given a loft flexibility because we knew our demographics and people. we moved over half the people who had been on welfare, not just off welfare. that's easy. just cut off the funds, but to get them into transition where they're going to work every day. that's the challenge and we did that. here's how. if you're a single mom able to get wick, food stamp, medicaid, section eight housing, maybe some states, transportation assistance, there are a host of benefits that can be tapped into. many are necessary for those families to survive. to put food on the table and some still have a hard time. but if that parent goes to work and works at the only job for which they're qualified, which is probably a minimum wage job and they work enough, they will work themselves up to the threshold at which all of those programs disappear, so what ends up happening rather than work getting them ahead, work could

totally impoverish their families where their kids have not enough food, zero health care, not a roof over their head and so, when people say well a lot of these you know, i've heard it put this way. welfare mothers, you know, they august to get out and work. i'm thinking, those welfare mothers, they're a lot smarter than the idiots in government who designed the program that punishes them for trying. what has to happen is a sliding scale so you don't lose all your benefits. because you can't and be a responsible parent. >> i agree. that's what we call the poverty trap. a big tax against work and yes, the administration whether it's obama care or other things that have added to that to trap more people in poverty, thinking that if we just treat the symptoms of poverty, then the job done. when all we're doing is tracking people in poverty. the challenge with tapering these benefits, with sort of

sliding this stacale down is ea person is different. has different benefits, different situations and so, it's hard to come up with sort of even a one size fits all solution, so, how many you get at that at the human individual level so that you could always in every person's instance, make work pay. how do you get at that track to actually make it work? >> let me offer two suggestions. one is something on the congressional level that you guys can fix and that is let these programs be managed at the state level. create a broad perspective, but let the governors manage it. governors have to balance their budgets. they're close to their people. they're going to be held accountable for the results. and they're going to be in a position to know what will work in their state. massachusetts and arkansas are very different. one has a higher level of higher educated people. you have to let these programs be administered and the details

of the design be done as close to the people as possible. it's something called the tenth amend m and i believe there's a purpose for it wg in the institution. so that's one thing. the second thing, one of the reasons i'm a strong proponent for the fair tax and i've testified, i even testified on capitol hill for it. it's a tax that we would pay at the point of consumption rather than at the point of productivity. our tax system defies common sense. if people work, we punish them by taxing their work. if they say we punish them by tacking their seasons, if they make a good investment, we punish them by taxing investment, income, whether its dividends are a capital gain and we tax them for being good stewards of their resources because we tax an inheritance. if people pay tax at the point of con sumts, they would control what they pay. which has an understood lying

principle of untaxes the poor which i won't get into the complications of f that. people at the bottom third of the economy are the ones who benefit the most. if a person works today eight hours and can't really make it on that because he's working in the factory, just busting it, but can't make it. he says i'm going work a double shift. i've talked to people in machine shops where this is true. i'm going to work a double shift. they work 16 hour days. you would think if you work a 16-hour day, you'd get a double paycheck, but you don't because you're going to be bumped into a new tax bracket and the government will get as much of your second shift as you do. so, the incentive is don't work anymore than you have to. you need to get a double paycheck and under the fair tax, if you work, you git, you eliminate the payroll tax. everybody's taxed at the point of con sumts and it's a powerful unlock of the xhapd you start bringing $31 trillion of capital back into the united states that's been parked offshore. i think that boosts the economy.

that helps us to deal with such things such as the 5 million manufacturing jobs we've lost. 6,000 plants that have closed since the year 2000. now, we're talking about putting rocket fuel in the economy and seeing growth, which is the only thing that really in the long-term, solves joblessness, homelessness, is giving people jobs that pay enough money to make it possible for everyone to survive and succeed. >> having a president obaositivn corporate inversions, would you then suggest that if you f have the fair tax, you eliminate the irs? >> the only man that eliminates the irs. because if you're not reporting your income to the government -- that's the applause line i've gotten my whole campaign. give it to the irs. i think the irs -- >> might want to say it again.

>> look, i'm pretty blunt. i think it's a rogue entity. i think it's a criminal enterprise. the mafia has more honor than the irs. and let me be honest and tell you why. in our system of jurisprudence, we are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence is ours and the burden of proof is on the government. the irs is the only entity in government in which the burden of proof is on the taxpayer and the presumption of guilt is of guilt, not innocence and we are fined and targeted at the beginning of the process, not the end and if we are in fact found innocent, all we get is our money back. if we're found guilty, we're kept guilty. we lose our money, interest and could go to jail. unless you're lois lerner and then you can erase your e-mails and the dog the eat your home work and it didn't matter.

>> i could spend a few minutes on controls, all the strinlgs we did as a result of that, but i won't spend -- the president said that president said that ec inequality is the, quote, defining challenge of our time. do you think focusing on inequality is the best way to fight poverty. >> no. focusing on inequality is focusing on the problem. focusing on the solution is how to make it work. we used to make things in this country. now we make up things. we come up with the idea. we design the iphone, but it is made in china. of course it is because we tax capital and labor. if we tax capital and labor, we tax the people who are building something and the parts and the pieces that they're building with it. if they make that same product in china, they don't tax capital and labor for items of export.

they're not taxed as they're built. they're not taxed at export. we don't tax it at import. there's a 22% embedded cost in what we make in this country versus what's made in china, indonesia, and mexico. it's inherently more expensive. we embed the tax. the fair tax takes that ftax ou. you pay it at point of consumption. 22% of it is tax. if you built it in china, it has a 22% advantage. pass the fair tax where you pay at consumption. both chairs are untaxed until their purchased. now you have an equal marketplace. if you account for a cheaper labor cost, by the time you figure the mistakes made, america is back in business making things. that's what built the middle class in this country. we'll never be a great middle

class without making things again. >> governor, i spent some time on your website looking through it and trying to figure out how you would eradicate poverty. one of the things that you've said is family seems to be the building blocks of civilization. talk about the family and its importance on eradicating poverty. >> a lot of people think if we didn't government programs here and there, it would do it. a child is born into a family where both mother and father have high school education and are gainfully employed and remain together in a monogamous marriage. if a child grows up in a single parent home where one or more of the parents have less than a high school education, the child will spend 90 to 91% of their

time growing up in poverty. those of us who say marriage matters, family matters. sounds like we're coming at it telling people how to live. it's an economic issue. it is based on what this country was founded on. the idea that some things are right. some things are good and wholesome and virtuous. we should elevate them and uphold them. we elevate the idea that a person doesn't need marriage in order to have a child, that fathers are incidental to a strong, stable, growing up. we need to be honest. we need to just say that's crazy. children need mothers and fathers. they need stability. they need homes.

that will do more to get them out of poverty than anything. >> the reason we talk about marriage and family is because that's a beautiful support structure for a person to teach them, to equip them with the skills that this is what we do as parents so when your kids get up, here are the tools you need to succeed. that's missing in so many parts. it hits everybody. and it's breaking families. you have this deep history as pastor, as a man of faith. and in so ways, especially on the left, there's this belief, this notion, that government needs to occupy this space in our society that is there between ourselves and our government, which is really where community and faith ought to occupy in a limited government civil society system.

it's the government we elected. but we're losing that. we're losing these systems that help the human person, especially a person who doesn't have a family, especially a person who may be in a family, but they have estranged themselves from their family because of their addiction or some other problem. give me a sense of how you think faith plays into this and how we take on this arrogant idea that the government needs to take over this space, that the government needs to elbow out, you know, civil society and come in and crowd that out. how do we revive those legions? how do we in the sense where a person doesn't have a family -- how do we help them get connected with a person and how does faith play a role in that? >> mr. speaker, my first career was in broadcasting and advertising. then i spent 12 years as a pastor of a church. part of the reason i got out of

politics is because i wanted to take the values and insights that i learned from that experience into the political arena. i didn't leave my faith behind. i brought it with me. >> right. >> i never exchanged the capitol dome for the steeple. we have made a huge mistake in this country thinking we should somehow create this huge separation between faith and government. and the truth is we cannot function as a culture and as a society when we divorce the sense of our fundamental christian values as the foundation of our society for this reason. we can't. [ applause ] >> we were designed as a country because our founders understood the best government we'll ever have is not the government we elect. it's self-government. it's when we govern ourselves to do what's right.

when we do that, then we don't need a lot of government overseeing us to make sure that they manage our behavior. when we don't fall into self-government, then we'll have more and more government. i said to the small government folks the best way to have smaller government is to have bigger hearted people who govern themselves. the more people are self-contained moral, virtuous people following their faith -- i know if you don't catch me doing something and the press doing something, he still does. i'm more worried about his evaluation of me than yours. i'm more concerned about his evaluation. >> it can get worse. >> let's quit apologizing for

being a country in which we have to be people that understand our basic self-centered nature, the bible could call it the sin nature. let's quit apologizing. our founders understood our frailty. they knew if there was only one branch of government, it would get too big and too powerful and corrupt and it would run all over people. that's the whole point of three branchs of government. it's a brilliant system, but it was designed on this notion that we can't be left to ourselves. we have to ultimately answer to each other in accountability and ultimately to god. that's not something we should be ashamed of. that's who we are. if we're not that, we fail. >> governor, we are very quickly running out of time. we have about four minutes left. i know that you started off in sales and advertising. you became a pastor. >> yep. >> my mother wanted a pastor. she got a preacher.

she got a politician, and she's not been happy since, right? you finished being a governor. as governor, you did some things on sentencing reform, on welfare to work. >> right. >> can you talk about the policies at the state level that would set captives free that are mired in poverty? >> helping people understand that education is a very critical ticket to avoiding poverty and so is a stable marriage. make it harder to get a divorce, not easier. it is easier to get out of a contract for the pressuurchase used car than a marriage. make it a little tougher to get in and even more tough to get out. i think that's a part of it. in the criminal justice system my prison director used to

say -- and i quoted him often. we lock up a lot of people that we're mad at rather than the ones we're really afraid of. there's some people that need to be locked up. we're afraid of them. they're dangerous. there are a lot of people that we lock up that it frankly doesn't make sense and economically it's a disaster. about 50 bucks a day at most state levels you lock them up, for $5, $6 a day you can keep them in community-based systems. in our prison system in arkansas 88% of the inmates were there because of a drug or alcohol issue. they were either drunk or high or committed the crime or they committed the crime to get drunk or high. we didn't have a crime problem. we had a drug and alcohol problem, and we have to focus on the treatment of people who have addictions and treat them as people with addictions as opposed to treat them with criminal behavior because the criminal behavior is subsequent to the addiction.

>> this is an area where i think the issue is coming full circle. in the 1990s we overcompensated. >> yes. >> i think now we see the devastation that's occurred as a result of that. it's conservatives of faith that are seeing the power of redemption is so beautiful and so important. this is one of those areas where i really do think because there's a federal government with federal prisons and federal laws overcriminalizing things and state governments that have shown there's a way forward. they've shown how reform works. this is one of those areas where i really do believe we have a chance at making a big difference so we can honor redemption. we can see the redemption that occurs in our communities. stop washington from being a part of the problem so that our governors, our localities can be part of the solution. >> i know our time is almost gone, but let me just respond to that by saying the best way to do that is to turn this loose at

the state level and let them be the laboratories of democracy they were intended to be. obamacare is a failure because it was a 50 state experiment and all 50 states aren't the same. if we make a 50 state mistake, the whole country is messed up. road test some ideas. let some governors take some ideas and road test them. if it works in five to ten states, other governments will pick it up. the best way to make that happen is to not punish the programs that are faith based. you may have to turn the money loose and completely let go of it, but there's no way to make these programs work if you deny people the opportunity to have

these faith-based programs. sometimes people need the affirmation as a human being that they have worth and value, that they're not disposal and expendable. that's one of the things missing in a government program. [ applause ] >> that's perfect. what a beautiful sentiment to end on. ladies and gentlemen, governor huckabee. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate it. >> do a quick picture. >> all right. i get to be the meat of the sandwich. great. thank you, guys. >> great job. next on c-span 3 navy admiral john richardson talks about some of the strategic and budgetary challenges facing the u.s. navy. the u.s. supreme court heard the

arguments today over whether to require government union members to pay dues. we'll bring you a discussion on that case in about an hour. then executive branch oversight. as president obama prepares for his state of the union address on tuesday, he released this video on twitter. >> i'm working on my state of the union address. it's my last one. and as i'm writing, i keep thinking about the road we've traveled today these past seven years. that's what makes america great. our capacity to change for the better. our ability to come together as one american family and pull ourselves closer to the america we believe in. it's hard to see sometimes in the day-to-day noise of washington, but it is who we are and it is what i want to focus on in this state of the union address. >> and c-span's coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern with senate

historian betty and congressional reporter james looking back at the history and tradition of the president's annual message and what to expect in this year's address. then at 9:00 our live coverage of the president's speech followed by the republican response by south carolina governor nikki haley, plus your reaction by phone, facebook, tweets, and e-mail as well as those from members of congress on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. we'll reair our state of the union coverage and the republican response starting at 11:00 p.m. eastern, 8:00 p.m. pacific. we'll hear from members of congress in statuary hall with their reaction to the president's address. now admiral john richardson talks about some of the maritime challenges facing the u.s. navy, including being able to respond more quickly to global threats. admiral richardson, whose chief of naval operations spoke at the

national press club. welcome to the national press club. my name is john hughes. i'm an editor for bloomberg first word. and i'm president of the national press club. i want to welcome you today. our speaker is admiral john richardson. he's the chief of naval operations for the united states navy. but first, i want to introduce our distinguished head table. this includes members of the national press club as well as distinguished guests of our speaker. i ask people to stand when i mention their name. editor of defense news. he's also host of defense news every sunday at 11:00 on abc 7. max letterer, publisher of stars

and stripes. michael phelps, former naval officer and former publisher of the washington examiner. tony, defense reporter for bloomberg news. the honorable john dalton, a member of the u.s. naval academy class of 1964 and former secretary of the united states navy. the honorable john warner, a world war ii sailor, korean war marine, a former secretary of the navy, and a former senator from the commonwealth of virginia and in fact is the second longest serving senator in the history of the commonwealth of virginia. angela, white house correspondent for bloomberg news and a former president of the national press club. skipping over our speaker for a moment, kevin, retired u.s. navy

captain. a member of the uss constitution museums board of overseers. vice admiral peter h. daily u.s. navy retired and ceo of the u.s. naval institute. lolita, pentagon and counterterrorism reporter for the associated press. rachel oswald, foreign policy reporter for congressional quarterly. jim noon, navy veteran and member of the national press club american legion post. [ applause ] >> i also want to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences and remind you you can also follow the action on

twitter. use #npclive. well, to put it simply and directly, the u.s. navy faces an awful lot of challenges. there's the south china sea where the chinese have been building island bases. there's a growing russian naval presence in the mediterranean sea. there are isis and al qaeda terrorists who are being bombed with the assistance of u.s. navy aircraft carriers. and closer to home there are always humanitarian missions, counter drug efforts. the navy faces issue on cybersecurity, recruiting and retention of the forces, and of course budgetary challenges. at the center of all this is admiral john richardson, who

since september has served in the capacity as the 31st chief of naval operations. he is a 1982 graduate of the u.s. naval academy and a career navy submarine officer. he served on several boats and he commanded the uss honolulu. he served as come doer, as commander of the submarine allied naval forces south, as commander of naval submarine forces and as director of naval reactors. admiral richardson will discuss the u.s. navy's role in this global maritime environment. he'll lay out how the u.s. and its partners can maintain maritime superiority. ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm national press club welcome to admiral john richardson. [ applause ]

>> well, thank you for that very kind introduction, mr. hughes. and i'd also like to pay my respects to our distinguished members of the head table, senator warner. i know i'm in a good company that we've all been schooled by you in many ways. john, thank you for that kind introduction again and also for your tenure here as the president of the press club, which comes to an end on friday after a year of distinguished service. i think we all owe mr. hughes a round of applause here. [ applause ] >> and i'd like to thank everybody for just having me here. it's a real honor and a privilege to be in these halls for the very first time. you know, it has been -- i took over as the chief of naval

operations in september as has been mentioned, so we're past 100 days now. so certainly the honeymoon is over, but i still remember very vividly the moment that secretary of defense carter called me and said, hey, john, i just want to tell you the president is going to nominate you to be the chief of naval operations. i will tell you that my mind flashed back in an instant to my very first assignment, reporting aboard to my very first submarine in california in 1983. and i just remembered there's richardson report aboard his very first boat. who could have thought at that time it would have led to this? who could have looked forward 33 careers and thought that i would ever be getting this call to be nominated to be the chief of

naval operations? and my commanding officer on that submarine, who was just an absolutely fantastic guy, he certainly was surprised. in fact, he's been calling me up surprised for every promotion i've had since lieutenant commander. are you kidding me? i found out today that is captain pete graph was a shipmate of secretary dalton on the blue back. it's just a commentary on what a small world we live in. but as i thought back and it's shaped my thinking going forward as the chief of naval operations, when i entered the service a mere 33 years ago, we truly did at that time live in a different world, didn't we? it was different in so many ways. our enemy, the enemy at that

time, we were focused on was the soviet union. it was a bipolar world in so many respects. we loved "e.t." and we listened to michael jackson, starting to really become the pop star that he was, and we listened to him on those cassette tapes in our walkmans. boy, i'll tell you when you were under way, that thing was a cadillac to have. if you had a walkman, you were styling, right, because you could listen to your tapes and not disturb everybody else, particularly on a submarine. the commercial internet did not even exist at that time. in fact, the inventor of facebook, mr. zuckerberg, had not even been born. he was still a twinkle in his mother's eye, as they say, having been born in 1984. so the world has changed in so many ways. one way that i'd like to talk about how things have changed

maybe from a technological standpoint -- and it's timely because we're sort of getting into playoff season and the super bowl -- is as a navy guy, as a submariner, how we enjoyed the super bowl. so a lot of times we talk about, hey, how many christmases are you away, holidays, anniversaries, birthdays. that's all true, but everybody knows how many super bowls they were under way for. and my first super bowl in 1983 the entire game would go on -- i had no awareness of it at all. after the game would finished, you would get a one line message in next news broadcast. and it would just give you the score. that score was washington redskins, 27, miami dolphins, 17. so it truly was a different era,

wasn't it? and so that's kind of my first super bowl under way in 1983. fast-forward to another pivotal time in my career was in the early 90s, late 80s, early 90s. at that time the soviet union had collapsed, the wall had come down. what we would do -- we still couldn't get the live feed for the game. but we had sega genesis. and we had madden nfl on sega genesis. we would pick two teams and put them on auto mode. it was like it was real. there was no hint that there was any pretend and people were cheering for their teams. it had nothing to do with the real game, but that was pretty real for us. you would get all the whole smack talking and scuffles and everything else would go on. it was great, so we watched the

cowboys and the bills duke it out in complete simulated cyberspace. later on down we would get the score. it was by the time i had command and to this day if you're in the right place where you can put an antenna above the water, you can now watch the super bowl play out in realtime. it is just like you're there in your living room. just sort of one kind of vignette in terms of how things have changed over time. that world we group up in has changed so dramatically and not just from technology. i like sports analogies and it is very timely. we've got the game tonight. not only have the teams changed on the field, but i would say just like in the nfl the character of the entire game has changed, and that's the thing that captures my attention as i

begin my tenure as the chief of naval operations. the pace of things has become so accelerated from even the time in the early 80s that if we to not respond to those changes, if we do not recognize and adapt to the changing character of the game, we are a navy who is at risk of falling behind, shooting below our potential, or worse falling behind our competitors. i would like to sort of set the stage, if i could, a little bit knowing i'm fully mindful of the crowd that i'm addressing. national security professionals speak very plainly and often about the teams and the competition. we'll know them. i will say a few words about them. russia, china, they've already been mentioned. north korea, iran, isis, but there's much more to the story, as i said. the character of the game has changed and i'm focused on three forces that for the navy are

sort of defining our way forward. three forces that are causing our world to be more used, more trafficked, more stressed, more important, and perhaps most interestingly more competed than ever. and i'll lay out these three forces. one is the maritime system itself, which is becoming increasingly important and contested. the second one is this information system, a global information system, also exponentially more used and contested. then the third force is the introduction of technology, the pace at which it is being introduced and adopted. and so when i graduated back in 1982 and through my first tour,

certainly the maritime system, the physical system of oceans and seas, looks much like it did then than it does today. the oceans are still in the same place. they're the same resources that were available on the seabed. there was plenty of shipping that transited on those sea lanes through those choke points. today the physical part of that is about the same. nothing has dramatically changed except that the use of this system has changed in spectacular ways. increasingly used. in 1992, sort of the middle point, the cold war had just ended, as i said. soviet union had dissolved. since 1992, maritime traffic has

increased by a factor of four leading up to today. this far outpaces the change in global gdp, which is just shy of doubling. it's increased by about 80%, and so it gives you a sense of how much this maritime system is being used, how accessible it is. and it's becoming more accessible, right, for a number of reasons. we are seeing new trade routes open as the arctic -- climate change affects the arctic. this past september the extent of the sea ice in the arctic was almost 30% less than average over most of my career, over those 33 years. and it was the fourth lowest it has ever since we started keeping those records. today, the maritime route north of europe, northern sea route north of russia, is open to water about two weeks a year.

by 2025, scientists predict it will be open three weeks a year. so you know that's going to be exploited. that route shaves the transit from northern europe to asia in half. so this is going to be something of great interest to commercial partners throughout the world. and it's not just accessibility due to climate change. technology is also making previously unreachable parts of the ocean floor now accessible. so for undersea resources like minerals, oil, and gas, these deep water oil production, for instance, oil and gas production is expected to grow by 50% in the next 15 years as technology makes it more and more easy to access those resources.

you know, as those resources present an alternative to land-based resources and the technology matures, the idea of offshore exploration becomes more and more feasible. and it's not just the natural resources, right? as we go into that part of the world, as we explore the ocean floor, then there is a result of infrastructure on the sea bbed that arises. so you can think of the piping and the structures that are going to be necessary to get at those oil and gas mineral resources. and then there is a growing network of undersea cables that connect us from continent to continent. part of this oceanic internet. this is the information system, and it's a nice way to sort of transition or segue into talking about the next system, which is

this global information system. before i leave that, there is -- as i said, there's infrastructure to this system. when we log on to your computer, it's all there at your fingertips, but the truth of the matter is there is an infrastructure to this. there are choke points. there are nodes, even in this global information system, which must be acknowledged because they can be exploited. and on those undersea cables rides 99% of the transoceanic internet traffic, so something that we've got to pay very close attention to. so this information system now is comprised not of the technology and hardware so much as the data and the information that rides on all those servers, undersea cables, satellites, and the wireless networks that increasingly envelope and connect the globe. and it is pervasive and it is

changing fast. all right. according to ibm, 2.5 quintillion bytes of data are created every day. and this exponential curve is such that 90% of the data available in the world today was created in the last two years. so you get a sense of the acceleration. you can feel yourself being thrown back in your seat when you hear data like that. and the cost of entry is getting lower and lower and lower. back in the early 90s again when i was a lieutenant commander just finishing my tour as executive officer, in that year in 1995 a gigabyte of memory cost $625. and if you wanted to buy a hard drive, that was about as big as you could buy at that time.

okay? now in 2014, let's say a b gigabyte of data costs 5 cents and you can get a terabyte hard drive off the internet. the cell phones carry a tremendous more amount of power than the system that landed on the moon in 1969. the links between the different nodes on this system have multiplied as well. the first server came online in 1993. much of this had its origins at that time. in just the first quarter of last year 2.7 million servers were shipped worldwide. satellites now envelope the globe. there are more than 1300 satellites in orbit today monitoring weather,

communications, sensors, space exploration, covering the globe. if you look at a picture of the satellites as they orbit the earth, again there it is not homogeneous. there is structure. there is form there. again, just like the cables, just like the physical system of the seas and oceans, that structure provides opportunities and vulnerabilities. the third force that i think is very important for us to consider is technology itself, the introduction and the rate at which technology is being introduced and the rate more importantly at which it is being adopted. this goes far beyond moore's law. things are changing stunningly fast in that for sure. i'm also talking about rapid advances in material science, in robotics, in genetics science,

and artificial intelligence. it is coming at us faster and faster. and they are being adopted by society just as fast. so when the original telephone was introduced was alexander graham bell's telephone. it took 46 years before 25% of americans had a telephone. okay? for the smartphone, that was seven years. and for facebook, within three years 25% of america was on facebook. not only are these tools coming at us faster and faster, but the usability and the rate at which they're being adopting is also accelerating as well. so you get more people in the game using those tools faster and faster. so those are the three forces that have captured my attention. certainly the physical maritime system, no surprise there, i think, to anyone who is in the

navy. a navy guy talks about the seas and oceans should not be a surprise. this information system certainly not exclusive to the navy. it changes everything that we do. i'm preaching to the converted here in the national press club, but it does change things for us as well. then this increasing rate of technological creation and adoption. these forces, i think, are fundamentally important to being effective as navy and as i said change the character of the competition. all right. but as i mentioned, the teams have changed as well. back in 1982, 83, we were at the height of the cold war. the chips were down and it was that bipolar world, right? i mean, how easy is that, right, to appreciate.

today, it's much more multi-polar as you know. i think our challengers and competitors in terms of three groups. in one group you have russia and china. in another group you have competitors, threats, just like iran and north korea. and then there is this pervasive threat of international terrorism. for the first time in what i would say is roughly 25 years the united states is back to an era of great power competition. when i was deployed in 1983 in support of the soviet union, it was a different world. but when the soviet union dissolved, cold war ended, we really entered a period where we were not very -- we were not challenged at sea. not in a very meaningful way. that era is over. today, both russia and china have advanced their military

capabilities to be able to act as global powers again. their goals are backed by a growing arsenal of high-end war fighting capability, many of which are exploiting those three forces that i mentioned and are focused specifically on our vulnerabilities. and so this is a competition where every competitor, every team, is learning and adapting. and they are increasingly designed from the ground up to exploit the advantages, the opportunities, of those three systems, the maritime system, the information system, and for incorporating new technology. they continue to develop and field information and weapons, both kinetic and non-kinetic that result in increasing range, increasing precision, increasing

effect, and potentially increasing disruptive capacity. in china, it is not all high end. they're engaged in competition and coercion just below traditional threshold levels of conflict. part of our challenge going forward is to think hard and to come up with some options to address that type of competition. i've said it before. the russian navy is operating at a frequency and pace not seen for more than two decades. the chinese navy, the people's liberation army navy, is extending their reach around the world. this is great power competition. but importantly russia and china are not the only teams seeking to gain advantages in this emerging environment. others are also pursuing advanced technology, including military technologies,

technology that was once really the exclusive purview of great powers. and this trend will only continue. the cost of entry, the proliferation is going down. p proliferation going up, cost of entry going down. coupled with a continuing education to furthering its nuclear weapons program, north korea's provocative actions continue to destabilize the region. teheran's advanced missiles, proxy forces, and other conventional capabilities continue to pose threats to which the navy must remain prepared to respond. finally, there is the international terrorist groups and they have proven to be adaptive and resilient and pose a long-term threat to stability and security around the world. so the competition has sped up. it is moving faster.

i will tell you the thing i'm trying to communicate to my team is that we must respond. we must speed up. the margins of victory in this environment are razor thin, but they are absolutely decisive. so we have turn to our task and fight for advantages with a sense of urgency because this is truly a game of inches. all of these actors that i described seek to exploit all three forces that i mentioned -- speed, precision, and reach that the maritime and information systems now enable bolstered by new technologies to counter any u.s. advantages, to threaten the rules and norms that have really been the basis of prosperity for everybody who would want to engage in the last 70 years. and these forces don't -- they're not independent variables, right?

they interact and combine to create a maritime environment, as i said, that's increasingly used, increasingly stressed, increasingly important to us as a nation and increasingly contested. then as mr. hughes mentioned there is a force, if you will, out there. for the foreseeable future, our resource environment will be challenging. we're not going to be able to buy our way out of this challenge. and if you're a student of history, you know the reality is we never have been able to. we have always been working with finite resources. so what is the role of the navy in this changing world? well, i think as always our mission remains by and large the same, to keep the homeland safe, to protect american interests around the world, to protect our prosperity, that trade upon which our prosperity is founded

and which so much of 90% of goods still travel over the sea. it is to guarantee our strategic influence around the world through our presence, through our high-end competition, and if necessary, through conflict. but we are going to have to answer these strategic challenges and posture ourselves to effectively compete. if you think about those four forces that i mentioned, i have laid out a four vector response. in response to the growing importance of the maritime domain, we are going to challenge ourselves and focus back on high-end operations in blue water, and we will focus on addressing those challenges just below the threshold of conflict, that gray war that's been referred to in many ways. in response to the growing

importance of the information system, we will double down on becoming an informationalized force, mainstreaming information warfare into our navy. in response to the growing rate and adoption of technology, we will adopt as well faster -- looking for ways to speed up our acquisition approaches and develop and field technology more quickly. and then in response to the fact that resources are going to be what they are, finite, we are challenging ourself to look at combining existing things in new and creative ways to develop capability that was heretofo heretofore unseen that the

system delivers something that is more than the sum of its parts. a main theme through my guidance is when things happen at this speed, you have to fully exploit your advantages to fully capture the fleeting opportunities that will be presented. we've got to operate in a roughly decentralized manner, right? and to do that, we've all got to understand what the commander's intent is, so we spent a fair amount of time putting this document here together. by virtue of that collaboration, that inclusive approach, in the end we built the familiarity and the trust and the competence that's based on a clear understanding of that guidance amongst peers and up and down the chain of command.

we understand through detailed engage engagements, through detailed conversations, how much risk can be tolerated. in fact the discussions of the design, the most fruitful part of that has been bringing together navy leadership and putting this together as a team. and it's not all about understanding the design, too, right? one of the things that is fundamental to us having trust and competence in one another is we are a profession that's bound together by core values, honor, courage, and commitment. so there is a fair amount of discussion in this design to enhance our professional identity. i list four core attributes that if we abide by these attributes, integrity, accountability, initiative, and toughness, then our behaviors should align with our values.

and we are a force of integrity across the board. with those four core attributes guiding our decisions, guiding our behaviors, we have laid out our plan along four lines of effort. first, we're going to strengthen our naval power at and from the sea. now we've got to sharpen our skills for operations and conflict at sea. we must modernize first and foremost the undersea leg of our strategic deterrent. if we don't do that, we're not even in the league. we are not a great power, so we must get that right. but we also need to urgently respond to coercion that falls short of traditional conflict and we need to get back in the fight in blue water and we need to find ways to fully exploit the capabilities of the information system. and we will.

and we'll do this learning as we go through a program of war games, exercises, and fleet experiments. second line of effort is focused on our people. everything we do comes by, with, and through our people. this is the most important thing that we must focus on. so hiring, training, and reta retaining a creative professional team, one team, of sailors, navy civilians, and their families is going to be absolutely key to our success. if you think about it, that technology is the brain child of very smart and clever people, and it is built in exquisite manufacturing plants. so we're working to make navy careers more attractive to

attract the most talented people that we can find. i guess i've got to pause here and tell you it is a stunning privilege to be able to go out and see our navy. one of the first things i did was take a trip around the world. and we visited the navy in the seventh fleet, in fifth fleet in asia, and then in the sixth fleet in the mediterranean. everywhere i stopped the talent, the focus, the enthusiasm of our navy team blows me away. admiral carter here inducts about 1,000 of those young people into the naval academy every year. they could write their check and go anywhere they want and yet even after more than a decade of conflict, this team raises their right hand and takes an oath to

support and defend our constitution and they know what that means. so i have tremendous respect for them and we need to make our navy as adaptable and attractive to that team as possible. third, we're going to expand and strengthen our network of partners. you know, we have never fought alone as a navy. going forward, i don't see that being the case here. the united states navy, as focused as i am on that, it is just a node in many networks. so we are going to enhance our participation as a member of the joint force, as a member of the government, the interagency process. if you think about expanding that out to industry and academia and then certainly overseas to our allies and partners, all of those people play a role in our success.

we need to focus on being better partners to all of those teams. finally underpinning all these efforts we're going to tune our processes to learn faster. we're going to focus on that, this learning process. we're going to become smarter and accelerate learning as individuals. and there's plenty of research and technology that's come into the system that is focused on learning faster as the goal of that effort. also the system and the technology, the simulators, those sorts of things are becoming high enough fidelity that we can bring in teams and expand that out so we're able to simulate so much more. i'm kind of a science fiction geek a little bit. for those of you that share that vulnerability, you know if you've read "enders game" is sort of where i'm going, even if you saw the movie, you can't

tell the difference between reality and simulation. we're getting there in many, many ways. i think there's an awful lot of gains there. and we're going to be mindful that we do need to learn, which means that we've got to admit up front that we don't have it all right, right? that there is actually something to learn. so as we move forward, we're going to ensure that we have self-assessment baked in. are we having the impact on the environment that we set out to have? tremendously complex environment. we're not going to get it all right, but we can't sit and study it forever. this is not an academic institution. we have to act and influence that environment, but we're going to be mindful that it may not turn out the way we thought and we'll assess and adjust as we go. and in the end my hope is that we'll have a naval force that develops leaders and teams that learn and adapt faster than any adversary that achieves the

maximum potential that the system will allow. achieve and maintain high performance standards to make them ready for decisive operations and combat. it's a strong commitment. it will require a lot of hard work on the part of many people, but our navy is on the right track. i'm looking forward to the privilege of leading it for the next four years. i thank you all for coming today and hearing me, and i look forward to answering your questions. thanks very much. [ applause ] >> thank you, admiral. several questions about the south china sea. do you believe the navy should be doing more routine passages by the chinese built islands, if not now, when? and what steps are you taking to ensure that those patrols stay peaceful? >> well, certainly this is an

important part of what we do as a navy. while the south china sea has everybody's attention right now, it should be understood in context these types of operations have been the business of the navy for a long time and have occurred fairly routinely throughout the world. and so there is an internationally recognized system of rules and norms, and we abide and operate in accordance with nothose rules a norms. and if there are challenges to those rules and norms, we'll do these operations to make sure we respond to that challenge and behave accordingly. with respect to the south china sea, it is no different than anywhere else, so we need to establish a presence down there that enforces and reinforces the importance of those international norms that

challenges any sort of claims to those norms. so as you have heard from the president and the secretary of defense, we'll continue to fly and operate wherever those international rules permit as we continue to advocate for that rule system, which again has been the basis for prosperity particularly for those nations around the south china sea in that part of the world. and so i look forward to working with our partners in the government to be as forward leaning in that area as we can. again, we want to make sure that what is understood as normal in that part of the world includes abiding and advocating for those international rules and norms. >> has china's introduction of the hyper sonic missile been a setback for the u.s. and its

aircraft carriers and has it in fact rendered our aircraft carriers obsolete? >> no. [ laughter ] [ applause ] >> it's tempting to just leave it at that and that is the answer, but a sophisticated analysis and understanding of that -- i'm 100% confident because i've seen it -- will give everybody confidence that the aircraft carrier of the surface fleet is as relevant and important today as it ever has been. and so is it causing us to think about employment options, force offerings, fleet design? we are going to have to adapt to that threat, but it really is not a matter of whether we

employ surface forces and carriers, but how we will employ surface forces and carriers. that is just a little bit >> how about north korea? are you planning steps to monitor the situation there? any thoughts of sending an aircraft carrier into that region? >> certainly there's always that question about what sort of operational response you're going to take and as you all have heard i am, you know, not going to talk about specific operations, specific responses but as i said in my remarks that type of provocative action just continues to destabilize so we'll work with our allies and partners, the republic of korea and japan, sort of very important partners in that region to continue to monitor

and respond appropriately so that unpredictable situation. >> what's the greatest challenge to the effectiveness of the campaign against isis. >> you know, it's really, as always, it's just how do you connect the information? i mean, the connectic part is not the challenging part. it's how do you get the situational awareness to know where the meaningful targets are so that we can do this as precisely as possible. having the greatest effect on, you know, eliminating this enemy, destroying this enemy and then leaving, you know, the rest as intact as possible. so it's always a matter of the information that leads us to those type of decisions. >> thank you.

>> several questions about russia. russia is a growing naval presence in the mediterranean and through overflights how can you and the navy help be prepared in this area and another person asked will there be additional navy deployments, black sea, mediterranean on what timetable? >> another great one. this is or the of, as the russians themselves have said, they're operating at a tempo that's not been seen since the mid 90s and they're operating in different places. the eastern mediterranean. during that trip i took the last stop was in italy and there was a regional symposium there of the eastern mediterranean and black sea nations, the heads of navy. they were very focused on that rising challenge. the russian challenge. they just put out a strategy

which is very forward leaning and so of course we must i think respond to that threat to do so with just be negligent. so the details of that of course remain to be seen and you'll see those unfold and then there is sort of this persistent activity under sea which has been a signal that has not gone away as much as many would think. it's been steady business for the russians and we're mindful of that as well. >> there's been tension between the navy and overall dod over ship purchasing and secretary carter directed cuts to the literal ship combat program. does secretary carter's order to buy viewer ships in favor of jets hold water?

>> well, it happened, right? it was a matter of time before that question -- first of all, the specifics of that are still to be determined, right? so that -- that budget has not been locked down yet so it's premature to comment on the exact shape of that going forward and so -- but what it gives rise to is a -- there's been a lot of questions about, okay, is it going to be capacity or capability? what are you focused on? or is it going to be presence or postjurors, you know? and particularly for naval forces it would say i'm responsible for delivering the nation and i think nation rightly holds me accountable that achieves a balance of all of the above so these are not either or decisions. these are both and decisions. we'll always strive to balance

within our available resources to deliver the navy that the nation expects. to execute our mission to protect america. protect our influence around the world so that's the art of it. to try not to get drawn down into these either or decisions. there's traps associated with that and to try and achieve the best balance, thanks. >> this questioner wonders how the navy is doing in recruiting and retention, especially in high-technology and high demand assignments such as seals, cbs and cyber warriors. what about women? this questioner points to comments and raises the question of whether the navy will be able to recruit enough women for some combat jobs.

>> i think with respect to bringing the talent into the united states navy, the goal, and particularly lately, has always been we want the very best talent that we can get our hands on. i met a number of people in industry today, you know how competitive that environment is its intensely competitive for the high end people, men and women and to artificially sort of restrict ourselves in that area we're going to deny women that denies us of the talent and the best navy we can possibly be. that's my thoughts on that

regard that we will continue to attract and train the very best talent that the nation has. men and women and we'll be making great progress in that regard. after we're done here, ta to carter about the journey he's been on to bring women into the naval academy, it's a good news story they're attracted to our team by virtue of our values. they want to be part of something bigger than ourselves. so once in we have to insure that we have the integrity that such that our behaviors align to our values. if there's a disconnect or mismatch that's going to be

detected instantly. the smartest will leave first because they don't want to work in an organization where there's a mismatch or a climate of cynicism. and so we have to work very hard. that's why those core attributes, i spent a fair aunt of time talking about those because it's critical to keeping that talent on board. that's what attracted them so we have to follow through with that. >> more details on your plan to implemented faster learning. how will you do that? this questioner says i don't understand what problem you're trying to solve. can you layout some specific examples of times the navy hasn't learned fast enough? and why you think the navy isn't learning fast enough now. >> okay. it's been only a few months and

we're just getting started but in terms of being agile, let's just talk about that. with respect to how we're going to get after learning i think i mentioned that in my remarks. there's a tremendous amount of science that's been done recently about how the brain works. how do people learn? not everybody learns the same, you know? and we have the technology now to really tune a learning environment to the most receptive channels of each of us at an individual level. so i look forward to exploring that science and bringing it into the navy. we have in many ways an industrial learning, training process that hasn't changed fundament fundamentally this system goes back much further. so we're actually piloting a program right now that is looking to explore how we bring

workers in and make them effective workers in the shipyard. so you have these people and actual laz some of you know we have been hiring like crazy to increase the capacity at our shipyards and then, you know, so you are bringing people in the door at a great rate and great commitment by the nation go down and check out the processes to make sure that we are getting people into the productive work force as fast as possible. so that's just sort of one example. i'll tell you another mundane

example. but it hints at the potential. when a arrived in my job here first of all have to confess it took me about three days to get to the backside of my desk. that's where the c and o sits and this is going to take me a little while just to get used to the fact. the respect for the office that i had. how about if we throw this on an tablet. give me an ipad or tablet computer in the morning and i'll page through all of that. the initial response was, you're the new guy here. let me just explain to you how

this works and what is possible and insane. we went through that phase and i currently have a tablet and it has all of that functionality and capability that a tablet has so now i don't have to -- if i want to explore more deeply a particular development during the day, i want to look at a particular class or person or everything more deeply it's all right there. you know how it works. you touch, touch, touch. and i'm reading somebody's bio or the specifications and it's all there. you know, the classification, we have come through those issues and so we have got it all down. most of my direct reports were getting that binder as well. there's the library of 25 binders that would go around on the big cart every morning and

they would be collected attend of the day and go back into the machine. by virtue of the small effort and this is just a tiny effort, first of all the most important thing to me was to respect the intellect and time and talent of the person that had to put that binder together. so you can only imagine the agony each night. the printing, the bunching the holes, it's jammed. the whole deal it's just vast amounts of time returned to the work force and we're saving -- it's already paid for itself by the way. we saved $5,000 a month in paper and toner and, you know, all of that sort of stuff. consumables. tiny, tiny example. i don't mean to say this is the resolution but it's nice to dive into the 2000s here and bring

this capability on board. so many things the master chief petty officer of the navy, he's doing the same thing at boot camp. we did a pilot program there instead of this library of books, training manuals, et cetera, we put it all on a tablet and we're finding they are learning so much faster by way of doing that. not only because that's how they have come to absorb information but because they can carry that everywhere. you can't carrie that library of books and you can carry your tablet and there you are reading and it's, you know, these folks are focused on doing the best job they can and this tablet allows them to do that.

he is going to populate our recruits and i'm getting the top down focus and overtime we'll get this throughout the navy and that's just one example of how we can leap forward. >> before i ask the final question i'd like to present you with the national press club mug. highly valued, precious gift and for the purposes of today i noted this is navy blue in color. final question, navy has beaten army on the football field for 14 years in a row. is that right? simple question, will army ever win again? >> well, this is sort of a one

word answer as well. yes. but not on my watch, right? >> thank you admiral for coming today. [ applause ] >> i want to thank our audience and the national press club staff including it's institute and broadcast center for all the work that went into organizing today's event. if you would like a copy of this program or to learn more about the national press club go to our website, that's press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [ applause ]

>> washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. as president obama prepares for his state of the union address on tuesday he released this on twitter. >> i'm working on my state of the union address. it's my last one and as i'm writing i keep thinking about the road we travelled together the past seven years. that's what makes america great. our capacity to change for the better. our ability to come together as one american family and pull ourselves closer to the america we believe in. it's hard to see sometimes in the day-to-day noise of washington but it is who we are. and it's been what i want to focus on on this state of the union address. >> c-span's coverage starts at

8:00 p.m. eastern and real clear politics congressional reporter looking back at the history and tradition of the president's annual message and what to expect in this year's address. then at 9:00 our live coverage of the president's speech and followed by the response by nikki haley. plus your reaction by phone, facebook, tweets and e-mail. as well as those from members of congress on cspan, cspan radio and cspan.org. and we'll air the republican response at 11:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. pacific. also live we'll hear from members of congress in statuary hall with their reaction to the president's address. >> the u.s. supreme court heard the argument over whether to require union members to pay dues. we'll hear from a university of

baltimore school of law professor and the associate general council for the service employees international union. the american constitution society hosted the event. >> hello, everybody. can you hear me? okay. i would like to welcome you to our briefing today on the upcoming supreme court case fredericks versus california teachers association which is going to be argued next monday, january 11th. i'm the president of the american constitution society. before we begin i'd like to give an extra special thank you to judy scott who is the general council of the service employees international union where we are sitting today and sciu itself for providing us with this wonderful space and hosting today's briefing.

it is so great to be here among so many friends. so we were founded in 2001 an we are a national network of lawyers, judges, policy makers, academics and law students. we believe that the law should be a force to improve the lives of all people. acs works for positive change by shaping the debate on vitally important legal and constitutional questions through the development and promotion of high impact ideas to opinion leaders and the media and by building networks of those dedicated to those ideas is and by countering the movement that south to erode our enduring constitutional values. today's expert panel will discuss the critically important case fredricks versus california

teachers association. the crux of this case is the question of whether public sector unions can collect what are known as fair share fees that cover the cost of collective bargaining and contracts for nonmembers and whether they constitute speech. our panel lists will discuss these issues as well as the role of collective bargaining in maintaining labor peace historically and the perspective impact that this case may have. on workers and public sector employment in the short and long-term. to understand these issues and talk about what is at stake we have a wonderful moderator today. professor garrett epps. he teaches constitutional law at the university of baltimore school of law. he is a contributing editor and

supreme court correspondent for the atlantic. a contributing editor for the american prospect. the author of several books and now i just learned among them two novels. so if you're feeling inadequate already, even more so. more recently garrett published american justice 2014. nine clashes visions of the supreme court. he's also a former staff writer of the washington post. the new york review books, the nation and the new republic. he has an llm in comparative law. comparative and international law from duke. a ba from harvard where he was editor of the harvard crimson. but maybe most importantly and i'd say for us certainly at acs he is a great friend to the american constitution society to please welcome garrett epps and our esteemed panel. thank you garrett.

>> thanks for the introduction and thank everybody for being here. we have a great panel for the issues and it's important in first amendment and public employment law and it is such a good panel that even though i am a law professor, i am looking forward more to listening to them than talking to myself and we like to talk and get some back and forth going. you'll then have time for your questions: i will try to stay out of the way in the discussion but we did agree beforehand that panel lists will try to keep their comments to a couple of

minutes so that we can do back and forth and it's possible if someone forgets that i may start going like this. but i'm not choking. to my left is deputy solicitor general in the state of new york. she has served in the civil division of the u.s. department of justice, the white house council office and the office of the white house chief of staff. marianne parker to her left is associate general council here at sciu and lead council in the public services division. she is also practiced law with the d.c. firm and interestingly enough was once program coordinator at the endowment moscow center. i bet there's stories that could come out of that. to her left, in a sense in jeff harris, he is a partner at

bancroft and has litigated a number of very important cases in front of the court in the last five years or so. during october term '08, he was a clerk for chief justice john roberts and finally, andy, partner at major brown that focuses on appellate litigation and the supreme court. and in front of the court. as you can see there's a lot of knowledge lined up here to the left and when we met and conferred before the panel i asked each panelist to imagine they got a phone call from someone very important. either justice kennedy or which ever you consider to be rank higher and said i have one question for you. what one question would they want this person to ask them.

and then we're going to move into more back and forth. so starting withan issue with y you said the state of new york and other fair share free states feel they have in collective bargaining as it's practiced and it's utility to them. they usually get and the role that fair share fees play in those arrangements. these benefits include increased proficiency and government services but the benefit i want to focus on is the disruption of core government services and many are not provided by the

private sector at all or are not provided at costs affordable. so we're talking here about public safety, public education, institutional care for the elderly, the disables and the mentally ill. welfare services for the needy and the experiences in new york and many other states showed us in the era before public employees had a forum to air their grievances and their concerns about their work place conditions there were often work stoppages and strikes and disruptions in the work place that in-turn caused disruptions in public services in ways that had a dramatic effect for the public and following on the model of federal collective bargaining, states, many of them

chose to adopt collective bargaining for public employees. now the important second piece of the puzzle is the fair share fees and how fair share fees support these modes of collective bargaining and from the perspective of the state employer what the state is looking for public employer, it's a they dpoesh yating partner that's in a position to negotiate effectively and to address employee concerns at the source. and that requires expertise of all different kinds. economic expertise, legal expertise and managerial expertise. what they do is go toward defraying those costs. and why the right to work states and diversity of different approaches done undermine the story. that fits better with the

discussion. so i'll leave it for that part. >> that's great, thanks. >> marianne, you indicated you would like to talk about the fact that our society at this moment is in the middle of a very complex and painful debate about increasing inequality and that it would be worth while to see it within the context of that debate. >> i would want this caller that can call any time to step back and consider that we are living at this moment in the worst of times and arguably the best of times. i mean, we're here at a time when our american economy is out of balance with wealth and opportunity accruing to an increasingly smaller group of people and interests and people are working harder than ever and still find themselves struggling

to provide a descent life for their family. 42% of working people. that's 64 million american workers earn less than $15 an hour. so these are really grim facts but it still feels like the rules continue to be rewritten to favor the wealthy few at the expense of the rest of us. and yet, it is a time of incredible hope and change. the fight for 15 is a national movement. a couple of years ago it began as this demand for $15 an hour among fast food workers and since that time over 11 million people won themselves a raise at work. in addition there's a growing understanding that it's a demonstrated fact that when workers come together, when collective action thrives in the work place, opportunity and economic mobility are the result. so we have seen time and time again that in partnership with

employers public sector workers built middle class jobs and closed wage gaps for women, for people of color, for lgbt workers and brought their front line expertise to solve real world work place problems and help their public sector employers with issues of reducing cost, increasing efficiency and quality. these are problems ever bit as important to solve in the public sector as in the private sector. arguably more important. an astonishing study came out this fall. it was a national study by many well respected economists and it was looking at income mobility. particularly for children born in the bottom quintile of our economic system. and there was an incredibly vigorous showing that where they lived, if they lived in an area of high wrun i don't know density they had considerably more hope of moving up in the economy. this was true even if the child herself wasn't from a union

household and it's proof that workers lift all votes and improve entire communities. so we're at this moment, a time of great inequality but a time of great opportunity and we're here to discuss a case that would limit the power of working people to come together and do the work that has been done effectively in many work place where is they have the capacity to do that work. so i see this case as part of a much larger attack on the ability of working people to be effective and to ban together and provide a key resource in the fight against inequality that so many of us are engaged in right now. >> thanks. >> jeff, you said you'd be interested in talking to this person about the overarching theme of the first amendment as it has developed in front of the supreme court and whether there

would be anything anomalous about a decision for the petitioner ins or about a victory for the respondents leaving in place the precedent that approving fair share fees and whether there's only one first amendment or it's a whole lot of different specialized areas. >> thank you for that. thank you for having me. the one overarching point i would make is there's only one first amendment and it doesn't contain an exemption for labor law. it is on compelled speech or association just because the individuals are being forced to associate with the union as opposed to some other type of private organization and i think to illustrate that it's most helpful to take a step back and look at two other contexts. one in and one out of that context. first of a political patronage system. imagine that the texas governor said from now on we only want to hire active dues paying

republicans because texas is a small government low tax state and we only want people that share our values to be doing the public's work. it's pretty well established that a political hiring process would be unconstitutional. but once we accept that i don't see how we can allow states to coerce people into financially supporting a union. both situations involve compelled payments to a d ideologically charged private organizations and i think the issue of mandatory agency fees and it's important to remember this case is not about the right to collectively bargain. it's not about exclusive representation. it's only about the compelled payments to the union so, you know, i think the problem with that are even clearer when we

take another step back and get outside of the employment context all together. so stick with texas for lack of a better state and say texas is not worried about children and information providers. and if you have a if you have a million dollars a year to the for access fees education services. i don't think that would be unconstitutional because you would have the government telling parents to support a private organization whose mission they may disagree with and the state can't make it constitutional just by saying well we're going to also have the boy scouts in a service in exchange for your compel money. so again i think my big take

away would be that this case is about unions and once we accept that the government has this extraordinary power to compel individuals to subsidize a private organization it can lead to lot of other things that would not sit well with progressives as well. >> andy, you were also interested in the first amendment context from a slightly different point of view. mostly discussing how the first amendment currently applies in the context and whether there really is something anomalous about it. >> might be good for jeff and i to have a conference call. there would be a pretty good exchange of views on the first amendment. let me back up and say although of course there's only one first amendment it's quite settled that it does apply differently in the public employee context just as there are a myriad of

first amendment standards for different contexts. there is a special first amendment standard in the public employee context and the court said a bunch of years ago the state has interest as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those that it possesses in regulation with the speech and citizen ri in general. so clearly, government acting as employer is different. so whatever the rule might be about forcing people to join the boy scouts -- i personally didn't like the boy scouts. a little too maritalistic for me when i was a kid. that has nothing to do with what the first amendment standard is in the public employee context. let me talk about two examples. one started with this case and it dealt with the question of

what is the governments ability when it comes to employees. what the employee does is speech and there could be complaining about work place conditions. there could be an unwillingness to sign on to certain employee tasks because the employee disagreed with the policy and didn't want his or her name associated with it. so the court developed a special standard for assessing the extent to which the first amendment regulates the governments ability to act as employer with respect to speech conduct of employees and that test basically says if the speech is not about a matter of public concern, then the government -- there's no first amendment balancing at all you. the government can do whatever it wants if it is on a matter of public concern. still the very strict first amendment doesn't apply to the

governments action. the government action is measured against a balancing test and it's a balancing test where the court has several times said there shouldn't be a lot of second guessing about the governments interest as employer typically in running an efficient work place that government employers advance in arguing against first amendment rights in this context. so in the work place speech context which seems the most analogous to this which is a first amendment claim we have a very different and a very differential first amendment standard. jeff mentioned the patronage cases. what the court has said is the test is whether or not it's reasonable for the government to require political affiliation as a condition of employment. there was just as brendan tried

to sell a much more restrictive test in the 70s but the current court opinion talks about reasonableness as the test. a standard that would never apply to actions, burdening nonemployees in the first amendment context. so i think it's important to look at the issue here in the context of the other first amendment rules and recognize that what the court said and what the rule has been for 35 years is exactly the same principle that the court adopted in the work place context which is to say obviously contract negotiation deals with a lot of work place issues, wages, grievance standards, lots of them. we're going to treat them in the employment context. we're going to recognize in the employment context that there's no first amendment protection for the employee as an actual speaker so in the association

context, the government can require financial support with respect to those very same activities. that seems pretty equivalent and even if sometimes labor negotiations might move into areas of public concern, even then there's a differential standard and the question is the government, does the government have an interest in efficient operation of its work place which justifies the fair share requirement and i think the briefs filed by new york and other states make a very powerful point that here there is a great interest in having an effective negotiation partner first of all in the negotiation context but even more and we'll get into it in the fact that in connection with that representation and pbargaining activity the unions take on significant obligations in terms of administering grievance procedures, work place safety

partnership, in terms of training for employees and in the first responder category. in terms of providing for rehabilitation and other services for injured first responders that otherwise employers would have to take on. so there's clearly a huge government interest into that but i'm sure we'll get into that a little bit more. >> thanks, andy. i want to say before we go on that i actually spent three years in the boy scouts as a second class scout which is a literal category because i couldn't pass the first class exams so you talk about compelled speech. i'm not bitter but i think what we heard here sets up a really important issue that is being advanced in this case. and that is this suggestion which is made by the petitioners and those that support them that this is compelled speech and

violation of the first amendment because any activity by a public employee union. any collective bargaining sin herniately political because it has to do with the comment of public affairs. >> i know you indicated that you had some interest in talking about that because i'm sure probably everyone does. do you want to tackle that first? >> sure. >> just reviewing the fantastic briefs in this case and the cases underlying them it seems clear that it's just simply not unsettled. we have a standard whereby nonmembers cannot be compelled to pay for political speech by unions. and the first amendment aspect of this isn't really in question at all. i mean, just six years ago there was a unanimous decision upholding the general first amendment principle. so what we have seen is an

attempt to characterize more of the work that happens in labor management relations as political. it's not an anomaly. there's not something that has to be fixed here. there's just a different way of seeing the world and we have a particular impairment in this case because we don't have a record. this case came up to the supreme court in a particularly odd way. it's reached oral argument in less than two years from when i was filed. this is because the petitioner ins asked the district court and nine circuit court of appeals to rule against them because they knew there was no law on their side. so those courts obliged them and ruled against them. as a result we have no discovery. we have no record. we have a very abstract conversation going on. and we are requires to accept the pleading so what is on the record in terms of what the

union does is the truth of this case and the facts of this case but we also have a great deal of content in the case and in particular based on everything they do is political. there's a lot of evidence to the contrary and in particular i wanted to draw attention to a brief done by the two largest public hospital systems in the nation. the los angeles department of health services and new york city's health and hospitals. collectively they serve almost 2 million patients a year. this brief was done jointly with sciu. the largest union of health care workers in the country. and when you read this brief you understand the extent to which the work going on is not inherently political. it's inherently about the business of running a hospital and what is happening at new

york city health and hospitals is what's happening at kaiser. a private sector hospital chain that figured out that it is a good business decision to engage with front line nurses and doctors and cleaners to reduce infection rates, to make sure that emergency room get turned around quicker. reduce wait times. to make sure that there's less recurrences of pediatric asthma. they're all measurable and done through labor management partnerships and cannot be done without a well resourced union that has the ability to take on the work it requires. another fantastic brief in this case from 27 cities and counts and other 28 public officials atesting to the work they do with their unions to some of the work that andy eluded to. everything from putting less ba garbage trucks on the route to

figuring out the water authority over many years. these things are done more effectively with a well represented worker force. now not every city and county in the country signed on to this brief and maybe we know that there are 25 states that don't allow these kinds of arrangements. but the idea is the 23 states covering half of the population in the united states do. and they're doing so pursuant to a very well established law and in reliance on that law. >> who would like to tackle that? jeffrey do you want to go next? probably everybody will have something to say on this issue. >> i don't dispute that unions do lots of wonderful things that help both their members and the public at large but so does the aclu and ncaa, and the american constitution society and the national rifle association and i think there's a couple of reactions. first of all, again, if, you

know, particularly i know there's some circumstances where a union is providing some sort of extra insurance or extra benefit. if that's the case then that seems like a perfectly compelling reason for people to join the union voluntarily of their own accord. you know, the other point as i already says is, you know, there's lots of private organizations that do lots of wonderful things that support themselves through private voluntary contributions and the third point i would make is that, you know, if the union is not able to pay for these things, of course the government can always pay for it itself. i mean, the government, the hospital system can always establish a program in coordination with the eun beyond and the hospital can pay for it or the county can pay for it to school district can pay for it. i don't disagree with any of the good things she was talking about but i don't think it follows that we need to be compelling people that don't support the union to pay for its activities. >> have you got a dog in this

fight? >> yes. i do and that's from the standpoint of a public employer a lot of these things, we don't perceive as political or ideological and although in an ideal world it would be nice to think that people are always willing to open their pockets to pay for the things that help them, the reality is that free writing is a problem whenever the rules allow it because people may underestimate the benefit they get from important public services and collective bargaining is no exception to that. in circumstances where they don't have to be paid people sometimes don't contribute for the benefits they get and that can cause work place tensions, the supreme court has discussed this in a number of cases but it's also a matter of common sense that people feel bad when they are paying for something that they're not getting the

full benefit of or conversely when they see someone else benefitting from something that they're paying for without making a contribution themselves. so in addition to supporting the collective bargaining structures, fair share fees are important to give everybody skin in a game in a way that reduces work place tension and from the moiier standpoint this is something that is a benefit to public employers. public employers wouldn't want to necessarily rely on the good will of people that can be provided. >> a couple of points and i think just to take marianne's point about the argument of petitioning and everything encompassed within the collective bargaining discussion

is true and that's the basis for ruling of the petitioner ins in this case and then the court is going to grapple with the fact that that undermines the legal structure developed for dealing with the many hundreds of work place speech claims that are filed annually against government employers. because there's a question. is this a matter of public concern or not overtime wages and grievance procedures, all of these things are not matters of public concern and there's no first amendment right and no need for balancing case dismi dismissed and it ultimately impacts government expenditures or government decisions because everything is a government decision then that first prong

of this juris prudence is gone and they'll have to be assessed on the balancing test theory. so i think in terms of whether it firsts into the court's first amendment jurisprudence, it does. because it's how the court deal with the issues and on the other hand if it's inconsistent with the first amendment there's going to have to be massive restructuring of all of the other areas of the law and interestingly although we're here talking about government as employer and there are some -- there is a very special legal principle there, the principle has been applied not to the aclu and acs but to some organizations that everybody up here cares about, namely bar associations. the supreme court upheld mandatory contributions to bar

associations on a similar theory in that the bar associations are performing important duties. this is a regulated profession and therefore those even though some lawyers would prefer not to associate themselves, maybe with their local bar organization, too bad, you still have to pay. now the activities of those bar associations are constricted. they can't engage in sort of political activities. but in terms of engaging in activities relating to the administration of the legal profession they can do that and lawyers can be forced to pay for it. so if our rule is nobody can be required to pay for anything, that entire line is going to have to be reconsidered which is why one of the briefs was filed i think a dozen or so, maybe two dozen former d.c. bar presidents because that's been a significant issue in the d.c. bar.

>> i think it all tees up the issue very nicely and just to -- for those who are a little unclear, there is a case from 1976 versus detroit board of education that approved fair share fees in the public employment context on the grounds that unions have to represent, as designated bargaining agent they have to represent the interest of all the workers in a given bargaining unit whether they're members of the union or not. no one can be required to join a union as we all know and services the union directly and gives them collective bargaining and grievance and so forth. because the court said otherwise there would be the problem of free riders, people would say i want the benefits but i don't want to play. they insist that it must be

overturned. there's no conceivable way they can win. let's talk about the rational. jeff, i bet you have an interesting take on that. why don't you go first. >> sure. so a couple of points about it. i'm starting from a place where i think this is -- there's a very serious associational interest in compelling someone to financially support a union. so you have to view through the lenses of this has to be so compelling and important to override an individual's right to decide how to direct his or her own money and i think -- i don't think this gets to that level because at the end of the day, i don't think anyone seriously contends that this will cripple unions. all it means is that they'll have a little less money or might need to operate a little more efficiently or sort of change t you know, change things at the margin but i don't think

there's any reason to believe the sky will fall and we have several natural experiments to prove that. so the federal work force, there's hundreds of thousands of federal workers who voluntarily join unions, pay dues and are full committed union members even though they're out lawed under federal law. same thing with the u.s. postal service and nearly half of the states where the public and private work forces are in right to work state with no agency fees. so i think, you know, again, i don't think this is a threat to unions. i think when you look at jurisdictions that don't have agency fees. i'm not going to dispute that it may be a little harder or more pavement pounding to get the fees needed to sort of get back up to the same level of where they were without agency fees but i don't think this is a threat and the only other point i would add on this is i think

the free riding rational proves too much because by the same logic all of the people who do not make the political contributions are just free riding off of the members who do pay for the unions political activities and so when a union uses it's political funds to negotiate stricter retirement plan, even those who checked the box and got their political fees back will free ride off of that for lack of a better word. so i think it doesn't hold up and i think it would justify political speech too. >> how about that? is free riding not really a problem? >> well, there's a lot of assertions in petitioners brief on that side. free riding, these are all pretty basic intro econ type

topics but i'm not going to expound on them because we're lucky to have in the record a brief from richard freeman explaining the problem. while it may be related to an objection of what the union does in it's public role often times it's just a result of this economic pair doradox that if y don't have to pay for something, even something good for you tend not to pay for it. >> america works together.u.s. is a fantastic resource for this case and has all the briefs on it. i think i would leave it at that and turn to anisha. >> some of those government examples are not quite comparable in the sense that

states have taken many different approaches to managing their labor relationships and they have implications for the cost of collective bargaining. in one sense it proves the point about free writing because federal employees don't have to contribute for the cost of collective bargaining and so only a third do but on the other side one of the reasons why this doesn't have a dramatic impact on the efficacy of collective bargaining in the federal context is that the scope of collective bargaining is much more circumscribe. they're not allowed to argue about the number of employees in their work place and then federal law actually subsidizes activities and permitting individuals providing union services to do so on their official work time.

so there is a kind of in kind subsidy being provided there. in terms of right to work states it's useful to note that -- it's not helpful to see them in this kind of unitary states have taken different approaches in terms of the issues they put up for collective bargaining and the kinds of employees to collectively bargain and those have implications for the costs. in some of the right to work states, they actually allow certain kinds of employees like public safety employees or public schoolteachers to collectively bargain because they made the decision that they don't want to face disruption of those kinds of services. and some of those entities and localities have actually filed briefs supporting the respondents in this case notes that although they're in a right

to work state, they represent public safety officers and legislative statements were made when the state authorized bargaining. it's too important not to allow these services to continue. so i think free riding is something that is empirically documented in the literature and also just shown by the experiences of the different government employers. >> andy, you brought abboud into the conversation. do you want to finish this up? >> sure. i'll make a policy point and a legal nerd point. the policy point is, you know, this is really at bottom a case about federalism. different states have made different choices about how they want to structure their collective bargaining or not relationships with their

employees. they ve gone all the way from some states saying, yes, we'll have exclusive bargaining representatives and fair share fees, to the other end states saying we'll have no bargaining, we'll set the terms of employment unilaterally and that's it that. you want to work for us, that's great. if you don't, no. and i think people here know more than i do, but there are all kinds of varieties in between. and i think one of the issues here is saying when talking 1úid these services be provided by the state instead of the union, these are choices that the elective officials are making on a policy level about what works best for them. on a policy level, it seems very odd to say the constitution should dictate that unless there is obviously an important constitutional right that would be infringed which takes me back to the legal nerd point which is are we going to change the rules

and say in this context there is an important constitutional right? :

>> >> of federalism and issue is a sleeper because the states have made very different choices in this court is notionally respectful of the idea that the federal system states can diverge we have somebody from the state right here talking about the federalism issue. >> the most important thing to take away is that it doesn't force any particular approach. what it does is enable the people of the state to authorize public employee

unions. and it is a negotiating process in states that have chosen not to go that broke -- route of to. and this is something that was alluded to for those policy judgments for those of the states have to balance to provide public services to insurer to ensure the quality of government services? there are some complicated variables that each state has gone through for itself based on its own experience a handed sonat local conditions to experience

that labor unrest that they have adopted the collective bargaining bobbles experience. that didn't have the freedom that would conflict for me before a lesser of every officials that they have more latitude than rely on government to perform certain basic functions for us so every minuscule issue that can be resolved through

the organization to organization that collective bargaining can allow women to grind to a halt and would not be good for anybody that relies on that to provide those services. >> is is -- deserve federal love -- federalism issue here? >> there is but we have crossed that bridge at the very least we need a coherent approach and wants me except that they're not to minister of work forces we have crossed the bridge allowing the of laboratories of democracy. that these would implicate the first amendment. that everybody has the right for the constitution but not

everybody has the right to be policemen and. you know, what i mean. it could have said it as a laboratory of democracy would you hire you are the employer but we don't have that. if you have to join a union to be a public employee. i don't know why texas and arizona says you have to join the republican party to be a public employee. with federalism and those that were in place for centuries with a massive intrusion to the core functions of state government obviously is important but never stopped from the constitutional right.

so pickering unquestionably gives the government tell little more relay at -- the way would regulating but since the union isn't regulating employees it is to represent them soever pickering means from the fact that the government has a little more leeway that you get to the point where the government tells employees to use subsidized to be adverse. i hear that pickering argument but i don't find it persuasive. >>. >> in this force that is adverse to the government.

>> get make sense to return to the perceptions of this case that they have them believe something at has an impression that despite many cases to clearly establish the contrary non-union members are supporting political activity for that patronage about raw political affiliation to have an obvious citizenship advocacy as connected to workplace issues because system of collective bargaining to put into place but to allow them for certain categories about what we have right now is a great deal of leeway for

republican -- up for public employees there will do that for reasons i have described that incredible value of your front line workers, or projects that improve the efficiency in and of quality of that business task. that is one good reason. these things have been vigorously debated in michigan or ohio that they are shouting from the rooftops. sometimes it will enable changes in in hubei are as citizens. especially in in public services for a launching point in. >> host: benefits.

to women of color or lgbt workers. we're still struggling with the enormous wage gap $0.79 earned it if you are a public sector worker and why those want to be sure they are in place to achieve goals that matter to our communities. >> those that are from the entities that discussed the benefits so they go to that point but one very important thing that they get a that the union's help them identify those efficiencies to help them save money and

then with the logistics' logistics', with the local government entities. >>. >> with that patronage that some kayhan say here is the justification and. but other states can say now. to select a choice within the.

and that gives them a law of leeway with respect to this issue. so that is limited to the drastic way. so what pickering says is is essentially they kidnap the way private employers can subject that is the theory. also with the fourth amendment that the beverage can enact in terms of the intrusion of the privacy interest in a much more significant way. that is the principle. isn't a question about creating a system where the government is financing its enemy that is not have collective bargaining works but to have a well established bargaining partner to lead to labor

peace because they will feel represented an aunt with workplace safety and others that our possible with you have someone that has the ability to take on those kinds of things with a financial interest. that is the problem with the a idea that this is voluntary. if you are an employer negotiating with the unions you cannot be sure who knows what the membership base would be? the union would be foolish to say to take on these obligations assuming we have 90% signed up because who knows what will happen? so that collapses if you have that. one last point about the existential threat.

i don't want anyone to think of frederick's friedrichs is a one-off case to be set for generations this is the first as the intermediate step in the next up toward the neck step that is already litigated that violates the first amendment and if you look at the briefs in this case of the petitioners side much of the languages how terrible it is for individual employees not to bargain themselves with their employer and instead have that funneled through the union's. it is true right now this particular issue there is a mistake not to recognize that those lawsuits will seek to eliminate all the

exclusive bargaining representation for government employers and there really will mean the end of unions in that context. >> we're coming to the end of our presentation and going to questions but varian wants to give a thought first. >> something we have taken for granted about the consequences to a eliminate 51 as the prague district as these laboratories how to get this done. the public sector has adopted the model the donnelly rest upon representation but the duty of of a fair representation of everyone in the unit. we are getting into the heart of what that model is and with representation it

is reasonable for a public employer to decide that duty should come with a shared obligation to provide the services of are germane to public bargaining. >> we could go on and on and i frequently do. [laughter] but instead we will take your questions. please raise your hand and wait for a microphone. and please ask a question. >> of point of information when he says there is no practical effects look at wisconsin. where the public employers

the membership of the employe unions is down by approximately 40 percent that is a law of free riders. going back to the first amendment i read the briefs it seems they argue the first amendment argument. how would each of you approached that if you were standing at the podium for the court? >> someone was mentioned by name. you go first. [laughter] >> with wisconsin, one wonders it is an empirical question but it is an exaggeration to say that and

tired decline was free riders certainly some of those opposed the union never wanted to be there but some of those were certainly. but it has to be an exaggeration i think going from winter% to less than 100 percent is evidence of free riding. >> how would we decide the first amendment issue? >> i think it is important to recognize it is not cited in a vacuum there is body of case law concerning government employee -- employees and employers. they rely on that case law the same way we rely when we enter a collective bargaining arrangement they rely on their understanding

of what the of what is when determining the parameters of their relationships in this context. that's is one of the big things the petitioners could upend that first amendment case law in a way to leave employers of certain how to deal with various employee activities or different approaches that we have always understood are okay. >> i don't think there is a first amendment issue in this case. it is workable this president has endured for decades there is a line drawing of a law has not proved difficult corer burdensome some believe they

do not have to support those political beliefs and that seems to be what we're talking about here. i would decline to take on the invitation to reclassify the workplace labor-management relationships as entirely political. >> in the interest of time my will agree with what has been said with a workplace first amendment rights and why not leave that in place. >> i with the supreme court your book. the moderator assumes the questions presented should

be overruled and would be dealt with and presided over but the second question whether they opt out or opted and issue would be the one that proved to be what the justices are willing to decide. may we see a much narrower decision than the one you appear to talk about? >> that is an important question to discuss before hand. >> i am not sure again again, maybe we will get to this later, overhanging this case is a question of overruling of precedent that is on the books 35 years without ever being challenged or applied by

several courts over the three and a half decades. my reaction is a law or a little over ruling there is something very serious for the court to consider about the standards that should apply in that context in the extent to which we can talk about stare decisis but to the extent to reconsider things that have been settled is appropriate in the absence of significant circumstances in there is a law of other contexts in which affirmative action or opting out with respect to constitutional protections is the norm. >> i think of terms will the of court reach that? settled think so.

it is the gamble for the petitioners to include the smaller one by including that they give the court that out in case it doesn't want to overturn. so the case that comes to mind is the halliburton case from last year were everyone thought that a fraud on the market very the they would just reconsider the doctrine than ultimately did not go all the way with the intermediate holding. i don't think it is a high chance but the opt in and opt out issue is there and they may have been if certainly hurt themselves on the broader argument. >> our multi states and the

kiss brief to not address the issue to see that as a different ways you choose to structure your bargaining arrangements of what the union can and cannot do in the same way the way the multitudes of states can have exclusive representation some have gone with opted arrangements and some have not. >> is there any political component in this case to be separated out just with direct assistance to the employee?

>> i think the assumption on the case law is that you can bet that is very much challenged in this case. who wants to discuss that? >> from my perspective what gives pause is the notion of grievances but this seems like something that is more of a direct service to the individual where they have the tangible direct benefit and the response to that to say first the union has a law of power and so it is technically this person's grievance the union will levant's -- advance and the alternative that could turn

into a problematic situation with the fee-for-service if you have of a grievance to be processed you will pay the marginal cost. that is the only one that gives me pause but i don't think that is a full obstacle but the most direct service rendered. >> you said earlier we have this division tell us more about that. >> with that heads encased set forth by the procedures by which public sector unions represent to contact administration and other types of disputes resolutions to separate out those activities that is the

of system in place that they do not support those political activities. with regard i feel like i wanted to pick up on a thread. but with regard to grievances those are in place but there are states that want to make the decision they do not want you to have a great deal of individualized litigation over workplace speech in the great danger is of a danger for the petitioners in a way to prove they are ineffective. to the extent they are a part of the process in the agreement that they make to

have a productive work force is like a law of new york or california or kentucky facilitates. >> going back to the benefits of public employers , to say this arrangement would work given every arrangement they should be perfectly happy in that experience of labor unrest it is not true to resolve the grievances to ensure satisfaction is important to insure those government services to reducing employee turnover

that is something i have wanted to say of various points here but there are lots of different ways in which adopting a system were the only voice in place is take-it-or-leave-it then don't, work for us cannot be helpful because that means as soon as the employee experiences dissatisfaction very small but important to that employee the solution should be for them to walk but for public employer may not be the best you may want to well-trained workforce so that is important to to that >>. >> should the petitioners

succeed in overturning the one scholar has written a possible solution is to have public employers fund the unions entirely and get -- reduce salaries to fund it. that doesn't strike me as right for a couple of reasons but that is the suggestion for the free rider problem. what do you think how that would work? the rest against of federalism idea that they can structure how they like but if the supreme court does not agree does that satisfy petitioners in this case? >> . .

for labor management relations. i think we are going to see a lot of new models over the coming years regardless of the outcomes of the case as has been mentioned. there are a lot of challenges and attacks and re- shifting of the economy and how public services are delivered command we will see a lot of models for ensuring the makes and contributing to the effective delivery of public services. but also we need to bear in mind one of the things that

makes a workplace organization of employees effective is the fact that it is a workplace organization of employees. we talked about the reasons why the involvement has been so effective. the frontline workers understand that they can participate beyond information in critical feedback because they have a strong representative protecting against retaliation. whatever happens in terms of public funding of labor management i expect the models of the future to come next year or 20 or 50 years will always involve some component. >> anybody else? >> in terms of the what comes next, it is important to keep in mind both the exclusive representation and collective-bargaining ability is an extraordinary power.

the aclu and naacp ended already have no authority to compel the government to sit down and talk to them to help promote interest. i think just the nature of the powers take, if something is in the interest of 51 percent or more, i find iti find it hard to believe they would not be a vigorous engaged constituency of employees voluntarily legislate and be willing to fund is only the members of the union get to participate in the process of bargaining and representation. i find it hard to believe that there would be more than enough funding and time and resources to make that continue to happen. >> i was just going to say, no one is compelling the states to do anything.

it is in their interest to have someone to bargain with who is funded and can be effective obviously there are dramatically opposing views but the best labor-management relationships are ones where there is active give-and-take. it works for both sides. but no one is compelling the states to do that. the states have decided that it is good for us. if they don't want to decide that they don't have to do it. i don't want to lose the idea that if the petitioners here for the when the very next day you will see a

reinvigorated effort to get rid of exclusive bargaining on the same theory. the idea that this is some abstract thing that we can separate, no. if the first amendment applies here and prohibits this the people are going to say, that decision clearly means the bouncing an employee'semployee's right to bargain for her or himself is even worse. employees will not be able to band together and you have to look at history to see what employees can't they generally are not going to get the kind of working conditions that they would like to have. and whether or not they do it even in the private sector where there are unions, the ability and the fact that employers now unionization as possible is a threat that is out there. that will be an unfortunate situation.

>> one last question that i think everyone may have something to say. to recap the history, this case comes out a victim in a case called knox versus service employees union in which without particularly the question having been presented justice alito said by the way there is a case that supports the public employee unions. i happen to think it is a complete anomaly and probably should be overruled immediately the opportunity was presented to him in a case called harris versus quinn. he said due to the attorney for the union are you aware that many people thought he was wrongly decided and

think it should be overturned? in his opinion the opinion is devoted entirely to trashing the precedent and saying that it is a violation of the first amendment and then there is a paragraph saying but i don'ti don't have five votes. we're going to have a more limited result which is simply of these particular workers cannot have a fair share fee arrangement. possibly some of us might be forgiven. i don't know. what i want to ask this group is, is there a chance? is this result fake? what should we look for when we read about a listen to oral argument that might indicate that something will happen that we don't anticipate. who wants to go 1st?

>> anyone who thinks anything is baked into supreme court decisions is just as not have a lot of experience with the court. jeff referred to the halliburton case where everyone believe they would be a significant change and extract -- securities grant action and there was a minor change. so no one knows what can happen. i do think to expand your question, the court has aa serious question to confront in terms of overruling. it's precedents say merely viewing that a precedent was wrongly decided is not enough. they are factors of the court looks to whether or not the decision has been questioned. i am a little bias. i think it's hard to say that those factors are met here.

you have to step back and people who care about the court have to say we are in this incredibly polarized era where all of our institutions are viewed skeptically. i do think that there is a real risk that overruling a decision risks making the court appear to be an institution where it is all about the personnel. not only think of the knock on effects. that it will really be about the views because it reduces

the court to an institution more akin to a political operation than the court which would be a terrible result.a terrible result. that will be on the minds of them are of the justices. >> what will you be looking for? >> so similar to the answer, i think if the 2nd issue is getting play that is a sign that it is in play. if it looks like especially kennedy, the chief asking a lot of questions command that's a sign that it is seriously in play.

>> i agreei agree with everything to the extent that they are asking questions about the implications. that will reveal some reluctance to overreach. but also one thing we have not talked about is the tremendous reliance and in terms of the disruption that would flow from the decision were talking about laws governing labor-management relations that would be undone. other states like the state of wisconsin still allow for agency fee collecting and collective-bargaining. others would find themselves and see in terms of what the governing rules work. and then we have thousands and thousands of contracts. this was alluded to.

i don't think they will be receptive to the assertion. i don't think that is the case at all. we see a huge amount of reopening and renegotiation learning from the experience , litigation which will involve public employers and unions alike and will be incredibly disruptive. these should be on the mind of the court when it is reconsidering a precedent. one other thing is that i don't think this case, very much hope this case will not be seen as a technical discussion of agency fees and the first amendment. this should be viewed as what it is much as a result

in favor of petitioner's that would create and place substantial limitations on the ability of working people to advocate for the services they provide. that makes this case part of something larger. legal issues are not as interesting as they should be, but what's going on in our country in the moment we are is very important and i believe the court will be thinking in terms of what kind of legacy it wants to provide. >> we have three or four minutes left. what are you looking for and what would raise interest? >> looking out very hopefully. not just in new york's multistate brief but in the

government side briefs that were filed. in my mind the holding rested on the facts those individuals were not full-fledged government employees. they pointed to that of the implications of the reason why the rationale was not being served. the provision of services and what it's like. this case squarely presents the same questions and all you briefs have tried to elaborate not just the many tens of thousands of contracts but also the day-to-day experience and

our decision for the petitioners were change that. >> with that we will say way out. would like to thank for that wonderful hospitality, the american constitution society and most importantly this panel which has been extremely well-informed. i think we should all thank them and ii thank you for taking time to come in your the panel. chairs the

three-hour hearing. >> committee will come to order. is authorized to declare a recess at any time. oversightnal investigative work does not need to be an adversarial activity. we require cooperation. it takes effort, communication, and good faith. mr. cummings and a have worked together quite well. taken each other's views and ideas into consideration. our corroborative approach to oversight has yielded results. the committee has come a long way. adopted a 195 page report on the secret service, and have written 200

letters asking for documents and testimony. when we send a letter, it is not a thank you note. it is a little tougher than that. we have written more than 200 joint letters speaks a lot to the approach we are trying to take. we need cooperation from the agencies themselves. it might be helpful to clarify our expect haitians when we talk about cooperation. are open and transparent and self-critical in the united states of america. that is why the congress formed this committee under a different name. it has grown, expanded, contracted, and gone through a variety of different names along the way. the function of oversight has been here since the foundation of our nation.

a long time ago, people felt it wise to look at every expenditure made by the federal government. aen the committee sends request, we expect an honest effort in response. we expect to munication, to be kept informed. that you will work with us in good faith, which means that when you make a commitment, do what you say you will do. shareicans and democrats the goal of a more efficient government that serves the people. we have to ensure that every dollar is spent responsibly. we do that by conducting oversight of the executive branch and examine government programs and policies that affect every american. invent the concept of this oversight of the executive branch. ,t comes from the constitution and comes from the need to be

responsive as we represent the people of the united states of america. group we will hear from a from five different agencies, all with the troublesome track records when cooperating with request for information. to the ideahetic that they get bombarded from so many different committees. , agencies so task massive and so big, spending billions upon billions of dollars. department of homeland security has been invited to discuss a request related to the secret service and tsa. tsa has ignored basic fundamental requests such as appearing at hearings. we invited the administrator to testify at a hearing scheduled a month later. the administrator backed out and cited a scheduling problem.

we invited the justice department to address a position on withholding the memos that guided investigative personnel when dealing with gps tracking devices. we also hope to get an update on a request for the latest lois lerner files. state department is here to address specifically the difficulty of obtaining documents in our investigation entering its third year. always approaches the production of documents and a halfhearted manner. that is very problematic. today, there is a story about providing in accurate information as it relates to hillary clinton and her e-mails. we will ask you some questions about that. the office of management and budget is here to address a toponse to a subpoena i sent the office of information and

regulatory affairs. it is an office created by congress, and it's job is to review proposed regulation. to create the impairments that it is cooperating, omb offered a number of pages of documents it has produced. a flashing signal that maybe there is a problem. when they want to talk about the number of documents they have produced, i'm not interested in that. i'm interested in the percentage of documents you have produced. have a trick to say we provided this or that, tell me what percentage of the documents we get. if we want 100% of the truth, we need 100% of the documents. until we get them, it makes us think that you are hiding something. the office of personnel management has been invited to discuss the effort to produce materials with response to the data breached investigation.

opm has burdened the investigators by applying inexplicable reductions. publicly available information has been repeatedly redacted by opm. in some cases, answers have been found more readily by visiting the upsid website. it leaves us with the conclusion that perhaps they have a lot to hide. embarrassing,s that is not a reason to keep it from the congress. a successful working relationship between the congressional committee and the executive branch agencies require effort, communication, and good faith on both sides. we need transparency and need to work together. we have a lot of good staff, a lot of good people. disparage anye to one person's reputation, but we are here to get answers, and we to make sure we get

those documents. we need your help in doing so. with that, i recognize the ranking member, mr. cummings. i strongly support the authority of this committee to obtain the necessary documents as part of our investigation. these documents are a critical tool to investigate waste, fraud, or abuse, eliminate .uplication we rely on other sources of testimony,, witness interviews, briefings, and meetings. .ocuments are unique they give us the ability to understand what happens over time without having to rely on

memories or self-serving recollection of those being investigated. i support the committees of authority because i have been in the chairman seat. i know firsthand how oversight slowingpiteful by documents or withholding information to which congress is entitled. i remember very well the fights we had with the bush administration over their refusal to provide documents we needed. remember how those actions impaired our ability to do our work. unfortunately, i have also seen how investigations can be used as a form of political attack, rather than search for the fact and the truth. i have seen how massive, repeated, and over wrought

document requests have been used as a partisan weapon. forceeen how they can diverts to personnel and waste millions of dollars in the process. it is important to recognize the difference between these two purposes. we need to recognize not only the significant demands that have been placed on the agencies, but what they have provided to date. for example, the state department has just experienced one of, if not the most, most amending years in terms of congressional inquiries. the state department is currently reporting to nine different committees, including the benghazi select committee. it has been inundated with requests unlike any previous

year on record. oversight committee a loan launched nine investigations relating to the state department. in response, the department provided more than 21 gigabytes of information. our as part of investigation of embassy construction, more than 160,000 pages of documents were produced. committee wants additional documents. i have signed on to some of those document requests myself. it is inaccurate to suggest that the state department has intentionally withheld the document's we need. with that said, the state for anent is notorious extreme report record management system. this problem dates back several administrations. frustratedncredibly

in the past with the state department's inability to run the most basic document searches and produce documents in a timely manner. in my opinion, the solution to this problem is not to shame the heads of the legislative affairs offices. many officials worked in congress previously. they fully understand our needs and our rights to the information. some of our most effective advocates within the agency. we really want to address this problem, we can take to key steps. arst, congress can conduct detailed review of agency management practices, including document preservation, collection, and redaction. long-term efforts to upgrade and improve their systems so they take less agency

time to implement and provide congress what it needs more quickly. i'm talking about efficiency and effectiveness. this work will pay dividends to congress, the press, and the american public. the second thing congress can do is to take a closer look at itself. put a mirror up to our faces. end thein th politically-motivated headlines. end duplicate requests. wecan ask for only what really need, rather than everything under the sun. we can work with agencies to legitimatethe interests in protecting certain classes of information, well giving accommodations for what we need to do our job. that is the balance that we

should seek. that is the balance we should work towards. closing, mr. chairman, i hope we can explore some of these issues here today, and i look for to the testimony of our witnesses. i yield back. recordaffetz: i hold the open for five legislative days for any written statements. i recognize our panel of witnesses. thestant secretary of bureau of legislative affairs at the united states department of state. assistant attorney general for legislative affairs at the department of justice. the honorable assistant secretary of the office of legislative affairs of homeland security. associate director for legislative affairs at the office of management and budget. director of office of the

congressional affairs for the office of personnel management. thank you for being here. all witnesses are sworn before they testify. if you will please stand and raise your right hand. thank you. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the whole truth, nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. you know the drill here. we are trying to keep it to five minutes. we will give you a little latitude. insert yourously entire written record -- statement into the record. mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, and members of the committee, i appreciate this opportunity to testify.

the state department is committed to working with congress. secretary kerry spent 30 years and congress and believes strongly in the importance of congressional oversight. since he arrived at the state department, hughes instructions to the department have been -- his instructions to the department have been to be responsive. i share his commitment. career as antire capitol hill staffer. i have great respect for the role in oversight. the request for documents at length. it is important to underscore that our willingness to work with congress is not limited to documents. the state department legislative affairs office provided 2500 briefings to the hill on foreign-policy issues. we worked with consular affairs. from loss reports to missing constituents overseas.

we arranged over 500 congressional member and staff delegation trips abroad and have appeared at 168 congressional hearings and responded to 1700 congressional letters. with crises around the world and congress focused on foreign-policy, we are working hard to meet all responsibilities and recognize that cooperating with investigations is one of them. the state department have struggled to keep pace with the increasing demands of requests, which have expanded the number and complexity. we are responding to dozens of investigations by nine different committees, involving hundreds of requests for hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. this is twice as many as last year. while some of the investigations are our focus, others are broad and complex. be clear, we know it is our responsibility to answer these questions, and we are

working to improve the way respond, making it more useful for congress and the pace of our response. historically in responding to congressional requests, we follow a process similar to other requests, relying on the same infrastructure and technology. increase him a we found both were competing for the same resources. to compensate, we pulled together ad hoc teams from functional and regional bureaus to respond. we pulled people from the work of diplomacy to respond to congress. this system is not sustainable. to institutionalize the way we process documents to speed up the pace of delivery. we knew we had upgrade our technology. this year we have been transforming the way we respond. i worked with my colleagues at state to create a congressional document production branch in which involves personnel and new software to facilitate reviews and production. we are grateful that congress to establish this new

entity to provide additional personnel and technology. we've been able to process more quickly requests from this committee, select committee on been cozzi -- on benghazi, and other committees. enabling us to respond to more committees simultaneously than ever before. because the production branch is only a few months old, its impact is not apparent yet. this committee should see the results as we work on your request. additionally, we have made tangible improvements to the way we produce documents to congress. we heard from staff, including yours, who had concerns that we were providing documents in a way that was not user-friendly. we used to provide documents on paper, without coding, that enabled you to find and organize them. we would hand of her boxes of documents. , who meeting with staff told us how hard it was to use

documents in this format, we change the way we give you documents and now provide them electronically with easily searchable base numbers. we can now provide documents organized by date or custodian. the ability to review is vastly expanded. the move towards electronic document processing has improved our ability to provide documents quickly and enjoy them and easier to review. i would like to summarize where we are and where we hope to go. we are working on nine investigations for your committee. we have provided over 160,000 pages to the committee for embassy construction and have participated in for hearings and many meetings and briefings. i do note that i did here with the chairman said, and i understand. have been collecting documents for the five requests outlined in your december 18 letter, and are committed to producing thousands of pages,

along with providing briefings on the matters described in the letter. in closing, while we have implemented significant improvements, we are striving to do better. the obstacles to responding is not one. it is a question of balancing resources in response to multiple, large-scale request from a number of different committees. innovativeng to find ways to respond better and faster. i look for to working with you and your staff to ensure the state department and congress work together to provide transparency that should be the hallmark of our government. rep. chaffetz: thank you. you are now recognized for five minutes. >> good morning. --. chaffetz: if you could >> is that better? rep. chaffetz: thank you. the opportunity to respond to the committee's information requests, including those related to policy and geolocation and other

surveillance technology in the wake of the supreme court 2012 decision. assure the committee that we value the important role of congressional oversight, and as the attorney general has stated repeatedly, the department is committed to accommodating information needs consistent with law enforcement come national security, and prosecutorial responsibilities. the department appreciates oversight is a critical underpinning of the legislative process. consistent with the bite we play some congressional oversight, since the beginning of the 114 congress, the department has testified and 60 congressional hearings and provided extensive information and more than 1800 letters responding to increase from committees and members. in every instance, we strive to provide as much information as possible without compromising our law enforcement and national security efforts, or our prosecutorial responsibilities. in addition to these

sensitivities, the department also has an obligation to protect certain executive branch institutional interests, including confidentiality of client communication, attorney work product, and internal deliberation. we are committed to working in good faith to accommodate the committee's legitimate oversight interest and hope the committee will likewise continue to engage in good faith with the department in a manner that recognizes the important law enforcement and confidentiality interests presented in some cases. trust thelar, we committee recognizes the importance of ensuring the department's investigative and prosecutorial decisions are made without regard to political considerations or a perception of political influence or pressure. and theitical influence mere public perception of such influence can undermine significantly our law enforcement efforts and in publicl matters shake

confidence in the justice process. we recognize it is difficult when interest come into potential conflict. that is why the constitution envisioned that the branches would engage in a process of accommodation. this long-standing and well-accepted approach has been up lloyd by administrations for decades and supported by top department officials, democrats and republicans alike. consistent with this approach, the department has made efforts to respond to the committee's information requests regarding on geolocation and other surveillance technology. as the committee is aware, these represent significant confidentiality interests. they include sensitive law enforcement-related confidential work product prepared in anticipation of litigation, specifically internal deliberations of department

prosecutors about the legal come investigative, and strategic issues we face in our law enforcement efforts in light of the jones decision. our disclosure of this product would show analyses that are essential to law enforcement matters and prosecution. in addition, exposure could jeopardize ongoing and future investigations of prosecutions by prematurely revealing the governments strategy. such disclosure would afford criminal targets an opportunity to preempt those tools, eve ate law enforcement detection, and attain knowledge of how our agents operate. -- evade law enforcement detection, and attain knowledge of how our agents operate. undertakenent has efforts to working good faith to accommodate the committee's interests. we were pleased to brief committee staff less september on the processes we use for

obtaining geolocation information. we hope our breathing was helpful to the committee, and as we have offered previously, we would be happy to offer additional briefings and answer any remaining questions to accommodate request. in conclusion, i emphasized that the department recognizes the importance of congressional oversight. time, as it implicates law-enforcement efforts and investigative techniques, sensitive attorney , internalct decorations, presenting unique confidentiality concerns. despite these concerns, we remain optimistic, and by working to gather cooperatively, satisfy interests and safeguard the independence, integrity, and effectiveness of the departments of the department's vital law enforcement efforts and prosecutorial responsibility. the department stands ready to continue this effort and accommodate information needs and hope you will work with us towards that goal.

thank you again for the opportunity to testify. i will be happy to answer any questions. rep. chaffetz: thank you. mr. johnson, we look forward to hearing your testimony. committee roles require that you submit testimony 24 hours prior. you give your opening statement, you can explain why you failed to provide this committee with your testimony. you are now recognized for five minutes. you, mr. chairman. ranking member cummings and distinguished members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to discuss efforts, time, resources, and money that dedicates to providing information. secretary johnson pledged transparency and candor and is committed to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely fashion. , the his arrival

department's responsiveness to oversight requests has greatly improved. year, thest department examined its responses to congressional inquiries and found that it cut its response time in half. chairmanore appreciate -- we areix statement determined to continue to improve on our record. dhs, i servedg to as an officer in the u.s. officer for almost 30 years. as a senior colonel, i was assigned to the office of the assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs. we were still involved in combat operations in iraq and afghanistan. these two operations, as well as the detainee mission, generated a significant amount of congressional oversight. i was involved in that oversight process, which i thought was considerable at the time.

dhs,er, upon my arrival at i was surprised to learn of the depth, breadth, and quantity of congressional oversight this department faces. in 2004, the 9/11 commission strongly recommended that congress form a congressional oversight structure of dhs. witness told the commission, the number of congressional bodies that exercise oversight over dhs is perhaps the single largest obstacle impeding the department's successful development. with jurisdiction over both oversight and government reform, your committee is uniquely positioned to help foster efforts to implement this crucial 9/11 commission recommendation. in the 12 years since the commission issue that recommendation, the oversight structure of the department has more complex and extensive.

the department answers to 92 congressional committees and subcommittees, 27 caucuses, commissions, and groups. as the 9/11 commission chairman peoplehink of having 100 you're reporting to. it makes no sense. you cannot do your job under those circumstances. despite these challenges, we are doing our job. during calendar year 2015, dhs responded to 700 oversight letters and more requests. of those, 70 letters came from members of this committee. we have responded to oversight inquiries on a broad array of topics ranging from secret service protective mission to dhs assistance of victims of cyber breaches. than15, dhs devoted more 100,000 hours to responding to congressional oversight. to addressring is the department's response to

oversight requests and demands regarding the united states secret service. during calendar year 2015, dhs and the secret service received 12 letters, over 100 requests for information, testimony, or documents in one subpoena from this committee. we have completed addressing over 90 of those requests. secret service has provided 13 briefings to committee staff, eight employees of the secret service participated in day-long transcribed interviews conducted by the committee staff. as secret service leadership has specified a to committee hearings, and at the chairman's request, we facilitated a visit to secret service headquarters from embers of the in total, the department has produced over 10,000 pages of documents, in addition to thousands of classified documents. these efforts have submitted hard work to respond to the inquiries of the secret service

from the independent panel, various investigations by the inspector general, and the oversight requirements of 10 other congressional committees. secretary johnson has made responsiveness a priority. as his assistant secretary of legislative affairs, i am determined to continue to improve on our past record. mr. chairman and ranking members statement wasthe a stateme not forwarded. i will be pleased to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you, you are now recognized for comment. >> thank you. chairman k fitts, ranking member -- chairman jason chaffetz, ranking members, the office of management and budget is committed to working with congress and with this committee. strongly in the value

that congress provides and b is working inm the most effective way possible on behalf of the american people. request forreceive documents, information, and we strive to provide responses in a timely manner. in addition to producing works everyday to provide information and analysis and unforeseen circumstances. given our broad jurisdiction, we coordinate and respond to requests from over a dozen committees, despite being a small agency of only approximately 550 employees. in addition, given our extensive role in the bipartisan budget act of 2015, enacted in november, and our consolidated

appropriations act, enacted does a few weeks ago, we received and responded to nearly 1600 budget requests over the last year. with more than 600 coming in the last six months. our mission is to execute the budget, management, and legislative agenda -- to ensure the federal government works best. we work with and across federal agencies to improve management, and create a government that is more effective, efficient, and supports continued economic growth. office is responsible for coordination and review of all significant regulations by executive agencies. they ensure that regulations are based on sound analysis and serve the statutes that offer them. they also seek to ensure that the benefits of the rule justify the cost.

we work under long-established over severalacted and ministrations in both parties. the committee asked me to testify today on the clean water 2013 andducted in 2014. request is in good faith to address the the and to accommodate request, and response, we have provided five sets of documents during the period it was under review. we submit no reactions, with exceptions of e-mail addresses and phone numbers. omb continues to review records, and we remain committed to working with your staff to discuss how we can best produce materials to the best interests of the committee. thank you again for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to answering any questions you might have.

>> thank you. you are now recognized, mr. levine. i am pleased to be here this morning to testify on the half of the office of personnel management and the acting director, regarding the request for documents related to the cyber security incident or over thent. under extraordinary circumstances, we have worked to provide information and services to those impacted and to respond to numerous congressional inquiries regarding the incidents, classified and unclassified briefings, and town halls. during this time, employees have worked hard to improve on the services we provide everyday to the entire federal workforce, from resume to retirement. since i arrived in august, it has been my distinct privilege every day to serve with these individuals.

opm is a small agency, with a to serve the american people. to preserve that mission, we have made the highest priority to respond to the cyber security incident and bolstering the i.t. infrastructure and security capabilities. we are committed to working with congress, as well as partners, including dhs, dod, fbi, among others, to protect the federal government and the people we serve. it is critical to opm that all of our stakeholders, particularly those directly impacted, received information in a timely, transparent, and accurate manner. we undertook two separate processes regarding identity theft protection and monitoring services that are being provided. we are conducting outreach on our website and by communicating directly with stakeholders. further, to provide congress with necessary information, my office has provided multiple

sets of faqs regarding related services. we established a phone hotline exclusively for congressional offices to contact us with questions on behalf of your constituents. opm has also attended town meetings conducted with staffers on the issue. simultaneously, we have made every effort to work in good faith to respond to oversight requests, including document production. since june 2015, opm has received six separate document production request, resulting in 19 productions -- including tens of thousands of reports. we have testified before congressional hearings, made hundreds of calls to staffers relating to the cyber security incident. we have received over 170 letters from numbe members of congress. we have made officials available for interviews, conducted 13

classified and unclassified briefings, and extended thousands of staff hours to be responsive. we have worked as quickly as if the structure and resources allow, to be responsive to congressional requests. we have taken numerous steps to increase previously limited capacities to respond to the large volume and since debate. this includes hiring additional staff, other agencies, and obtaining document management tools that allow us to respond more promptly and efficiently to congress. as the bastille was increase, we work to prioritize -- as capacity was increased, we work prioritize interests. as a result of the extreme and ongoing sensitivities related to the i.t. networks, servers, and systems, redaction of sensitive system was made so as not to provide a roadmap for more abilities for malicious actors.

thoseare consistent with employed by other federal agencies, based on recommendations for opm, i.t. professionals, and in consultation with interagency experts. additional reductions were also made -- read actions were also made in the interest of accommodating the oversight. a number of sensitive documents were also made available for unredacted form. here in the rayburn office building, to provide ease of access for staff. we look forward to continuing to work with the committee and to respond to requests for information in a timely manner as possible. thank you for the opportunity today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. i want to follow-up directly on that point that you just talked about. when we had our hearing about the data breach, the chief information officer, when we

asked about the stolen materials, this is what she said. " some were outdated security documents about our system. and some measurements about our system." she went on to testify that the adversaries "did not get the specific configuration diagrams of our entire environment." adding that "our documents about platforms, homeland security went on to testify that they did not include proprietary information or specific information around the architecture of the opm environment." so, we are mystified as to what is true. is it as she testified? or is it what you are telling us now, that they did get very sensitive documents? we are not able to have them. they were stolen, we know the adversaries have them. but you will not allow congress to look at them and have them in

our possession. you are offering the camera review still with re dactions. why aren't you sharing this information with us? >> thank you for the question. there were five separate requests from the committee on the specific topics to which you are referring. all of the documents that miss seymour was testifying about were produced as part of our production. i don't know the exact date, but the response that was the august all of the documents in that incident have been produced. you are right. they were produced originally because of the categories of information that i described previously, sensitive information. >> she testified that they were outdated documents that did not

give specific configuration diagrams. and they were commercially available. is that true or not? chairman, wer mr. looked at all of the separate requests that have been made. which include information both about that incident and others. our i.t. professionals recommended that we treat all of the following categories of information the same way. things such as ip addresses, sensitive architecture, capabilities, tools -- things to be treated carefully. >> she testified this is all commercially available and outdated information. she is leading congress to believe -- i know they came in and break the system. i know they stole this. but it is all commercially outdated system information. >> again, what we have decided to do -- >> why are you giving us this information?

we know the adversary has agreed but you won't let us see it. >> with all the respect, you do have it. >> we do not. >> we have all of the i.t. information. isy thing that remains unresponsive names, just a list of every username on the system with the last four of their socials. that said, we're happy to make that information and continue to make it available, if your staff lets us know. we are happy to work with you on that on that set of responses. >> let me pull this out. we go in-camera to look at. this is what it looks like. that is the list. why are you redacting? we can go page after page, i don't know what is under this. >> that is simply a list of every username. >> ok, you are fine. we're happy?

don't tell us you are happy. , youmember of congress will not let us look at these materials. >> to be there, we thought that was nonresponsive. it wasn't about being secure. >> what do you mean? we are asking to see this information. this is what you give us the in-camera. then we finally have to negotiate over months to get to this point where i can even hold it up. >> i will go back and work with you. i think what we have tried to do -- seymour testified it was probably available. you won't even -- in-camera -- you still read that it. we are not happy. >> i appreciate that. the usernames on the systems, that is the last four social security numbers. >> that is what the adversary has. we are concerned about that.

the answer is yes. and that is what we need, candor. the answer is yes. that is totally dramatically and completely different than what seymour testified. she tried to get us to go away by telling us it is all publicly available, outdated anyway. that was a lie. she misled congress. she will pay that price. orton forgnize mrs. five minutes. >> just to clarify all the names of the employees publicly available -- are they publicly available? >> to the extent they are federal employees, all the names are available. but it would not necessarily the be -- about,ones i am talking i could go on and find out if i am, i don't know, a creditor.

can i find your name? >> to be clear, we are talking about two separate incidents. the chairman is referring to the systems internally. i believe you are referring to the system that is the later personnel records and background breaches. that information is not publicly available. what i think we are referring to is, yes, every current federal employee at a given moment -- >> i just want to make sure of the privacy rights. that the names are not publicly available. >> sure. list clear, i think the was from 2014 that we are talking about. those are separate things. course isongress of centered on legislative business. should know which of you

get this question, but most important legislative business you have done in recent months is the production of a bipartisan budget. as i understand it, your office played perhaps the central role in all of the agencies. and i know that every number of congress, i was one of four leaders of the transportation bill, we were constantly talking to your legislative people about legislation. i know that you facilitated, and i appreciate what you did, for the district of columbia. i cannot imagine there is not a member of congress on the phone telling you what their constituents did. i understand you responded to 650 -- 1650 budget requests. that 600 of them came in those last few months. your you describe substantive role in that

legislation? that's important bill, perhaps the most important bill. the only bill that the congress of the u.s. had to put out every single year. >> yes, thank you so much for the question congresswoman. omb server wide mission. one of our central function certainly is to make sure that the government is funded. and so our primary focus over the last couple of months, which has really been an agency-wide effort, has been ensuring the bipartisan budget agreement, as well as the consolidated appropriations act, that they got through. it was a massive effort that involves coordination with republican and democrat agencies. we're really proud of the work we did there. >> first of all, i want to congratulate you for that work. thank you for the work that you did on really rescuing congress

from the last several congress' reputation. maybe it was busy legislating inquiries. one fromost important our constituents was the annual budget. i appreciate that. mr. levine, this breach of course -- if you were to name them -- perhaps the primary business of this committee this year. and of course, you were called to the carpet. business thate you would have then been i task forost taken to was how you responded to the coming upts services, of the legislative business. i wish you would describe, pursuant to what this committee

wanted you to do, how you responded? what services were effected? the notion of a hotline, i understand, for congressional offices to contact on the half of their constituents and other services. that, in fact, responded to congress 's concern about the opm breach. my time isassume about to expire. >> please complete the question. >> what we have tried to do is to i can fold. working to provide services to all of those that were impacted whate separate incidents, we call the personal records and the background records incidents. we went out and acquired identity theft protection for

those in those breaches. so what our effort has been is to provide all members of congress a mechanism for having information, when your constituents call. whether they be retired, serrent, or does anyone who information might have been swept up in that. we received letters, so what we did is put together a hotline for offices to give to their caseworkers and sent information. faqs.d one-page sheets of please get in touch with our office, we can better provide information on those efforts. times, it be about wait

how the service is provided, the language they use, we want to make sure people get the services that they need. that is the highest priority of the acting director and our office. >> we noow recognize the gentleman from florida. >> good morning. thank you. a simple yes' or no question. considering airport in aviation security a top priority? >> yes we do. >> ok. do youregard to tsa, have adequate personnel. ? i think we just approved sa.795 four t

is that about right? >> i would have to take a look at the numbers. >> that is one you should be aware of as the record. we just passed the budget. we will say 51,000, and we have a cap of about 40,000 screeners. i think that is about right. last time we checked, we had over 4000 tsa employees in washington, d.c. within 10 miles of this hearing. $103,000. average i point this out because, somehow, when we request for information about airport there is anat unresponsiveness. it appears you have adequate overnnel -- 4000 making

$103,000 on average. it is almost in your shot of t ofe we are -- in earsho where we are. let me give you some examples. march 16, almost year ago, a letter was sent on airport credentialing. we have almost no response. this one, in april, we followed up. in may, we followed up. invited then acting administrator caraway, we can i get documents. and it summoned to testify, on the evening of the 14th, dhs informed us care away was traveling -- caraway was traveling. it seems that we have a problem with getting responses.

additionald for nouments, same subject, later than june 5 they failed on that. bipartisan support on airport vulnerabilities. our report showed that tsa detected a high percentage of prohibited items. you missed production of any information on that. on july 2, another bipartisan letter from the committee about fires and information on internal, covert testing. you failed on that. it goes on and on. here from requests november 23. we know there are vulnerabilities. we have had people coming up with false credentials and information. we have in trying since last

march to get responses and information. and you have failed to produce this. this is the latest. when can i respect the response from this letter? we are sending it to jeh johnson, still working on it. i saw him in the hall yesterday here. maybe that is why could not respond. is that a problem? we have some 40,000 people, we cannot get responses to this? we have seen the system has dangers and pitfalls. all we are trying to do is a simple oversight responsibility. maybe our latest requests -- could you bring this down to her? we still have pending requests from march. you see our frustration. we are doing our job.

we're trying to get you to do yours. when can we expect a response? 23,n regards to november production on that one is imminent. i believe that should be out in, you know, a fairly short period of time. and the last one, i think you are talking january 4 we just got that. and we are using our usual testing mechanisms. it has been passed out to tsa, and they are beginning that. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at the outset, i want to say i share most of the frustration that is bipartisan up here, in terms of trying to get information from your agency. you need to do better. you really do. we had a hearing a couple weeks ago before the break regarding these waiver programs.

and we have been waiting a long time from dhs to get a list of how many people. millions of people come in under the visa waiver program. we want to know how many overstay. i'm sure you can give us the information, so we're not getting political, but we need that information. plain and simple. there seems to be an unneeded adversarial relationship. it has been the same way in previous administrations, as well. but it is our constitutional mandate to conduct oversight. we need this information. i do want to say that sometimes we on this side are responsible for promoting that adversarial relationship. i want to point out one example that highlights that. as the chairman has mentioned, we will talk about hillary clinton's e-mail today. i want to point out that this committee, we conducted nine separate investigations, we had direct evidence that secretary

colin powell got frustrated with his e-mail -- his government it.il -- and discarded he went out and acquired his own private e-mail and private server. and he went to work. he used a private server during the bulk of his service. which was -- and he is a great american, no question about it -- we have the situation where secretary clinton has been pummeled with subpoenas and hearings. nine hours -- 11 hours of hearings. you have secretary powell testifying that iraq had weapons of mass instruction. but we don't want to ask anything about the e-mails. we give him a complete pass. that is problematic. look tremendously

, ok, i understand we have to look at secretary clinton's investigation. four brave americans died. and yet, secretary powell did the same thing -- bought his own private server. it says so in his book. we have direct, stipulated evidence that he did this. he gives testimony that iraq had weapons of mass instruction. 4000 americans died, and we don't want to know anything about that. move along, nothing to see here. that sets up this adversarial relationship. that is why some people think that this is political. some of this stuff is political. and the evidence will certainly lead us to believe that. aselect committee, we call it select committee because of the way the members are chosen. not based on how the evidence is chosen. and looked at. and i think that, up on this

,ide of the aisle, we do have you know, 80% of what we are doing here is, you know, just straight up. we're trying to do the right thing for the people we represent. but every once in a while on an issue, we go sideways. hunt. becomes a political and we depart from i think our constitutional mandate to get at the truth. instead, we go after what is politically expedient. so, i just want to say, ms. johnson, we need to have that information on the visa overstays. we really do. i am not looking that we are not to embarrass anybody. i've that it is embarrassing. we have received repeated assurances that it is ok.

that is a pattern. everything is signed. secret service is fine. we found out it is not fine. the visa waiver program, we are told we have a robust system. then we find out there are dozens and dozens of people on the terrorist watch list that are actually working in secure areas of our airports. and have invented and cleared by dh -- have been vetted and cleared by tsa. we are after the truth here, most of the time. but i do want to highlight that aspect of this. that we have to be fairer in conducting oversight, as well. i yield back. >> now recognize the did when ohio, mr. turner. >> thank you. andrve on the intelligence oversight committees. i have been following the role of technology in the role of the breach. the chairman has undertaken

leadership of this committee to review this issue. and in joining the chairman's lead o, we wrote requesting documents pertaining to the breach and the device that was supplied and furnished by opm. your response on october 20 8, 2015, you said the device was sanitized. "in accordance with best practices from the technology policy."m file names, titles, there are 15-16 per page. it is an and or miss the sanitizing. the preservation order, you wrote on september 1, 2015, that "opm continues to preserve

records in a manner consistent with the national archives and records administration guidance." first off, how far back are you saving records? and do they cover the breach is that occurred in 2014, as well as 2015? >> thank you for the question. as i understand it, we are preserving records not disassociated with the breach, but all government records -- in otherance with appropriate government record-keeping authorities. as you can imagine, we also have litigation that is ongoing. >> with respect to this breach, the standard is higher. you are preserving a wider breas, puttindth. what specific steps are you taking to preserve the records?

>> i would need to get back to you on that. the device was returned you on august 20. did opm preserve records by making a copy of the information on the device before returning it? >> i would also need to get back you on that. i do want to go to your question about the way the device was returned. it is my understanding, and i am not an i.t. or cyber expert, but i understand it is standard practice when returning this sort of device in the circumstances, to treated the way it was treated. to wipe it before it was returned, if there was sensitive information. >> i think that you probably understand that my question is not necessarily the status of the device, but the status of the information on the device that is supposed to be turned over. we requested that information. this, again, is a list of filenames of what would have been deleted -- 15-16 titles per

patriot and a norse amount of an in norse-- amount of information. any information on the device even for forensics to understand, it would be important to preserve. this committee has requested a copy. there are two aspects. has it, and the second one is that you would turn it over to the committee. >> and certainly to the extent that we have not, we need to have that conversation. 15-16d ask that the filenames -- >> on these pages. >> is that information we provided, or to the company? was provided by -- that understanding was

there -- i don't want to miss the. we will have to get back to you, with regard to how -- the device. >> just to make certain, the expectation would be that the preservation order, not your processes, are a result of the cyber attack, that they would require you preserve this information. and so, we are looking for an affirmative response from you. thank you, i yield back. >> before the gentleman yields back, and you go to me for a moment? >> absolutely. >> mr. turner and i sent you a letter. what percentage of the requests have you given back to us? we made a request. i thought i heard you say you gave us a full response. what percentage? >> i cannot put it in terms of a percentage. every efforte made

to provide responses to every question that has been asked. and we have worked with your staff, who is been extraordinarily accommodating to help us prioritize. where they had follow-up questions, we provided -- >> my question with mr. turner here is, you say full. to me, that is 100%. is it 70% in your mind? >> i did not use the word. mr. chairman. we try to respond to every -- >> all the documents we have requested, we've been asking for months, when we will get 100% of those requests? >> we believe we have answered every question that has been asked. staff or of course the members feel that we need to provide more -- >> i don't know when you are done. this is the problem with all of you. separate document protection

requests. >> we believe we have. >> i need to know if it is complete. you have given us an answer. >> i am sorry. with respect to -- keep in mind that those also incorporate other committees. with respect to the five requests from this committee, we have provided -- we looked at four of those as close. the differences between the contracts for the credit monitoring and the id theft, the first and second contract we have provided answers to each question. we do expect another set of documents coming this month. if not the next couple of weeks. that remains the interagency process. but i hear your question, mr. congressman. we will get back to you with regards if there's something outstanding. >> you better start explain to providingy are documents that you are not providing to us. that you wrote, that you engaged

in. and there is no excuse for withholding the information from congress. you have it. it is in your system. and we know it because we are looking at hardcopies, checking to see if you will give it to us, as well. and you are not. that is why he will be back before this committee. opm, we will get to the truth of this. it is one the biggest data breaches and history of this country. we need a response. pastt us see if we can get and down to the nitty-gritty here. the chairman just mentioned documents that we do not have. cytech, why don't we have them? and can you tell us when we will get them? >> sure. >> it seems like we are going in a circle. maybe you all will be here long time. i cannot be here forever. going in circles -- i think it is unfair to the committee.

can you tell us, give us some definitive answers? >> thank you very much for the question. to the best of my understanding, we have provided the information we have associated with that tool, to the extent that we need to go back and make sure we are being responsive. to follow on with the ranking member, if you don't have it, you need to explain why. you're absolutely under responsibility to preserve it. if you have not preserved it, that is another issue the committee will have to pursue. >> thank you. >> we now recognize mr. connolly of virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i find myself in an interesting position in this hearing. because having worked for the legislative branch for 10 years in the senate, now being a member of the legislative branch

as a member of the house, i certainly have always felt that it is a key responsibility of the executive branch to be responsive to information requests. on the other hand, our constitution i think builds in a dialectic in which, you know, we want information. the executive branch does not want us to have it. it is a natural order of things. and there is a built in tension, and there are mechanisms for us to address that dialogue. on, at the endy of the day, on common sense. determination,on as well as statutory enablers. legitimate requirements for information must be enforced on

a bipartisan basis. expeditions, blatantly partisan efforts to seek information to embarrass, humiliate, to undermine will not get bipartisan support. and they do not deserve it. and understandably, they can cause even more friction in the executive branch. trying to be responsive. in may of last year, the chairman, along with mr. forows, had a request documents relating to the review of the clean water role. are you familiar with that? >> yes i am. >> that request was followed by a subpoena in july for similar documents. is that correct?

>> yes. >> the time period ranged from -- a2016 to july o nine-year time period. is that correct? >> yes. you are asked to produce those documents rea can yos. can you briefly describe what is being asked? sometimes in this conversation act like they are in piles, and you are just withholding them. that is not how it works, is it? >> thank you for the question. >> if you can hold that a little closer to you. >> is that better? >> great. >> the request for information was quite broad, covering a nine-year span. as such, we began the process for searching.

that involves identifying the subject -- the various custodian information. and once the documents are gathered, then having a review performed by various subject matter experts, following review of other agencies, to assume they received proper review. it is quite intense, early for such a broad range of documents. to work on processing that request. >> do you have a response to that subpoena? >> our response rate could certainly be improved. we have not produced them as quickly as we should have. as such, we have taken steps recently to improve our production sponsor rate. and i expect that that will continue. moving forward. >> i also, you know, the chairman is saying that you ought not have an issue of

volume. how many pages you have delivered, that is. it is the percentage of the request. that sounds reasonable. in many cases, i would agree with the chairman that that is a better standard. in terms of determining responsiveness. they cane other hand, also be a self-serving standard. not that it would be here, of course. we don't like to respond. and when, in fact we are on a fishing expedition that could be tens of millions of documents. and then, that standard can be used against you. i think, unfairly. where you are trying to be responsive, but you are not anytime soon going to give me 100 million pages of something you are doing the best you can to be responsive to the nature of the request. i think we need to tread a little bit carefully when we decide to say you are

unresponsive, while at the same time, trying to seek bipartisan consensus to ensure accountability in the executive branch. and that we fulfill our role, our constitutional role, of oversight of that bridge. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. i now recognize the gentleman from ohio. >> you sent a letter saying there were no prosecutions -- there were going to be no prosecutions and the irs targeting case. when was the decision made not to prosecute? >> well, i think that shortly before we send a letter. >> a week before, two weeks before? a month before? >> i guess the precise. >> you said 100 people were interviewed. was john interviewed? >> i don't know. >> were they transcribed? >> i don't know.

>> in your letter, you said substantial mismanagement took place. you uncovered substantial mismanagement, by whom? >> by employees of the irs. >> specifically? >> i cannot give you specific names. >> you wrote this letter? >> that is correct. we will provide you with information. >> we appreciate that, we also sent you a letter requesting that all documents pertaining to the investigation -- we have yet to receive a single document read why i. why is that? >> i understand it. file presententire particular issue, with law enforcement sensitive. >> we have that for 3.5 years. fbi had two different

directors give me that exact same answer for 3.5 years. their answers added one other word -- ongoing investigation. now the investigation is over. , according toer the a-page letter you sent us, on october 23. now you are telling us you cannot give us any documents. is there some national security interest that prevents you? is there some presidential privilege that prevents you? >> no, but there are law enforcement sensibilities and securities concerning the confidentiality of witnesses. people who cooperated, the candid assessment -- >> you have not given us anything. that is the point. >> we have a briefing next week. >> would you give me more information? in your letter, you say poor

judgment. who exercised or judgment and the irs when they were theificantly challenging free speech rights under the first amendment, being violated for five years in some cases, certain groups and individuals? tell me who in the irs was exercising that poor judgment? >> we scheduled a briefing next week. >> it will be a heck of a briefing. before the letter came to the chairman, did you say no one was going to be prosecuted? >> no. >> did you tell ms. lerner there would be no prosecution before the letter came to chairman jason chaffetz? >> no. mr.id you tell mr schulman? >> i've never talked to him. >> not personally, but did you notify these individuals that no one was going to be prosecuted, when